Brazil betting sector makes case for regulated market at Supreme Court hearing
Brazil’s government has defended its decision to ban betting, while industry representatives, football clubs and sports organisations urged the Supreme Federal Court (STF) to preserve the regulated market during a public hearing on the measure.
The hearing, opened by Minister Luiz Fux, brought together 34 entities on Tuesday to discuss Provisional Measure 1.394, which banned betting in Brazil. The measure is being challenged in Direct Action of Unconstitutionality 8027, filed by the National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL), which is seeking a suspension of the provisional measure’s effects.
Representatives from the Ministries of Justice, Health and Finance, alongside the Attorney General’s Office (AGU), argued the ban was necessary to protect families from the health, financial and social consequences of gambling.
Justice Minister Wellington César Lima e Silva described betting platforms as an “architecture of unspeakable dependency”, saying the measure was “relevant and urgent”.
AGU head Jorge Messias defended the government’s decision, arguing the previous regulatory framework had failed to provide sufficient protection.
“Recognising this effort does not oblige us to close our eyes to its limitations,” he said, acknowledging the work undertaken by licensed operators. “Reviewing a policy in light of its results is the responsibility of the State.”
Messias argued the framework had become “materially unconstitutional due to insufficient protection of constitutionally protected assets”.
The betting industry pushes back
The industry’s response centred on the need for legal certainty, stronger safeguards and the risk that prohibition could push consumers towards unregulated operators.
The Brazilian Institute for Responsible Gaming (IBJR) asked Fux for an injunction suspending the measure until Congress reaches a decision or the Supreme Court rules on the merits of the case. The ANJL also called for stricter rules to reduce harm rather than a complete prohibition.
“The country, through its Congress, opted for regulated gambling,” said IBJR representative Celso Mori. “But it didn’t happen overnight. It was after years of legislative processes.
“Now, suddenly, you change that orientation. Now you want clandestine and irregular gambling.”
The Economic Regulation Laboratory at the State University of Rio de Janeiro (UERJ) presented a set of eight conditions that could accompany a reopening of the legal market if the measure is overturned.
Its proposals include preventing the financing of bets, including through credit-funded Pix transactions; establishing a global betting limit for each taxpayer identification number across all operators; checking the eligibility of users, including recipients of social benefits; improving self-exclusion tools; and ensuring that records held in the Betting Management System (Sigap) are auditable.
The university also proposed advertising restrictions, mandatory funding for gambling prevention and treatment through Brazil’s public health system, and a defined catalogue of authorised bets.
“If the Provisional Measure is maintained, we propose a transition with defined tasks and verification of results,” said UERJ representative Marcello Trindade Paulo. He proposed a phased schedule, with milestones at 180 and 360 days, taking into account contracts, workers and oversight structures.
If the ban is reversed, UERJ’s proposed safeguards would make reopening conditional on the implementation of the eight measures.
Sports clubs call for regulated market
Other participants also called for a more targeted approach. Brazilian top-flight football club Flamengo argued for more effective regulation rather than a complete repeal, while Corinthians offered football clubs as partners in campaigns addressing gambling addiction and illegal platforms.
The Brazilian Paralympic Committee advocated betting and age limits, alongside greater operator responsibility for identifying and preventing compulsive behaviour.
The hearing also raised questions about the government’s treatment of companies that had obtained licences under the previous framework.
Industry and club representatives argued that the state had encouraged investment before abruptly changing policy. They challenged, among other issues, the treatment of BRL30 million ($5.5 million) authorisation fees and the abrupt deadline for removing betting advertising.
Gustavo Binenbojm, representing the Brazilian Association of Radio and Television (Abert), described the decision as a reversal of an established public policy. “It was a pragmatic choice that recognised the sector’s risks without handing the market over to illegality and organised crime,” he said of the original decision to regulate betting.
He argued the issue was now whether the state could “suppress it in one fell swoop through a provisional measure”, undoing a policy developed by the Executive and Congress.
Fux will determine the next steps in the analysis of the measure. The hearing did not produce a decision on whether the ban will be suspended, maintained with additional safeguards or implemented through a transition process.