Online Sports Betting in Brazil and conflict solution clauses

Authors

  • Daniel Brantes Ferreira
  • Elizaveta A. Gromova
  • Bianca Oliveira de Farias
  • Cristiane Junqueira Giovannini

Keywords:

Sports Betting, Online Dispute Resolution, Brazil, Mediation, Arbitration

Abstract

Sports betting sites are now a reality in Brazil. According to Exame1 magazine, in 2018, it moved around 2 billion reais per year, and with the imminent regulation of Act n. 13.756 /2018, it should move approximately 8 billion reais annually. Online gambling will only reach the peak of its market, according to Rohan Miller,2 when consumers’ risk perception is reduced or neutralized. Questions such as who to look for if something goes wrong and which laws apply in the event of a conflict should be answered clearly by the betting sites’ Terms of Service (EULAs). Therefore, this article’s general objective will be to analyze the methods of conflict resolution included in the Terms of Use of the 9 (nine) main sports betting sites used by Brazilians, namely: 1. Bet365; 2. SportingBet;
3. Betboo; 4. Betway; 5. Rivalo. 6. 22Bet; 7. Betmotion; 8. Bumbet; 9. Bet9. As a specific objective, we will analyze the mediation and arbitration procedures as well as the statistics of two ODR (Online Dispute Resolution) service sites used by the betting sites: the e-Commerce Online Gaming Regulation and Assurance (e-Cogra - online mediation service ) and Independent Betting Adjudication Service (IBAS online arbitration service). Both legally based in England. We could realize that the Brazilian bettor, as a rule, does not read the terms of service and is unaware of the conflict resolution clause provided by the website. Besides, through data analysis from eCOGRA and IBSA, we can state tha tBrazilian gamblers who access ODR service providers are very rare both because they are unaware and because of linguistic difficulties. Also, the chances of success in resolving conflicts in favor of the consumer through mediation are greater than through online arbitration. In short, we can say that the model established by the UK Gambling Act and the Great Britain Gambling Commission is a model that guarantees the fundamental principles of both mediation and arbitration (impartiality, due process, and easy access). The fact that arbitration and mediation are not binding on bettors under any circumstances also guarantees the parties equal treatment.

Author Biographies

Daniel Brantes Ferreira

Brazilian Center for Arbitration and Mediation (CBMA) CEO. Editor-in-Chief of the Brazilian Journal for Alternative Dispute Resolution (RBADR). Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Law in Changing World (IJLCW). Doctor of Law, Arbitrator, Mediator, and Professor of Law at Ambra University. Senior Researcher at South Ural State University (National Research University). E-mail: Daniel.brantes@gmail.com.

Elizaveta A. Gromova

Associate professor at the Department of Business Law. Deputy Director for the International Cooperation at South Ural State University (National Research University). Ph.D. Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Law in Changing World (IJLCW). E-mail: Gromovaea@susu.ru.

Bianca Oliveira de Farias

Brazilian Center for Arbitration and Mediation (CBMA) Director for Academic Affairs. Associate Editor of the Brazilian Journal for Alternative Dispute Resolution (RBADR). Associate Editor of the International Journal of Law in Changing World (IJLCW). Doctor of Law, Arbitrator, Mediator, and Professor of Law at Ambra University. E-mail: Profbiancatgp@gmail.com.

Cristiane Junqueira Giovannini

Research Advisor at South Ural State University (National Research University). Doctor in Business. Associate Editor of the International Journal of Law in Changing World (IJLCW). Email: Cjgiovannini@gmail.com.

Downloads

Published

2023-05-03

Issue

Section

Artigos