MPDFT sues Virginia and Blaze for R$ 120 million in a public civil action.

The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Federal District and Territories (MPDFT) filed a public civil action against influencer Virginia Fonseca and the betting company Blaze. The lawsuit was filed with the Court of Justice of the Federal District and Territories (TJDFT) this Wednesday (July 8).

The lawsuit, revealed by the Grande Angular column of Metrópoles, seeks the joint condemnation of Virginia and Blaze to pay compensation for collective moral damages in the minimum amount of R$ 120 million. The case is being processed in the 7th Civil Court of Brasília and there is still no decision.

Prosecutor Paulo Roberto Binicheski, responsible for the initial petition, classifies Virginia as the "operational arm of the platform's fundraising," "executing the misleading message and inducing the gamble." In the document, he argues that "by recommending products and services, influencers induce the public to adopt behaviors aligned with the lifestyle they promote. This credibility transforms the recommendations into true seals of approval, generating a legitimate expectation in consumers. The influencer's endorsement goes beyond mere opinion, conferring an implicit guarantee of quality, based on the trust built with the audience."

Content removal and urgent injunction.

The MPDFT (Public Prosecutor's Office of the Federal District) also requests an urgent injunction to compel Virginia to immediately remove from social media "all advertising content related to betting that promises unrealistic profits; misleads the consumer; encourages betting on a specific team, event or sporting condition; or uses dark patterns and disguised advertising in content of a personal nature."

The prosecutor indicates that the action "is not limited to repairing damages already caused, but aims above all to prevent the repetition of abusive advertising practices verified in a context of high social exposure, such as the campaigns broadcast during the World Cup and, in particular, the abusive inducement of the influencer in the game between Argentina and Cape Verde, an episode that exemplifies the aptitude of advertising to mislead the consumer and reinforces the need for judicial action aimed at containing the recurrence of the conduct."

The amount of compensation was estimated “in light of the economic dimension of the activity carried out, the social impact of the conduct, and the harmful potential of the irregular advertising.” The prosecutor requested that the amount be allocated “preferably to social, educational, and mental health programs aimed at consumers and bettors, or to the Fund for the Defense of Diffuse Rights (FDD).”

The case is the result of a civil inquiry initiated by the 1st Consumer Protection Prosecutor's Office (Prodecon) to investigate the Blaze platform.

Public Prosecutor's Office employees infiltrated client groups.

Employees of the MPDFT (Public Prosecutor's Office of the Federal District and Territories) registered as clients on the Blaze betting platform to gather evidence for a public civil action filed against the company and influencer Virginia Fonseca. The strategy aimed to closely monitor marketing and advertising communications sent by the operator to users, in order to ensure that the collected digital evidence maintained its procedural validity.

According to prosecutor Paulo Roberto Binicheski, who filed the request, the documents gathered show that Blaze maintains a consistent and targeted policy of sending promotional emails to its subscribers, using tactics such as "offers with persuasive language and an artificial sense of urgency" to encourage new bets.

The material served as the basis for the lawsuit seeking millions in damages from the platform and the influencer — details that Metrópoles had already disclosed in a previous report about the case.

Defense response

Virginia's defense team learned of the lawsuit through the press this Thursday (July 9th) and released a statement refuting the allegations. Their position is that "civil liability must be based on concrete evidence, and not on presumptions or inferences arising from the influencer's status as a public figure."

In the statement, the lawyers emphasize that "the initial petition itself acknowledges the existence of pending investigations, including the request for contracts and other relevant information" and argue that "the MPDFT (Public Prosecutor's Office of the Federal District) could have awaited the conclusion of the investigations initiated by the agency itself." The defense further stated that it "refutes the allegations made in the lawsuit, especially any claim of collusion, predatory behavior, or intent to cause harm to consumers" and that it will demonstrate "in a technical and documented manner, the unfounded nature of the claims made against Virginia Fonseca."

Read Virginia's defense statement in full:

"Virginia Fonseca's defense team learned about the Public Civil Action through the press this Thursday (July 9th). The allegations will be technically addressed in the case file."

However, it should be noted that the initial petition itself acknowledges the existence of pending investigations, including the request for contracts and other relevant information. These documents are essential for the complete clarification of the facts, especially regarding the nature of the relationship, the form of remuneration, and the limits of Virginia Fonseca's advertising activities.

The defense argues that the MPDFT (Public Prosecutor's Office of the Federal District) could have waited for the conclusion of the investigations initiated by the agency itself, which would certainly have given the case a different direction.

The defense refutes the allegations made in the lawsuit, especially any claim of collusion, predatory behavior, or intent to harm consumers. Civil liability must be based on concrete evidence, not on presumptions or inferences arising from the influencer's status as a public figure.

The defense reaffirms its confidence in the institutions and the Judiciary and will provide all necessary clarifications in the case file, at which time it will demonstrate, in a technical and documented manner, the unfounded nature of the claims made against Virginia Fonseca.