The exponential growth of online gaming has brought about not only cultural and economic transformations on a global scale, but also regulatory challenges that require an interdisciplinary technical analysis in order to refine the terminology used in different legal contexts. In this context, the conceptual distinction between the English terms “game,” “gamble,” and “bet” plays a central role, given the semantic subtleties of these terms and the regulatory implications of their definitions. In Portuguese, terminological imprecision often results in ambiguous interpretations, which hinders the proper application of the legal framework, especially when it comes to identifying compensable damages. Therefore, an accurate understanding of these terms is essential to ensuring legal certainty and regulatory consistency.
The English term “game,” in the context of video games, refers to a set of recreational activities that may be competitive or leisure-oriented. A video game, as an interactive and technological manifestation in a computer environment, consists of a virtual experience structured by pre-established rules, progressive challenges, and specific objectives, often combining narrative and audiovisual elements with dynamic interaction mechanics. This form of digital entertainment is developed on various platforms, notably dedicated consoles—devices designed exclusively for the optimized execution of games—as well as tablets, smartphones, and personal computers, whether laptops or desktops, whose adaptability allows for the customization of graphics and performance settings. This duality of platforms expands the possibilities for immersion and accessibility, catering to a wide range of player profiles, from casual gamers to dedicated enthusiasts seeking high technical performance and complex experiences.
Unlike concepts involving gambling, video games do not, by their very nature, have a direct connection to financial risk. As a general rule, they involve the aforementioned recreational fun associated with the experience of immersive audiovisual entertainment. As for “games,” the Brazilian legal system has made progress in regulating this sector with the recent enactment of Law 14.852/24, which establishes the Legal Framework for Video Games[1]. This legislation not only defines the scope of what qualifies as an electronic game but also aims to distinguish this category from activities related to lotteries or betting. This regulatory distinction is crucial for fostering the development of the gaming industry without subjecting it to misunderstandings that would bring it into line with the restrictive regulations applicable to games of chance.
On the other hand, “gamble” refers to activities in which the outcome is predominantly determined by chance, as occurs in casinos, roulette, or other forms traditionally known as games of chance.
To further clarify the concept, it can be said that the fixed-odds lottery consists of a form of gambling in which the bettor knows in advance the value of the potential prize, determined based on the probabilities associated with the event being bet on (odds), as is the case with sports betting. Unlike casinos, where the outcome depends almost exclusively on chance in games such as roulette and slot machines—which are prohibited in the country—the fixed-odds lottery involves an assessment of risk and probability, which sets it apart from the classic definition of a game of chance. In Brazil, incidentally, games of chance are strictly regulated under criminal law and are classified as misdemeanors under the Criminal Misdemeanors Act (Art. 50, §3, Decree-Law 3.688/41)[2]. From a civil law perspective, the unlawful operation of games of chance does not give rise to a contractual obligation recognized by the legal system, as provided for in Article 814 of the Civil Code, although the effects of games of chance as a natural obligation are not disregarded, except in cases of fraud or if the person who loses the amount in the game or bet is a minor or legally incapacitated.
It should be emphasized that Brazil, in its legal tradition, has for decades maintained a prohibitive stance toward these practices, which are considered illegal in most of the country. The exception has always been the Federal Lottery, regulated by Decree-Law No. 204 of February 27, 1967[3], which governs the operation and control of lotteries in Brazil and is not a form of fixed-odds betting. This decree-law establishes that the federal government holds a monopoly on the operation of lotteries, including the Federal Lottery, which is organized and administered by Caixa Econômica Federal. It is a traditional lottery system in which the bettor purchases predefined tickets, and the prize is determined by the outcome of the drawing, with no relation to specific odds or variables based on external events. On the contrary, the tickets already have numbers and series printed on them, and the prize is fixed, not depending on a risk analysis or probability calculation.
However, the enactment of Law 14.790/23 (known as the “bets law”) ushered in a new regulatory chapter by allowing for the controlled operation of sports betting in the country[4]. In summary, this legislation draws a line between legally regulated betting and conventional games of chance, creating a more flexible legal environment conducive to economic innovation.
