Brazilian Court Now on the Lookout for Operator Gone Rogue

The Brazilian Court of Justice of the Federal District and Territories has said that it is now looking for a specific gambling operator that is accused of not honoring payments in the case of at least one gambler.

Operator That Failed to Pay Customer Is Now Targeted

The court has issued a public summons to MCR 73 Investimento LTDA, the company in question, which supposedly owes BRL 169,000 ($30,000) to a player. The player submitted a complaint arguing that they were unable to withdraw the prize after the sum was won playing Fortune Tiger, a slot game.

The summons came after the firm failed to respond to customer and official complaints about the matter, which then brought the case to court. The court has not achieved much more at this point, as the contact information and physical address of the gambling website are missing.

Judge Recanto das Emas has also given 20 days of compliance to the company. Failing to respond would result in the court siding with the plaintiff, treating it as a civil case.

This is not the only instance involving a sports bettor in the country requesting a payout, as in a similar case, operator HS do Brasil has been ordered to pay out a live wager that the company previously denied to honor.

Bet365 Targeted by Brazilian Court in Sports Betting Case

Operating the bet365 brand locally, HS do Brasil is said to have changed the odds and payout pricing following the completion of a bet, deciding at its discretion to pay a lower amount to the plaintiff.

The bettor had placed a wager at odds of 1.69 on the game between the New York Mets and Toronto Blue Jays, committing BRL 1,460 on the selection. However, following the game’s end, the operator paid less than the BRL 2,467.40 that the original odds suggested the bettor should have received. Confronted with why this was the case, the operator cited an error in pricing.

However, the court, and Judge Andreza Alves de Souza presiding over the case, found this argument unsustainable and explained that the plaintiff benefited from Brazil’s Consumer Protection Code, which puts the onus squarely on the provider of a service to ensure that it runs as intended.