Brazilian Court Orders bet365 to Settle Bets in Sports Data Dispute
Brazil.- 25 September 2026 | www.zonadeazar.com A São Paulo court has ordered HS do Brasil Ltda, the company responsible for bet365’s Brazilian operations, to pay the amounts corresponding to five betting slips that had previously been settled as losing bets following a dispute over sports statistics.
The case involves assist bets placed on two Italian Serie A matches in November 2025 and raises questions over how sportsbooks use external data providers to determine outcomes and settle statistics-based markets.
São Paulo Court Ruling
The judgment was issued on 14 September 2026 by Daniela Nudeliman Guiguet Leal, Judge of the Second Civil Court of the District of Barueri in São Paulo.
The court ordered bet365 to settle five betting slips that had been classified as losing wagers.
The final amount payable will be calculated during the enforcement phase of the judgment.
Matches Involved
The dispute relates to bets placed in November 2025 on two Italian Serie A fixtures:
- Fiorentina vs Lecce.
- Parma vs Bologna.
The wagers specifically concerned player assist markets.
Players Included in the Bets
The bettor backed three players to record assists:
- Tete Morente.
- Adrian Benedyczak.
- Nicolò Cambiaghi.
Official Serie A match reports credited the players with assists.
However, the statistical data used by bet365 to settle the markets did not classify the relevant actions in the same way.
Opta Data
bet365 used information supplied by Opta, the sports data service owned by Stats Perform.
According to that dataset, the disputed actions were not recorded as assists and the bets were therefore settled as losses.
The difference between Opta’s statistical classification and the competition’s official reports ultimately became the basis of the dispute.
Official Serie A Reports
The bettor argued that the official Serie A reports recognised the assists.
This created a disagreement between two sources commonly used within the sporting ecosystem:
- Official competition reports.
- Data generated by a specialist statistics provider.
The case illustrates how different methodologies can result in different classifications of the same sporting action.
What the Court Considered
The judgment did not establish that sportsbooks must exclusively use official league statistics.
Nor did it rule that Opta cannot be used as a data provider for bet settlement.
Instead, the court focused on whether bet365 had adequately demonstrated that its previously established settlement criteria had actually been applied to the disputed plays.
bet365 Terms
The court acknowledged that the operator’s terms stated that Opta data would be used.
It also recognised that the bettor was aware of this condition.
However, merely referring to the data provider was not considered sufficient to resolve the dispute.
Lack of Technical Explanation
A central issue in the ruling was the absence of a detailed technical explanation regarding how the plays had been classified.
The court found that stating that Opta had not awarded an assist was not enough.
The operator needed to demonstrate which specific criteria had been applied to each disputed incident.
Deflections and Crosses
Assist markets can depend on highly specific interpretations of a play.
Disputes may arise over whether:
- A defensive deflection cancels an assist.
- A pass should instead be classified as a cross.
- A defensive action changes attribution of the assist.
- The receiving player maintained sufficient control.
Different statistical methodologies can therefore produce different outcomes.
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof was reversed during the proceedings.
As a result, the operator was required to demonstrate why the bets had been settled as losses.
The court found that this technical justification had not been sufficiently established.
Service Failure
The judge concluded that there had been a failure in the provision of the service because the operator had not adequately demonstrated that the settlement process had been properly applied.
The court consequently ordered payment of the five betting slips covered by the action.
Amount Yet to Be Determined
The ruling has not yet established a definitive monetary amount payable by bet365.
The figure will be calculated during the judgment settlement process.
This stage will determine the value corresponding to the bets covered by the ruling.
Right to Appeal
bet365 has until 7 October 2026 to appeal the decision to a higher court.
The legal dispute may therefore continue.
The company has stated that it does not comment on ongoing legal proceedings.
Bruno Rodrigues
Brazilian lawyer Bruno Rodrigues, who specialises in representing bettors, examined the wider implications of the judgment.
Rodrigues stressed that the central issue is not whether sportsbooks should be prevented from using external statistical providers.
Instead, operators should be capable of explaining specifically how the relevant settlement criteria were applied.
Statements
Rodrigues argued that when a statistical outcome is disputed, simply telling a customer that Opta supplied the data should not be considered sufficient.
Operators should be able to explain which particular criterion was applied to the play.
If a deflection was the reason an assist was rejected, for example, the operator should be capable of explaining why that deflection was considered sufficient.
Similarly, if a play is classified as a cross rather than a pass, the specific basis for that classification should be communicated.
