Brazilian Court Bans Blaze and Influencer Virginia Fonseca From Misleading Gambling Advertising

Brazil's Court of Justice of the Federal District and Territories (TJDFT) issued a partial ruling on July 21, 2026 that prohibits online betting platform Blaze and influencer Virginia Fonseca from publishing gambling advertisements that imply fixed returns, suggest gambling can substitute for employment, or present betting as risk-free. The ruling follows a case brought by the Public Prosecutor's Office, which is simultaneously seeking BRL 120 million in damages from Blaze over misleading advertising practices. Each violation of the new restrictions carries a fine of BRL 100,000, up to a maximum of BRL 2 million.

Updated July 2026

• Court: Tribunal de Justica do Distrito Federal e dos Territorios (TJDFT), Brasilia
• Judge: Renato Rodovalho Scussel
• Date of ruling: July 21, 2026
• Case brought by: Public Ministry of the Federal District and Territories (MPDFT)
• Parties restricted: Blaze betting platform and Virginia Fonseca (influencer)
• Prohibition: cannot advertise gambling as providing fixed profit, generating income, substituting employment, or being risk-free
• All sponsored gambling content must be clearly labelled as advertising
• Bonus and free spin promotions must disclose deposit requirements, validity periods, and withdrawal conditions
• Violations: BRL 100,000 per infraction, maximum BRL 2 million cumulative
• Violating content must be removed within 48 hours of notification
• Blaze's 2025 revenue: BRL 11 billion in player deposits, BRL 1.1 billion net revenue, BRL 361 million net profit
• Separate BRL 2.3 million fine: Brazil's Betting Secretariat fined Blaze earlier in 2026 over advertising that targeted minors

What Did the Brazilian Court Rule About Blaze and Virginia Fonseca?

The TJDFT's July 21 ruling granted a partial appeal by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Federal District and Territories (MPDFT). Judge Renato Rodovalho Scussel found that Blaze's advertising practices, including content featuring Virginia Fonseca, had crossed the line between promotional gambling advertising and misleading commercial communication.

The ruling prohibits both Blaze and Virginia Fonseca from disseminating gambling advertisements that suggest the activity provides "fixed profit," generates reliable income, can substitute for employment, or solves financial problems. Crucially, advertisements cannot imply there is no risk of losing money. These specific prohibitions target the framing techniques that characterise a significant portion of influencer-driven gambling marketing: testimonials about winnings, lifestyle content associated with gambling proceeds, and financial promises that misrepresent the inherent randomness of betting outcomes.

Virginia Fonseca's representatives stated that they had not received access to the court decision at the time of publication. Blaze did not respond to requests for comment.

Who Is Virginia Fonseca and Why Is She Named in the Case?

Virginia Fonseca is one of Brazil's most-followed social media personalities, with a massive audience across Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube. Her partnership with Blaze was among the most prominent influencer-brand relationships in Brazilian online gambling marketing, reaching millions of potential customers, including younger audiences.

The MPDFT's case against both Blaze and Fonseca reflects the regulator's intent to hold both brands and individual content creators accountable for the messaging in gambling advertising. Rather than pursuing only the platform, the prosecution named the influencer as a co-respondent, establishing a precedent that influencers who endorse gambling products can face direct legal consequences if that advertising is found to be misleading.

The BNLData news organisation reported that Blaze spent approximately BRL 330 million on advertising across Virginia Fonseca and other influencers, underlining the scale of the marketing investment at issue and the financial stakes for Blaze in any restriction of its promotional channels.

What Are the New Advertising Disclosure Requirements?

Beyond the substantive prohibitions on misleading claims, the ruling imposes transparency requirements on all sponsored gambling content published by Blaze and Virginia Fonseca. Every piece of sponsored gambling content must be explicitly labelled as advertising across all formats: social media posts, stories, reels, and live broadcasts. The labelling requirement addresses one of the most consistent complaints about influencer marketing in regulated sectors, which is that promotional content is frequently indistinguishable from organic personal recommendations.

For promotional offers specifically, the ruling requires full disclosure of the conditions attached to bonuses and free spins. Deposit requirements, validity periods for offers, and the conditions under which winnings can be withdrawn must all be clearly communicated to consumers at the point the promotion is presented. This targets the common practice of promoting large bonus amounts without disclosing the wagering requirements that typically determine whether those bonuses translate into accessible winnings.

What Are Blaze's Financial Figures and Why Do They Matter?

The MPDFT's case revealed financial data from Blaze that contextualises the scale of the operator's Brazilian business. According to court documents, Blaze generated approximately BRL 11 billion in player deposits during 2025. The platform's net revenue for the same year was BRL 1.1 billion, and net profit reached BRL 361 million. These figures, from a single offshore-origin operator in a single regulated year, illustrate why the Brazilian court system and the MPDFT are prepared to invest significant legal resources in enforcing advertising standards against Blaze specifically.

