The recent court decision that blocked more than 100 online bookmakers (bets) in Rio de Janeiro generated problems beyond state limits. The affected companies report that users in other states, such as Bahia, Maranhão and Paraná, are also having difficulties accessing the platforms.
Technical difficulties prevent blocking bets
Telecommunications companies such as Claro and AT&T sent letters to the Court, informing that they are unable to restrict access to bets only to Rio de Janeiro, as determined by judge Pablo Zuniga Dourado, of the Federal Regional Court of the First Region (TRF1).
The sentence responded to a request from the Rio de Janeiro State Lottery (Loterj), which in 2023 established rules for bets to be regulated via Loterj, including for operations in other states.
Loterj regulations required the payment of a grant of R$5 million to Rio, in addition to 5% of the Gross Gaming Revenue (GGR) monthly. In fact, this amount is significantly lower than the grant of R$30 million defined by the Ministry of Treasury, which is regulating the betting market at the federal level. Federal law also imposes a 12% tax on GGR.
In July, the National Telecommunications Agency (Anatel) requested that operators block 115 platforms not registered with Loterj. However, since the blockade, bets have reported access problems in other states, while some have found shortcuts, creating new URLs to continue serving bettors in Rio.
At least two bookmakers are using alternative links: Betano and Bet365.
Response from operators regarding bet addresses
On July 5, AT&T informed the court that it was unable to implement the blockade as determined, as this would affect other states. On July 10, Claro also reported that it was unable to comply with the court order due to infrastructure limitations.
Anatel, in response, reported that companies such as Claro, Vivo and TIM claimed it was technically unfeasible to comply with the sentence. However, Vivo and TIM found a way to limit access to Rio only, while Claro remains without a viable solution.
Carlos Manoel Baigorri, president of Anatel, highlighted the need to comply with the court decision. “Our position is that the court decision needs to be complied with (…) Block where it has to be blocked, but block Rio,” Baigorri told GLOBO.
TIM and Vivo confirmed that they are complying with the court decision, while Oi did not comment on ongoing legal actions.
Gabriel de Britto Silva, a lawyer specializing in consumer law, believes that technological problems weaken the sentence and show that it is unfeasible for states to create individual standards to accredit bets. Rio is the only state that accredits platforms to operate in other parts of the country, and this has generated complications.
Darwin Filho, CEO of Esportes da Sorte, expressed concern about possible lawsuits from affected consumers in other states, as they lost access to the money deposited in their accounts.
Problem exposes technical challenges
Information technology experts agree that although it is possible to block access in just one state, this task is not simple. Pedro Diógenes, technical director at CLM, explains that configuring the equipment to determine exactly the limits of a state is a challenge.
Thiago Souza, technology professor at Ibmec, points out that the dynamic allocation of IP addresses makes the task even more complex. “For example, a person in Juiz de Fora can receive an IP address from the metropolitan region of Rio de Janeiro, which can lead to access being blocked”, says Souza.
