Pincer machines: gambling or manipulation?

Pincer machines, the famous soft toy dispensers often found at fairs and shopping centres, are at the heart of a growing controversy in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil’s second largest city. These devices, which seem harmless and fun for children, are now seen in a much more worrying light: as gambling.

This shift in Brazilian public opinion is rooted in the idea that these machines depend largely on chance rather than the skill of the players. For many, victory over these machines is simply a matter of luck. The articulated arms of the gripper sometimes seem to release their grip only after a number of unsuccessful attempts, making the game even riskier for young players, especially children.

The Rio de Janeiro authorities take action

The situation has recently taken a more serious turn. On 16 August 2024, the Rio de Janeiro police carried out a series of raids on several establishments where pincer machines were installed. In all, 16 premises were raided. The authorities seized not only the machines themselves, but also a large quantity of electronic equipment: laptops, tablets and mobile phones. In addition, firearms and soft toys were confiscated during these operations.

But the question is more complex: are there organised criminal networks behind these pincer machines? That’s what the local authorities are suggesting. Indeed, investigations have revealed that criminal groups may well be responsible for operating these machines. As well as operating these pincer machines, they may also be involved in other illegal activities, including gambling such as the famous slot machines and the local ‘Animal Game’ lottery. These discoveries have only intensified doubts about the legality of these games.

A problem for young people and families

The police officers conducting the investigation are highlighting the risks posed by these machines to children. Attracted by the promise of a cuddly toy they can grab with a pair of pliers, children often spend their pocket money on these machines without realising the traps hidden behind them. Gambling addiction and financial losses are worrying phenomena, particularly among young people, who are the main players on these machines. The Brazilian authorities claim that young people in particular are vulnerable to this form of gambling, and that it can create harmful gambling habits from an early age.

The Brazilian authorities have already seized several pincer machines this year. In February, police seized no fewer than 80 machines in Rio, along with 13,000 plush toys, which were initially due to be destroyed. However, a change of direction has taken place: the seized plush toys have finally been donated to the victims of the catastrophic floods in the neighbouring state of Rio Grande do Sul. This redistribution of cuddly toys has eased the criticism of the management of these seized objects, while underlining the importance of these initiatives to help disaster victims.

This is not the first time that Brazilian authorities have cracked down on pincer machines. Other cities, such as São Paulo and Curitiba, have also sought to ban these machines, considering them to be hidden gambling instruments. However, the challenge remains for the authorities, who have to contend with well-established networks and a gambling practice that is deeply rooted in local culture.

A question of legality and ethics

The debate over pincer machines raises important questions about the legality of gambling in Brazil and how the authorities should deal with these devices. In Rio, the authorities are invoking Brazil’s Gambling Law, which prohibits certain forms of gambling. While pincer machines are not officially classified as gambling in all countries, the situation is different in Brazil, where the law appears to be stricter when it comes to regulating gambling.

For many experts, the issue is above all ethical. Are these seemingly harmless machines exploiting human vulnerability? Gambling addiction is a growing problem in many countries, and the Brazilian authorities are seeking solutions to protect the population, particularly young people, from these forms of entertainment that are akin to gambling in disguise.

The differences between arcade and casino players

According to a study conducted by the University of Maastricht, arcade and casino players have very distinct behaviours, motivations and consumer habits. By taking a closer look at their preferences and attitudes, we can better understand the dynamics of these two worlds of entertainment.

Arcades are often perceived as accessible leisure venues, where gamblers gather with friends to have a good time without financial pressure. The study reveals that visitors to arcades are generally casual gamers, seeking above all to have fun and test their skills. They are less inclined to risk money, and most come for the fun and friendly competition.

Casino players, on the other hand, are more often motivated by the financial aspect of the game. While some arcade players venture into games for fun, casino players are often looking to maximise their winnings or try their luck with higher stakes. The study reveals that casinos attract players who are looking not only for entertainment, but also to manage stress and anxiety through gambling. In this context, the financial stakes play a crucial role, leading some players to take greater risks.

One of the main reasons for this distinction lies in the psychological profiles of the two groups. Arcade players tend to be less prone to gambling addiction, as their aim is primarily pleasure and socialisation. Casino players, on the other hand, can sometimes be motivated by emotional or financial needs that exacerbate their risk of addiction.

The fundamental differences between arcade visitors and casino players reveal not only distinct behaviours but also profound implications for the way each perceives gambling.

The Belgian point of view

In Belgium, gambling legislation aims to protect players and regulate the activities of operators. Casinos, online games and lotteries are subject to licences and strict controls. However, there is one notable exception for games at amusement parks and fairs. According to article 3 of the Gambling Act, ‘games operated in amusement parks or by fairground manufacturers on the occasion of fairs, trade fairs or similar occasions’ are not considered as such.

Originally, the legislator felt that the sums at stake at fairs were too small to require strict regulation. However, with the development of attractions, some machines now offer significant prizes, such as smartphones, games consoles or televisions, which can be worth more than €1,000. This situation raises questions about the relevance of the current legislative exception.

In view of these developments, the Gambling Commission is considering whether it is necessary to redefine the notion of ‘low stake or low win’ in the law. The absence of a precise definition creates a grey area that is exploited by certain operators. Pending a possible change in the law, it is the responsibility of parents and educators to guide young people in their relationship with pincer machines and other lunapark games.