The BRL 11 billion deposit figure also provides context for the MPDFT's separate demand for BRL 120 million in civil damages. That figure represents roughly 1.1 percent of Blaze's annual deposit volume, a significant but not ruinous sum relative to the operator's scale, which may explain why the MPDFT opted for a specific financial demand rather than a structural business model challenge.

What Is the BRL 2.3 Million Betting Secretariat Fine?

Separate from the TJDFT court case, Brazil's Secretariat of Prizes and Bets (SPA) fined Blaze BRL 2.3 million earlier in 2026 over advertising that was found to target minors. That fine targeted a different enforcement concern from the MPDFT case, specifically the age-inappropriate audience profile of some Blaze marketing content.

Together, the SPA fine and the TJDFT ruling represent two distinct channels of Brazilian regulatory pressure on Blaze: one from the primary gambling regulator applying its statutory powers, and one from the judicial system responding to a prosecution brought by public interest prosecutors. This dual-track enforcement approach signals that Brazilian authorities are building a comprehensive accountability framework for gambling advertising that does not depend on any single regulatory pathway.

What Does This Mean for Gambling Advertising Regulation in Brazil?

Brazil's online gambling market launched with formal regulation in January 2025, and the country's regulatory apparatus has moved quickly to address advertising practices that were developed during the pre-regulation grey market period. The Blaze-Virginia Fonseca case is the most high-profile judicial intervention in gambling advertising to date, but it reflects a broader enforcement environment.

The SPA has been actively reviewing influencer contracts and advertising content as part of its licensing oversight, and the MPDFT has pursued multiple gambling operators over misleading marketing. The TJDFT ruling adds judicial weight to the regulatory consensus that gambling advertising in Brazil must make the risks of loss clear and cannot frame betting as a reliable financial strategy.

For other operators active in Brazil, the ruling creates a de facto standard against which their own advertising will be measured. The specific prohibitions on fixed-profit language, employment-substitution framing, and risk-free presentation are now judicially endorsed and carry a credible financial penalty structure. Operators and their influencer partners would be exposed to similar litigation if their marketing adopts the same messaging approaches that triggered the Blaze case.

What Happens Next in the Blaze-MPDFT Case?

The July 21 ruling is described as a partial ruling, meaning the broader case before the TJDFT is ongoing. The MPDFT's pursuit of BRL 120 million in damages from Blaze remains active, and the outcome of that civil damages claim will determine whether the financial penalties extend significantly beyond the advertising restriction and violation fines imposed so far.

Virginia Fonseca's position in the ongoing case will depend on her legal team's response to the ruling, which they had not yet received as of publication. The influencer's future compliance with the new advertising restrictions will also be monitored, given that the BRL 100,000-per-infraction fine structure applies to any sponsored gambling content that violates the court's conditions.

FAQ: Brazilian Court Ruling on Blaze and Virginia Fonseca

What did Brazil's TJDFT court rule about Blaze's advertising?

On July 21, 2026, the TJDFT granted a Public Prosecutor's appeal, prohibiting Blaze and influencer Virginia Fonseca from advertising gambling in ways that suggest fixed profits, replace employment, or imply no risk of financial loss. All sponsored content must be clearly labelled and bonus terms fully disclosed.

What fines can Blaze and Virginia Fonseca face for violations?

Each violation of the court's advertising restrictions carries a fine of BRL 100,000 (approximately $20,000), up to a maximum cumulative total of BRL 2 million. Violating content must be removed within 48 hours of notification.

How much money has Blaze made in Brazil?

Court documents revealed Blaze generated approximately BRL 11 billion in player deposits in 2025, with net revenue of BRL 1.1 billion and net profit of BRL 361 million.

Is Blaze also being sued for damages in Brazil?

Yes. The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Federal District is separately seeking BRL 120 million in civil damages from Blaze over its advertising practices, a case that remains ongoing beyond the July 21 advertising restriction ruling.

What was the separate BRL 2.3 million fine against Blaze?

Brazil's Secretariat of Prizes and Bets (SPA) fined Blaze BRL 2.3 million in 2026 over advertising content found to target minors, a separate enforcement action from the TJDFT court case brought by the public prosecutors.

Why is Virginia Fonseca named in the Blaze case?

Virginia Fonseca is one of Brazil's most-followed social media personalities and was Blaze's highest-profile influencer partner. By naming her alongside Blaze, the Public Prosecutor's Office established that individual content creators can face direct legal accountability for misleading gambling advertising, not only the brands that pay for it.