MP sues Blaze and Virgínia: what we know about the case

The MPDFT (Public Ministry of the Federal District and Territories) pointed out that influencer Virginia Fonseca had participated in a "structured model of attracting bettors", led by the Blaze betting platform, during this year's World Cup games.

What does the Public Ministry's document say?
According to the MP's document, obtained by CNN Brasil, Virginia would have adopted strategies to capture bettors in the match between Argentina and Cape Verde. At the time, the influencer, with more than 56 million followers on social media, encouraged the public to bet on the African team's victory.

Virginia would receive 30% commission with loss of followers, says MP investigation | H TIME

For the Public Prosecutor's Office, in addition to the bet being "low probability and high potential return", the influencer also used emotional language to induce followers to bet. In the videos released by Virginia, the influencer stated that she was "hopeful" about Cape Verde's victory.

The MP also argued that the recordings had no signage to warn the public that the content had signs of advertising. "Virginia operated on a documented cognitive bias, heightening the perceived attractiveness of an objectively unlikely outcome without any mention of the actual probabilities," the document says.

According to the document, in addition to Virginia, the betting platform also adopted a coordinated advertising intensification strategy coinciding with the championship matches, exploiting "high emotional exposure and collective engagement of the tournament to induce impulsive consumption".

Virginia earns 30% on losses from bettors
The new MPDFT Public Civil Action) pointed out that influencer Virginia Fonseca could receive a 30% commission on losses from those who followed betting recommendations.

Marketing strategies
Last Thursday (8), the Public Prosecutor's Office filed a lawsuit alleging that the betting company used marketing strategies capable of inducing the public to gamble through the promise of easy winnings, advertising considered misleading and the use of far-reaching digital influencers to encourage betting.

The investigation points out that, while simulating "hope" in the outcome of the dispute between the teams, the influencer could receive a 30% commission on the losses of those who followed the betting recommendations.

Remember action by the Public Prosecutor's Office
The Public Prosecutor's Office requested that Blaze and the influencer be jointly sentenced to pay compensation for collective moral damages of R$120 million.

According to the lawsuit, the value was calculated based on a conservative estimate that Blaze would generate around R$600 million per year in gross gaming revenue.

The MPDFT applied, by analogy, a percentage of 20% on this amount, reaching R$ 120 million, an amount it considers sufficient to punish and discourage the repetition of the conduct highlighted in the action.

According to the MPDFT, the investigation began after receiving complaints from consumers who reported withholding of amounts, blocking of accounts and difficulties in withdrawing funds deposited on the platform.

In addition, a technical report brought together more than 42 thousand complaints against Blaze, indicating, according to the agency, a recurring pattern of possible violations of consumer rights, including the offering of bonuses conditioned on requirements considered abusive.

In relation to influencer Virginia Fonseca, prosecutor Paulo Binicheski states that she published, during the 2026 World Cup, content encouraging followers to place bets on the Blaze platform without making clear the advertising nature of the promotion, especially in the Cape Verde game.

The action also points out that the influencer had presented a bet as if it were a spontaneous recommendation and cites information from investigations that indicate the existence of remuneration linked to the losses of bettors captured, a circumstance that, according to the body, worsens the conflict of interests and increases the risk of harm to consumers.

The action also highlights that Blaze would have maintained a continuous advertising strategy with celebrities to expand the reach of the campaigns and uses the phrase "The bet sells you the fantasy of easy money. The only guaranteed bet is the house bet. And the house hired exactly who you admire to convince you to play."

According to the Public Ministry, the use of well-known personalities would reinforce the false perception of an opportunity for easy profit, especially among consumers in situations of economic vulnerability, increasing the potential for large-scale financial damage.

In the action, the Public Ministry asks the Court to order the immediate interruption of advertising campaigns considered irregular and adopt measures to prevent new practices that, according to the agency, violate the Consumer Protection Code and the regulation of sports betting.

The other side
What Blaze says
"Foggo Entertainment Ltda, owner of the Blaze brand and Operation in Brazil, clarifies that, to date, it has not been formally notified regarding the aforementioned procedure from the Public Ministry of the Federal District and Territories (MPDFT). Foggo remains committed to transparency and compliance with the legislation and regulations in force in the country. Our operations and partnerships are always guided by the best market practices, with an absolute focus on the safety of our users, following legal principles and applicable standards, as well as based on Responsible Gaming guidelines. Once formally notified, Foggo will provide all necessary clarifications to the competent authorities and anyone else necessary."

What Virginia's defense says
"Virginia Fonseca's defense learned, through the press, this Thursday (9), of the Public Civil Action filed by the Public Ministry of the Federal District and Territories (MPDFT). The allegations will be answered technically in the case file.

However, it is worth noting that the initial petition itself recognizes the existence of steps still pending, including the request for contracts and other relevant information. These documents are essential for 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 understands that the MPDFT could have waited for the conclusion of the investigations initiated by the body itself, which would certainly give the demand a different direction. The defense refutes the allegations made in the action, especially any assertion of collusion, predatory action or intention to cause harm to consumers. Civil liability must be supported by concrete evidence, and not by presumptions or conclusions arising from the influencer's public status. The defense reaffirms its confidence in the institutions and the Judiciary and will provide all clarifications in the case, at which time it will demonstrate, in a technical and documented manner, the unfoundedness of the requests made against Virginia Fonseca."

Source: CNN