Gambling disorder in court

A proposal of objective criteria for characterization in gambling in light of consumer law

Abstract

This article investigates how gambling addiction can be objectively characterized in court in lawsuits involving fixed-odds betting, distinguishing recreational use from pathological disorder and offering technical and scientific support for judicial action. It starts from the research problem of the lack of uniform evidentiary parameters for proving the disorder, a situation that fuels legal uncertainty and divergent decisions. The central objectives are: (i) to analyze procedural controversies and evidentiary asymmetries in lawsuits against betting operators; (ii) to examine the medical-psychological frameworks of the disorder in light of Consumer Law; and (iii) to propose objective criteria for its identification in court. A qualitative methodology is adopted, with bibliographic review and interdisciplinary document analysis between law, medicine, and psychology. It concludes with the need for technical guidelines organized into three axes — independent psychiatric and psychological expertise; forensic analysis of digital behavior; and socio-behavioral contextualization — capable of guiding judges and experts, avoiding both the trivialization of the disease and bad-faith litigation.