Dispute Resolution Channels
Rodrigues also highlighted the need for effective internal dispute mechanisms.
Such channels could allow bettors to understand how a particular statistic was calculated before a disagreement reaches the courts.
More detailed technical complaint procedures could reduce disputes around statistics-based betting markets.
Statistics-Based Markets
The potential implications extend well beyond assists.
Modern sportsbooks offer numerous markets based on individual statistical events, including:
- Shots.
- Shots on target.
- Passes.
- Tackles.
- Interceptions.
- Corners.
- Fouls.
- Recoveries.
- Assists.
Settlement of these markets depends heavily on methodologies developed by specialist data companies.
Differences Between Providers
Sports data suppliers may apply different definitions to particular actions.
The same play can therefore be classified differently depending on the methodology being used.
This becomes commercially significant when the classification directly determines whether a bet wins or loses.
Opta and Stats Perform
Opta is owned by Stats Perform and is one of the most widely used sports statistics services globally.
Its data is used by betting operators, sporting bodies and media organisations.
Stats Perform maintains relationships across the international sports sector and processes data from hundreds of thousands of matches and events each year.
Other Sports Data Suppliers
The global sports data market also includes other specialist providers.
Major companies include:
- Genius Sports.
- Sportradar.
- Stats Perform.
These businesses maintain partnerships with leagues, federations and betting operators to distribute official or specialist sporting data.
Genius Sports and Serie A
The Italian case is particularly relevant because of recent changes to data rights.
Genius Sports became Serie A’s betting data partner in 2025 after Stats Perform’s previous agreement with the competition expired.
This illustrates how the data provider used by an operator may not necessarily be the same company currently distributing a competition’s official betting data.
Official Data and Settlement
One potential consequence of the dispute is greater scrutiny of the relationship between official competition data and sportsbook settlement rules.
Operators may choose different statistical suppliers, but the sources and criteria used need to be clearly established.
Transparency becomes particularly important when sportsbook data differs from official league records.
Terms and Conditions
Terms and conditions play a fundamental role in statistics-based betting markets.
Operators commonly specify which data source will be used to settle wagers.
However, the Brazilian case raises the possibility that simply naming a provider may not be sufficient if the operator cannot subsequently explain how the methodology was applied to an individual play.
Operator Responsibility
While the production of sports statistics may be outsourced, the sportsbook maintains the contractual relationship with the bettor.
Using an external data company therefore does not necessarily remove the operator’s responsibility when settlement decisions are challenged.
The case could encourage sportsbooks to review their internal dispute-resolution processes.
Brazilian Regulation
Brazil has operated a federally regulated fixed-odds betting market since January 2025.
HS do Brasil Ltda is authorised by the Ministry of Finance’s Secretariat of Prizes and Betting to provide sports betting and online gaming services in the country.
The development of the regulated market is also creating a new legal environment for disputes between consumers and licensed operators.
Increasing Legal Disputes
As Brazil‘s regulated market matures, operational disputes are increasingly reaching the courts.
Areas of disagreement include:
- Bet settlement.
- Odds changes.
- Cancellation of winning bets.
- Account restrictions.
- Withholding of balances.
- Statistical interpretation.
This environment places greater importance on well-documented and transparent operator procedures.
Transparency as a Central Issue
The judgment highlights the importance of being able to provide a technical justification for settlement decisions.
For sportsbooks, this means that reliance on algorithms, data providers or external methodologies should be accompanied by procedures capable of responding to customer challenges.
Transparency is therefore becoming an increasingly important part of the betting service itself.
Industry Context
The growth of statistics-based betting has increased operators’ reliance on specialist sports data providers.
Player proposition markets now represent an important part of sportsbook offerings and require detailed information to be generated in near real time.
As these products become more complex, the possibility of disputes over how specific sporting actions should be classified also increases.
Next Steps or Impact
bet365 can appeal the judgment until 7 October 2026, meaning the final outcome of the case could still change.
Regardless of the eventual result, the dispute raises an important issue for Brazil‘s wider betting sector: operators need to be able to explain clearly and technically how statistics-based markets are settled.
The decision could also encourage reviews of terms and conditions, complaint channels and relationships between sportsbooks and sports data suppliers.
In an industry where a growing number of wagers depend on detailed player and match metrics, clarity around statistical sources and settlement criteria is becoming a central element of transparency and consumer protection.
Editó: @fonta