Therefore, the third term of interest to us in this text is the English word “bet,” which refers to wagers involving an agreement between parties, in which money or property is risked in exchange for a potential gain. This practice is usually associated with sports betting, which, although initially regulated by Law 13.756/18[5], was further specified by the aforementioned Law 14.790/23. The regulations include clear tax provisions for both operators and bettors, aiming to strike a balance between economic development and government oversight to ensure compliance with specific criteria in the granting of licenses, the supervision of operations, and taxation.
The semantic confusion between these English terms also leads to inaccuracies in Portuguese, exacerbated by a history of fragmented legislation and overly broad interpretations. Such ambiguity can hinder both the industry’s development and consumer protection, which is why this essay proposes adopting the term “online games” as a general category from which the following terminological equivalents for its three subcategories are derived: (i) “game” is translated as “electronic game”; (ii) “gamble” is translated as “game of chance”; (iii) and “bet” is translated as “betting game.”
Naturally, each of these three contexts involves its own complexities, which can make it challenging to protect consumers and prevent harm that may arise from their improper exploitation.
As for the video game industry, challenges related to intellectual property on the internet are significant, as they can lead to illegal and harmful practices such as software piracy. In addition, another point of concern is the growing prominence of electronic sports, or eSports, which have sparked debates regarding their legal classification. On this issue, the general sports law[6] does not yet recognize video games as sports, which limits access to government incentives. However, the Pelé Law[7] offers a broader definition, which leaves room for favorable interpretations, and the two interpretations may spark discussions about the exploitation of others’ work in competitive virtual contexts, with implications for arena rights and the protection of personal data for these “new athletes,” not to mention potential violations involving children and adolescents when those involved are minors affiliated with teams participating in esports competitions.
Another relevant aspect is the discussion regarding microtransactions and loot boxes targeted at a young audience. For years, many experts have questioned whether these practices should be considered games of chance, given their potential to encourage excessive spending, particularly among young people[8].
Furthermore, the rapid growth of the sports betting market (Bets) brings with it a series of challenges and concerns. One of the most debated issues is the potential social impact of betting, especially with regard to gambling addiction[9], that is, pathological addiction to betting. In the sports context, where betting is legal, one should not confuse “bet” with “gamble,” although certain characteristics are present that can lead to compulsive behavior, particularly among vulnerable users. Risk mitigation programs, such as betting limits and self-exclusion tools, are frequently required by regulatory authorities as part of the operating conditions for companies in the sector, underscoring the importance of specific accountability standards.
Another significant concern relates to the transparency and integrity of sports competitions, as there are fears that massive financial involvement in betting could foster illicit practices, such as the manipulation of results (match-fixing), affecting the credibility of sporting events, which come to be influenced by the athletes themselves—who are co-opted by criminal organizations with promises of high earnings to interfere with the outcome of an event that can be wagered on in betting systems. In this regard, Brazilian regulations require sports betting operators to cooperate with sports organizations and regulatory agencies to identify and prevent any signs of fraud.
In an industry characterized by the high volume of personal information, financial transactions, and potential social impacts, adopting a preventive approach is not only desirable but imperative. This approach involves implementing proactive measures[10], such as strict personal data protection policies, ongoing regulatory compliance, and transparent self-exclusion mechanisms for at-risk players.
Preventive civil liability[11] proves to be an indispensable mechanism for safeguarding the integrity of both the market and electronic games and sports competitions, mitigating risks that could compromise their legitimacy and stability. In sports, policies aimed at preventing match-fixing—a practice that threatens the very essence of fair play—are crucial for protecting the credibility of events, an indispensable element for the continuity and trust in betting operations. Therefore, failure to comply with such control measures can lead not only to a loss of trust among bettors but also to profound and irreparable reputational damage to companies in the sector and to sports organizations, compromising their institutional sustainability.
