Three Brazilian courts upheld Novibet’s anti-fraud controls in Bahia, Rio de Janeiro, and Rio Grande do Norte

Novibet won backing in three recent court decisions in Brazil after users challenged account restrictions, suspensions, and payment-related claims. For PSPs and operators in regulated betting, the useful bit is simple: if you want anti-fraud controls to hold up in court, you need device, IP, location, and betting-pattern evidence, not just a vague “trust us”.

1. In Bahia, the 3rd Court of the Juizado System in Feira de Santana recognized the legitimacy of a temporary account suspension for investigation. Novibet presented signs of overlap in devices, location, and betting patterns between different users, and the court accepted the measure as a security step.
2. After the review, the account was reactivated and there was no confirmation of fraud that would justify permanent closure. As a result, the request to restore access became moot, and the moral damages claim was rejected.
3. In Rio de Janeiro, the 29th Special Civil Court of the Bangu Regional District dismissed a user’s claims after finding technical elements pointing to coordinated use of accounts linked to family members. The court said that sharing a home or an internet connection alone does not prove fraud, but it also found additional evidence supporting Novibet’s actions. It also noted that the plaintiff failed to prove the amounts he said had been withheld.
4. In Rio Grande do Norte, the Special Civil and Criminal Court of Ceará-Mirim relied on an expert report showing successive accounts tied to the same device and the same location, used to bypass earlier restrictions. The court rejected claims for additional winnings and damages, and noted the full return of the user’s deposited capital as evidence of the operator’s good faith.
5. The cases were handled by José Frederico Cimino Manssur, Luísa Cordeiro, and Sarah Vokurka of Natal & Manssur Advogados. Manssur said the judgments show the importance of technological fraud-prevention tools in the regulated betting market, and that technical documentation is essential for courts to understand the criteria operators use to flag irregular behavior.