ANJL challenges Brazil betting meeting exclusion of licensed operators

Brazil’s National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) has criticised the federal government for not inviting representatives of licensed betting operators or the gambling regulator to a September 1 meeting in Brasília on the effects of online sports betting. The meeting, chaired by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, matters because it could inform future policy in a market that is operating under a federal licensing framework and remains under close scrutiny over consumer protection, advertising, public health and illegal gambling.

In a statement issued on September 2, ANJL said the discussion did not include companies operating within Brazil’s regulated betting system. The association also said the Secretariat of Prizes and Betting (SPA), the Ministry of Finance unit responsible for regulating and supervising fixed-odds betting, was absent.

According to ANJL, the meeting brought together representatives from health, culture and economic institutions, alongside civil society and religious organisations. The association said the participant list included groups that have expressed opposition to betting or reservations about its social effects, but did not include the regulated industry that would be directly affected by any policy changes.

The government meeting was part of a broader national debate over the consequences of online betting platforms, particularly their potential effect on household finances, gambling-related harm, minors and sports integrity. Brazil’s betting market has become a significant policy issue since Congress established a legal basis for fixed-odds betting, creating a framework under which operators must meet licensing, tax, responsible gambling and compliance requirements.

ANJL president Plínio Lemos Jorge said the exclusion of licensed operators weakened the quality of the policy discussion. He argued that regulated companies hold operational data and technical knowledge that could be relevant when assessing the market’s effects and designing measures intended to reduce risk.

“The association understands that any serious and responsible debate about the effects of betting platforms must necessarily include the regulated operators, who have data, technical expertise and an in-depth understanding of how the market works,” Lemos Jorge said in the statement. “Excluding this segment from the dialogue compromises the quality, impartiality and legitimacy of any decisions that may be taken.”

The association’s criticism was directed not only at the absence of betting companies, but also at the reported non-participation of the SPA. The secretariat is responsible for implementing the federal fixed-odds betting regime, including issuing rules for market access, monitoring compliance and overseeing obligations related to player protection, payments, advertising and anti-money laundering controls.

The presence of the SPA would be important in discussions over whether proposed restrictions could be implemented within the existing legal framework, ANJL said. As the technical regulator, the unit also has a role in collecting market information and determining how licence conditions should be enforced against authorised operators.

Brazil’s regulated system is rooted in legislation approved by Congress following years of debate over the legal status of sports betting and online gaming products. Law No. 14,790, enacted in late 2023, established the core rules for fixed-odds betting and expanded the scope of the federal regime beyond the earlier sports-betting authorisation. The framework placed the Ministry of Finance, through the SPA, at the centre of licensing and supervision.

Under that system, operators seeking to offer fixed-odds betting legally in Brazil are subject to a range of requirements designed to distinguish authorised businesses from unlicensed sites. These include corporate eligibility rules, financial and technical obligations, consumer safeguards, mechanisms to prevent underage participation, responsible gambling provisions and measures addressing money laundering and other financial crime risks.

ANJL said a debate on policy should recognise those distinctions. It argued that restrictions that reduce the viability of licensed businesses without addressing unauthorised providers could produce the opposite of the intended result by pushing customers toward offshore or illegal websites.

That argument reflects a central challenge for gambling regulators internationally. A tightly regulated market is generally intended to channel demand to licensed operators, where consumer transactions can be monitored and operators can be required to comply with local safeguards. However, the effectiveness of that approach depends on enforcement against unlicensed providers as well as on rules that allow legal operators to compete for consumers.

ANJL said that legal operators are required to apply controls related to responsible gambling, protection of minors, advertising standards and the prevention of excessive indebtedness. It also cited obligations intended to limit gambling-related harm. The association maintained that such safeguards may not be available through illegal services, which are outside Brazilian supervision and may not comply with domestic payment, identity verification or responsible gambling requirements.

The group further warned that demand for betting would not necessarily disappear if authorised operators faced severe restrictions or exclusion from the market. Instead, it said, customers and betting revenue could migrate to unlawful providers, reducing regulatory visibility and potentially increasing exposure to criminal activity.

The claim highlights the need for caution in interpreting the debate solely as a choice between expanding betting activity and restricting it. Consumer advocates and public-health groups have raised concerns that legal availability can normalise gambling and make it more accessible, especially through digital advertising and mobile platforms. Their concerns have helped drive calls for tighter marketing rules, stronger affordability protections and more effective interventions for people experiencing gambling harm.

For regulators, the policy question is therefore not limited to whether betting should be permitted. It also concerns the degree of supervision, the design of advertising rules, the quality of player-protection systems and the enforcement tools available against businesses operating without Brazilian authorisation.

ANJL said that information presented at the September 1 meeting did not fully correspond with official figures available to the public, although its statement did not identify specific data points. The association called for future deliberations to rely on verifiable evidence and for affected parties to have an opportunity to contribute technical information.

The dispute over data is likely to be significant as Brazil develops its regulatory approach. Reliable figures on consumer spending, market channelisation, advertising exposure, debt, treatment demand and illegal activity are essential to judging whether current rules are working. Yet such evidence can be difficult to assemble in an online market that has historically included operators serving Brazilian customers from outside the country.

The regulated sector has an interest in demonstrating that it can meet the standards imposed by Brazilian law while contributing tax revenue and investment. ANJL said the legal betting industry supports employment and activity across areas including sport, culture, telecommunications, television and media. It also pointed to taxes and other public revenues associated with regulated operations.

Those commercial considerations will be weighed against the compliance costs faced by operators. Licence holders must adapt their platforms, payments processes, customer verification systems, advertising practices and reporting procedures to federal rules. Any further measures introduced following political or public-health discussions could increase these costs, alter marketing conditions or affect the range of products that operators can offer.

The association’s intervention also illustrates the division between industry groups seeking structured consultation and organisations seeking a more restrictive response to the expansion of digital betting. The government’s meeting included voices from outside the commercial sector, reflecting the social and cultural concerns attached to gambling policy. However, ANJL said a consultation that excludes authorised operators and the principal regulator risks becoming unbalanced.

A broader process would not automatically resolve disagreements over the appropriate level of regulation. Licensed operators may favour policies that preserve market access, while public-health representatives may seek restrictions that reduce exposure and participation. Religious and civil society groups may also support limits that the industry considers commercially damaging. Nevertheless, participation by the SPA and licensed companies could help clarify which measures are legally feasible, operationally enforceable and likely to affect illegal market activity.

ANJL said it has participated in the regulatory process since the beginning of the development of Brazil’s fixed-odds betting rules and has maintained contact with the government and the SPA on consumer-protection measures and the strengthening of the legal market. The association did not oppose debate on the social effects of betting, but said such debate should include all parties responsible for operating and supervising the system created by Congress.

The group plans to request a further meeting with the federal government to address the concerns raised by the September 1 discussion. It remains unclear whether the administration will convene a broader consultation or whether the SPA will provide a formal response. Any subsequent policy initiative would need to be assessed against the existing legislation, the regulator’s licensing rules and the practical requirement to enforce restrictions against unauthorised operators as well as authorised ones.