Uruguay Appeals Court Reopens Casino Lawsuit, Allows New Evidence

The ruling overturns an earlier decision by a lower court and sends the case back for further proceedings, extending a legal battle that has been ongoing since 2020.

The First Civil Court of Appeals reversed the prior judgment issued by Judge Fabiana Weisz Collazo, determining that the additional evidence submitted by Vidaplan meets the requirements set out in Article 121.2 of Uruguay’s General Procedural Code. According to the court, the newly presented facts occurred after the initial filing of the lawsuit, are directly relevant to the dispute, and could significantly influence the outcome of the case.

Central to the new evidence is a fire that affected Punta Shopping between 2022 and 2023, leading to a partial shutdown of the complex. Despite the disruption, the state-operated casino within the shopping center continued functioning. Vidaplan argues that this period exposed a clearer competitive imbalance between the Punta Shopping casino and Casino Nogaró, which it previously operated. The company claims that differing revenue trends during this time support its allegation of unfair competition by the state.

Vidaplan further contends that this imbalance caused substantial financial damage. The operator points to declining revenues, ongoing operating expenses, and reduced visitor traffic at Casino Nogaró as key factors that undermined the viability of its business. According to the company, these pressures intensified following the collapse of its agreement with the state, ultimately making continued operations unsustainable.

The lawsuit originally arose after the DGC terminated its sublease agreement with Vidaplan in 2020. Vidaplan alleges that, following the termination, the state adopted a commercial approach aimed at favoring its own casino operations at the expense of private competitors. The DGC has consistently rejected these claims, arguing that there is no direct competition between state-run and private casinos and denying any wrongdoing.

Importantly, the appeals court did not issue a decision on the merits of the case. Instead, it focused solely on the admissibility of the new evidence and has returned the matter to a lower court for further examination. As a result, the final outcome remains uncertain, with both sides expected to continue presenting their arguments as the proceedings move forward.