MPDFT opens investigation against Blaze for account blocking and misleading advertising.
Users of the Blaze betting platform report a pattern that has become standard in complaints filed against the company: initial withdrawals work without problems, but when winnings increase, accounts are suspended under vague justifications such as "system problems" or "new rules." The money is withheld. Access is cut off.
This is the understanding that led the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Federal District and Territories to open, this Monday (June 18), a Public Civil Inquiry against Blaze, a platform operated by the company Foggo Entertainment Ltda. Ordinance 1029/26 published in the Official Gazette of the Union this Wednesday (June 24) determines that the investigation, conducted by the 1st Public Prosecutor's Office for the Defense of Consumer Rights, investigates potentially abusive practices that, according to the MPDFT, go beyond the individual case and constitute a pattern of collective harm.
What is being investigated?
The order that initiated the investigation, number 1.029, lists six areas of inquiry:
⇒ Improper withholding of funds and arbitrary blocking of accounts;
⇒ Imposition of abusive contractual clauses and disproportionate rollover;
⇒ Failures in responsible gaming policies;
⇒ Processing of users' personal data;
⇒ Deceptive advertising in attracting customers, using digital influencers;
⇒ Compliance with the regulatory frameworks for fixed-odds betting and consumer protection standards.
The case that triggered the investigation involves a consumer who reported estimated financial damages of R$ 200, documented through fragmented deposits proven in the case file. But the number supporting the systemic pattern theory is different: a technical report attached to the case counted more than 42.927 complaints against the platform.
Influencers and the promise of "extra income"
One of the most sensitive focuses of the investigation is the use of digital influencers to attract bettors. The order specifically mentions Lucas Lira, Bruna Unaik, Neymar Jr., and Virginia Fonseca as promoters of the platform and questions the use of the term "extra income" in these campaigns, framing the practice as possible misleading advertising under Article 37, paragraph 1, of the Consumer Protection Code.
As an initial step, the MPDFT (Public Prosecutor's Office of the Federal District) ordered Blaze to deliver, within 15 days, complete copies of the advertising contracts signed with these four individuals, including the marketing guidelines provided, with specific attention to the use of the term "extra income".
The investigation also targets the bonus model with wagering targets, known as rollover . The Public Prosecutor's Office believes that this mechanism may violate Ordinance SPA/MF No. 1.231/2024, which prohibits the granting of prior financial advantages to attract bettors. Blaze allegedly imposed these conditions unilaterally, without adequately informing consumers about eligibility criteria, limits, and the possibility of losing the bonus.
The bill for the damages
The MPDFT (Public Prosecutor's Office of the Federal District and Territories) has set the amount of collective moral damages sought in the lawsuit at R$ 120 million. The calculation is based on an estimated GGR (Gross Gaming Revenue, the gross revenue from bets) of R$ 600 million for the platform, based on a survey of the 20 largest betting brands operating in Brazil. The Public Prosecutor's Office applied, by analogy, the 20% sanction ceiling stipulated in the Brazilian Competition Law (Law No. 12.529/2011) to this amount, arriving at the value of R$ 120 million.
The logic adopted is that of the deterrent theory; the compensation must have a punitive-pedagogical function proportional to the economic power of the company under investigation, moving away from symbolic parameters that would not alter the behavior of a large operator.
Beyond the Blaze case, the MPDFT (Public Prosecutor's Office of the Federal District) points to a structural problem. The indebtedness of vulnerable consumers, the inducement of compulsive behavior through interface design, and reports from users who managed to circumvent their own self-exclusion mechanisms make up a situation that the prosecutor's office describes as a risk to public health and economic order.
Next Steps
The civil inquiry is investigative in nature. It does not represent a conviction nor does it imply automatic liability for the company. At the end of the investigations, the Public Prosecutor's Office may propose a Conduct Adjustment Agreement (TAC) or file the appropriate legal measures, including a public civil action.
Among the immediate measures determined by the ordinance are sending an official letter to the National Consumer Secretariat (Senacon) requesting a technical note and a consolidated report of complaints against the platform, with a 20-day deadline for response, and attaching to the case file reports extracted from Reclame Aqui (a Brazilian consumer complaint website) referring to the last 12 months, with data on the number of complaints, response rate, resolution rate, and average rating given to Blaze.
Blaze will also have to submit, within 15 days, a detailed report on account freezes in the last 12 months, including the total amount of funds withheld, the criteria used for the suspensions, and the responsible gaming mechanisms implemented, including the number of self-exclusion requests received and processed.
The investigation is the first proceeding of its kind opened by the MPDFT (Public Prosecutor's Office of the Federal District) specifically against Blaze. The prosecutor's office has a history of previous actions in the sector, including collective civil actions and terms of adjustment of conduct with other betting platforms, which, according to the document, evidences a sectoral pattern of potentially harmful conduct.
Ordinance 1029/26 – Public Prosecutor's Office of the Federal District and Territories
