Udo Seckelmann, a betting specialist lawyer, explains the court decision. The decision not to suspend the operations of NSX Group, Betnacional’s owner, could prove highly significant to the Brazil betting sector.
NSX Group is the owner of the Betnacional brand. A judge denied the request to suspend its activities. The judge ruled that the company had not breached underage betting rules, allowing it to continue operating in Brazil.
After Educafro (Education and Citizenship for Afrodescendants and the Needy) and the Father Ezequiel Ramin Centre for the Defence of Human Rights filed a lawsuit against Betnacional and its owner, the interlocutory decision came.
The lawsuit called for the suspension of activities from NSX Group and its Betnacional, Mr Jack Bet, and Pagbet brands. It also sought collective moral damages of BRL500 million or $88.3 million.
The lawsuit claimed that the group, recently acquired by Flutter, failed to adequately protect children and adolescents from betting.
Initially, the Public Prosecutor’s Office granted an injunction to suspend the sites’ operations. The suspension would remain in place until proof was provided of the effective implementation of technological measures. These measures aimed to prevent children from accessing the platforms.
Nonetheless, the Court of Justice of the Federal District and Territories decided not to grant the preliminary injunction. This decision means that the activities of NSX Group will continue. The court ruled that the company had received authorization to operate in the newly regulated online Brazil market. The company received approval after satisfying license requirements, including using facial recognition technology.
The decision read, “Considering that it was proven in the records that the defendant obtained the authorization to operate for a period of five years, it is concluded that the security mechanism indicated by the plaintiffs themselves and required by the Ministry of Finance was duly implemented. Therefore, I understand that there is no just cause for granting the preliminary injunction filed.”
