During a recent interview at SBC Lisbon, Luiz Felipe Maia of Maia Yoshiyasu Advogados criticized the ban on betting announced by Brazil's president in late September. He described the move as politically motivated, warning that it disrupts the development of a legalized, regulated, and supervised industry.
Maia pointed out that the rules established by the Secretariat of Prizes and Bets (SPA) introduced essential compliance and identification mechanisms. He expressed concern that this ban could exacerbate legal uncertainty in Brazil, deterring potential investors.
According to Maia, the National Congress and the Judiciary might overturn the ban, given the significant risks it poses, including an annual revenue loss of BRL15 billion ($2.99 billion) and the potential shift of bettors to illegal markets. He also challenged the actions of the Attorney General's Office, which is pursuing compensation related to public health, arguing that operators acted within the law, and that no solid evidence links gambling to public health issues.
"It’s hard to believe we’re going through this right now, after all the effort made to create a market that is not only legalized but regulated. Companies paid BRL30 million for a license. It’s a clear electoral move aimed at undermining an industry that was establishing itself," Maia remarked.
He noted the global disbelief at this decision, mentioning conversations in France and Portugal where attendees were shocked by Brazil's actions. "This creates significant distrust towards Brazil. How will the country ensure stability for our sector and any other industry?" he questioned.
Reflecting on the SPA's regulatory achievements, Maia affirmed that Brazil had developed some of the world's best regulations, suggesting that a prohibition approach is a setback. "After 2025, we saw rapid maturation with regulations under SPA rules. It’s disappointing to see a shift towards prohibition when Brazil had the potential to set a global standard."
On President Lula's claim regarding the potential ban if the sector did not develop correctly, Maia believed it was a political move. He suggested the lack of a fiscal impact study indicates the nature of this decision. "If things were about regulation, then all problematic industries would be closed. Should we ban mining or the beverage industry too because they have caused harm?" he asked.