In conclusion, the distinction between “game,” “gamble,” and “bet” is of singular legal and regulatory importance, especially in the context of online activities. In this context, preventive liability is fully aligned with contemporary principles of corporate governance, which value organizational ethics, transparency, and social responsibility as fundamental drivers of sustainable development. Anticipating risks inherent in online gaming through effective control and prevention measures goes beyond mere regulatory compliance, establishing itself as a strategy that promotes market stability by harmonizing economic interests with the protection of consumer rights and the integrity of competitions.
Thus, recent laws addressing this issue deserve praise, but there remains a vast gray area in the Brazilian regulatory environment, and further progress is essential to preserve rights, protect vulnerable groups such as children and adolescents, and strengthen institutional cohesion and legitimacy in an increasingly complex and interdependent regulatory environment.
- BRASIL. Lei 14.852, de 3 de maio de 2024. Cria o marco legal para a indústria de jogos eletrônicos; e altera as leis 8.313, de 23 de dezembro de 1991, 8.685, de 20 de julho de 1993, e 9.279, de 14 de maio de 1996. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, 6 maio 2024. Disponível aqui. Acesso em: 11 fev. 2025.
- BRASIL. Decreto-lei 3.688, de 3 de outubro de 1941. Define as contravenções penais. Diário Oficial da União, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 9 out. 1941. Disponível aqui. Acesso em: 11 fev. 2025.
- BRASIL. Decreto-lei 204, de 27 de fevereiro de 1967. Dispõe sobre a exploração e controle de loterias. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, 28 fev. 1967. Disponível aqui. Acesso em: 11 fev. 2025.
- BRASIL. Lei 14.790, de 29 de dezembro de 2023. Dispõe sobre a modalidade lotérica denominada apostas de quota fixa; altera as leis 5.768, de 20 de dezembro de 1971, e 13.756, de 12 de dezembro de 2018, e a MP 2.158-35, de 24 de agosto de 2001; revoga dispositivos do decreto-lei 204, de 27 de fevereiro de 1967; e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, 30 dez. 2023. Disponível aqui. Acesso em: 11 fev. 2025.
- BRASIL. Lei 13.756, 12 de dezembro de 2018. Regulamentação das Loterias e Promoções Comerciais. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, 2018. Disponível aqui. Acesso em: 11 fev. 2025.
- BRASIL. Lei 14.597, de 24 de julho de 2023. Dispõe sobre a organização e a prática do desporto, institui a lei geral do esporte. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, 25 jul. 2023. Disponível aqui. Acesso em: 11 fev. 2025.
- BRASIL. Lei 9.615, de 24 de março de 1998. Institui normas gerais sobre desporto e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, 25 mar. 1998. Disponível aqui. Acesso em: 11 fev. 2025.
- FALEIROS JÚNIOR, José Luiz de Moura; DENSA, Roberta. Para além das 'loot boxes': responsabilidade civil e novas práticas abusivas no mercado de 'games'. In: FALEIROS JÚNIOR, José Luiz de Moura; LONGHI, João Victor Rozatti; GUGLIARA, Rodrigo (coord.). Proteção de dados pessoais na sociedade da informação: entre dados e danos. Indaiatuba: Foco, 2021. p. 333-356.
- MARQUES, Claudia Lima; MARTINS, Fernando Rodrigues; MARTINS, Guilherme Magalhães. Economia da atenção, gamificação e esfera lúdica humana: nova crise na proteção dos consumidores e os abusos das apostas e jogos on-line. Revista de Direito do Consumidor, São Paulo, v. 156, ano 33, p. 183-197, nov./dez, 2024.
- ROSENVALD, Nelson; BRAGA NETTO, Felipe. Responsabilidade civil: teoria geral. Indaiatuba: Foco, 2024. p. 26-28.
- VENTURI, Thaís Goveia Pascoaloto. Responsabilidade civil preventiva: a proteção contra a violação dos direitos e a tutela inibitória material. São Paulo: Malheiros, 2014. p. 201-202.