Decisions acknowledge the regularity of anti-fraud measures adopted by Novibet.

Novibet's actions in preventing and identifying practices related to the misuse of multiple accounts have been supported by three recent court decisions, issued in Bahia, Rio de Janeiro, and Rio Grande do Norte. Based on the evidence in each case, the rulings recognized the legitimacy of security measures questioned by platform users.

The actions were conducted by lawyers José Frederico Cimino Manssur, Luísa Cordeiro, and Sarah Vokurka, from Natal & Manssur Advogados . The lawsuits involved account restrictions and suspensions, as well as requests for payment of amounts and compensation for alleged abusive conduct by the operator.

Upon examining the documentation submitted by the company, the judges considered elements such as device identification, location, IP addresses, and betting patterns. These records allowed them to assess the reasons for the restrictions and verification procedures.

"The body of judgments highlights the important role of technological mechanisms for fraud prevention in the regulated betting market," says Manssur.

According to the lawyer, the presentation of technical documentation is essential for the Judiciary to understand the criteria used by the operators in identifying irregular behavior.

Technical tests and safety measures

In Bahia, the 3rd Court of the Small Claims System of Feira de Santana recognized the legitimacy of the temporary suspension of an account for investigation. The operator presented evidence of coincidence between devices, location, and betting patterns of different users.

After the investigation, the account was reactivated, with no confirmation of fraud that would justify its permanent closure. The request to restore access became moot, and the claim for compensation for moral damages was rejected.

In Rio de Janeiro, the 29th Special Civil Court of the Bangu Regional Court dismissed a user's claims, considering technical elements indicative of coordinated use of accounts linked to family members. The ruling emphasized that sharing a residence or internet network, in isolation, does not prove fraud, but acknowledged the existence of additional evidence justifying the measures taken. It also pointed to a lack of proof of the amounts the plaintiff claimed had been withheld.

In Rio Grande do Norte, the Special Civil and Criminal Court of Ceará-Mirim considered an expert report that identified successive accounts associated with the same device and location, used to circumvent previous restrictions. The court rejected requests for payment of additional earnings and compensation and recorded the full return of the capital deposited by the user as a demonstration of the operator's good faith.

According to Manssur, the decisions signal recognition of the need to reconcile service provision with security mechanisms, operational integrity, and fraud prevention. The central point, according to the lawyer, is that monitoring and investigation procedures must be accompanied by objective elements that support the measures adopted.

The three rulings are from the first instance court. The cases are being processed under the following numbers: 0809444-81.2026.8.19.0204, 0801224-20.2026.8.20.5102 and 0002094-49.2026.8.05.0080.