Brazil's regulated betting sector experienced a swift and significant change following a recent ban on fixed-odds betting and online casinos. On September 25, 2026, President Lula signed Provisional Measure 1.394, which led to a complete halt on new deposits for licensed platforms and mandated that all operators cease activities by October 6. Players were allowed to withdraw their balances until 11:59 PM on October 5.
Insights shared by Blask with TheGamblest revealed how this ban has shifted the demand landscape among betting platforms in Brazil. The Blask Index, which tracks real-time market demand for iGaming brands, indicated that licensed brands suffered a near-total loss of their customer base, while offshore brands retained the majority of their demand. Interestingly, the demand among offshore brands is now shifting between different operators.
Data collected from September 10 to October 8, 2026, shows that the demand for licensed platforms fell significantly in the immediate aftermath of the ban. On September 27, just two days after the ban was enacted, licensed brands experienced a 60% decline in demand. By September 28, this drop reached 70%, and by the end of September, it had plummeted to 84%. After October 1, licensed demand has hovered between 83% and 94% below expected levels. During the week of October 2 to October 8, the total demand for licensed providers was reported to be 89% under the normal weekly average. Notably, Betano saw a 91% decrease, Bet365 89%, Superbet 90%, and Sportingbet dropped by 93%.
Every major brand saw a parallel decline; for instance, BullsBet, which ranked as the eighth-largest brand, suffered a reduction of 95%. Blaze fared slightly better, experiencing only a 74% decrease in demand. A spike recorded on September 26, the day following the signing, reflected a market-wide increase as news of the ban circulated but quickly waned within two days.
In contrast, offshore brands depicted a more stable narrative. Demand for these platforms only slightly dipped by 10% below their September averages from October 2 to October 8. This decline was primarily due to drops on October 4 and 5, the exact cause of which remains unclear. On the other three days of the week, offshore demand held steady.
While the licensed demand plummeted from millions per day to less than one million, offshore demand remained consistent in the range of 200,000 to 300,000 daily. The offshore share of the Blask Index rose dramatically from between 3% and 5% before the ban to a range of 20% to 29% following October 1, representing a more than sixfold increase. However, this increase cannot be misconstrued as growth for offshore brands; rather, it resulted from the near-total collapse of licensed platforms, which previously accounted for 95% of the market.
Despite some stability, movement within the offshore market was notable. Several international brands managed to increase their demand significantly, with Melbet’s figures nearly quadrupling, Bingo Em Casa rising over 2.5 times, and both 22bet and AAJogo more than doubling their demand. However, other brands saw declines exceeding 90%, with several Brazil-focused names exiting the index altogether.
The Blask Index primarily measures search demand and does not track actual visits or bets placed. Consequently, a 90% drop in search demand for a particular brand does not necessarily indicate an equivalent loss of active players. Historical evidence from India's betting environment in the wake of a similar ban shows that while branded searches can decline, traffic to offshore betting sites may remain stable as players continue to engage through alternate means.
The data indicates that while the ban effectively shut down the licensed betting market nearly overnight, it did not extinguish the underlying demand for betting services. Offshore brands have maintained their level of business, their market share surged due to the absence of licensed competitors, and competition among these offshore platforms has intensified. The future dynamics of this sector will depend on whether Congress ratifies the provisional measure and how strictly it is enforced.
