Recurso da Loterj contra suspensão de serviços fora do Rio de Janeiro é rejeitado

The minister of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), André Mendonça, rejected the appeal by the Rio de Janeiro State Lottery (Loterj) against the suspension of lottery services outside of Rio de Janeiro. The measure affects 25 companies.

Mendonça accepted the embargo of declaration filed by Loterj justifying that “there is no link to be remedied”. This is because the municipality claimed that the measure included “omissions, obscurities and material errors” and questioned the Union’s geolocation mechanism.

However, the minister highlighted that “the plea reflects mere non-compliance with the decision”. Recently, Mendonça responded to a request from the Federal Government and demanded the return of the mandatory use of geolocation in betting, with a deadline of five days.

Minister contests Loterj’s argument

According to the STF minister, Loterj’s argument allows people from other regions of the country to participate in the games, if they declare themselves residents or located in Rio de Janeiro, disrespecting the Union’s powers and current legislation.

“The prices defended by the plaintiff, in fact, allow bettors located or resident in other States of the Federation – and even other countries – to ‘self-declare’ resident or located in Rio de Janeiro and place their bets on electronic or virtual games there, in flagrant violation of the Union’s competences and this rule, as stated in the embargoed decision”, appears in an excerpt from the decision.

Excerpts from André Mendonça’s decision

According to Mendonça’s decision, “the States have the competence to explore lottery activities and to regulate this exploitation exclusively within their territorial limits. However, in the exercise of these material and regulatory competences, the States apply to the normative discipline that may be by the Union in the exercise of its exclusive powers”.

In relation to marketing practices, the minister highlighted that “the Governing Standard is expressed in the sense that the commercialization of lotteries – and similar games – by States, notably the electronic or virtual modality, must be limited to people located or domiciled in the its territorial limits”.

Finally, he classified the appeal as “mere non-compliance on the part of the appellant with what was decided. And motions for clarification are not suitable for conveying this claim or even for requesting a new judgment on the decided issue. It is therefore the case that the embargoes for clarification are excluded.”