During an interview at SBC Lisbon, Luiz Felipe Maia, a representative of Maia Yoshiyasu Advogados, expressed his criticism over the recent ban on betting in Brazil, a decision announced by the country's president in late September. He described the ban as politically motivated, emphasizing that it disrupts the progress of a legal, regulated, and supervised betting market in Brazil.
Maia pointed out the quality of regulations implemented by the Secretariat of Prizes and Bets (SPA), which included robust identification and compliance mechanisms. He warned that this abrupt change could exacerbate legal uncertainties among investors. He estimated that the ban could lead to compensation claims against licensed operators, an annual loss of BRL15 billion ($2.99 billion) in revenue, and a shift of bettors towards the illegal gambling market.
Furthermore, Maia criticized the actions of the Attorney General's Office for seeking compensation from the Brazilian Public Health System (SUS), arguing that operators had acted legally and that there was insufficient evidence linking betting to public health issues or indebtedness.
On the current situation regarding the ban, Maia remarked, "It’s hard to believe we’re going through this right now, after all the effort made to have a market that is not only legalized but regulated. We’re talking about a public service where companies paid BRL30 million for a license. It was an act with a clearly electoral character, attempting to destroy an industry that had been consolidating and maturing."
He highlighted the disbelief expressed by attendees at recent events in France and Portugal, noting that this has fueled a significant amount of distrust toward Brazil. "How will the country guarantee stability, not only for our sector but for any sector of the economy?" he posed.
Maia affirmed his belief in the standard of regulation in Brazil, suggesting it ranks among the best globally. He expressed disappointment at the trend toward prohibition, stressing that Brazil could have emerged as a leading example of regulation and compliance.
Regarding President Lula's previous statements about banning betting if the activity did not develop properly, Maia concluded, "Absolutely. The timing shows it. Having issued a provisional measure without even a fiscal impact study demonstrates that."
He drew parallels to other industries, challenging the rationale behind the ban. "Are we going to end mining in Brazil? Because some people didn’t toe the line and environmental disasters happened?" he asked, indicating that similar scrutiny should apply to other sectors.
In discussing the implications of this decision, Maia warned of serious long-term consequences for Brazil’s image, stating, "Brazil's perceived risk in the world will be divided into before and after this ban. Because if the Brazilian government is willing to do this with a regulated activity, what can’t it do with any other?"
When asked about the prospects for the betting industry’s return, Maia expressed a realistic view, noting strong legal arguments against the provisional ban. He mentioned ongoing actions in the judiciary and expressed confidence that the National Congress would take a serious stance on the issue rather than succumb to opportunistic electoral pressures.
Despite concerns about the electoral rhetoric focusing on addiction and excessive gambling debt, he stated, "I believe in the maturity of the National Congress. They will view this as an economic activity that has been legalized, regulated, licensed, authorized and heavily monitored."
Maia warned that if the government fails to honor its commitments, it could face significant compensation claims. He pointed out that the decision to ban betting merely redirects potential revenue towards organized crime rather than addressing reported gambling-related issues.
Further, Maia reacted to the Attorney General's request for BRL1 billion in compensation for moral damages and BRL2.6 billion for reimbursement to the SUS, labeling it an irresponsible action, devoid of legally compensable damage. He questioned the calculations behind these amounts, asserting that the betting companies operated within the law. He expressed doubt over the prospects of this claim succeeding in court.
Maia refuted arguments linking gambling to economic hardship and argued that the recent scrutiny on mental health problems in the post-Covid period represented a poor understanding of the situation, calling the criticism of the betting sector challenging and unfounded. He reiterated that no illegal actions had occurred, reinforcing the legality of the regulated betting activity.
