The Brazilian Responsible Gaming Institute (IBJR) has urged the Supreme Federal Court (STF) to restore legal certainty for the betting sector, arguing that the ban on licensed fixed-odds betting pushes players to illegal sites without making them safer.

The statement follows Tuesday’s public hearing chaired by Justice Luiz Fux on Provisional Measure (MP) 1.394/2026, which banned fixed-odds betting in Brazil. IBJR noted that representatives of the betting sector were not heard at the previous public hearing.

What the study found

At the hearing, economist Eric Brasil of LCA Consultoria Econômica, speaking for the Brazilian Association of Economic Freedom (Able), presented a study that challenges data used against the sector.

  • Household debt: the study found no basis to blame betting for household debt. It pointed to three structural causes: very high interest rates, wide and poorly managed use of credit, and low financial education.
  • Tax: the sector’s tax burden in 2025 was estimated at about 32%, with funds going to sport, tourism, public security, education, social security and health. Most operators’ gross revenue returns to the economy through taxes, operating costs and wages.
  • Supermarket sales: using data from the supermarket association ABRAS, the study found no causal link between restricting legal betting and higher grocery spending. Food retail was already growing for much of 2026, when other measures affecting household income also took effect.
  • Illegal market: data from LegitBet, the system used by the Federal Police, showed a strong correlation between clandestine site activity and the MP, with an immediate jump in demand.

IBJR’s position

IBJR said the regulation of Law 14.790/2023, in force since 2025, created thousands of jobs, investment, tax revenue and consumer protection tools, and that the abrupt halt affects contracts, workers and investor confidence. It said illegal sites offer no age checks, limits or self-exclusion, and raise the risk of organised crime.

In its official note, IBJR said (translated from Portuguese):

“Banning the regulated market has not stopped the habit of betting: it only pushes bettors to the illegal market, with an extensive increase in clandestine supply and in the spread of illegal links. In this environment there is no age verification, no limits and no self-exclusion, and the risk of organised crime grows. Only the regulated market allows the State to protect and supervise.

“IBJR remains at the disposal of the STF in favour of dialogue and advocates tougher rules and effective enforcement, because prohibiting is not protecting.”

The MP took effect immediately but needs approval from Congress to become permanent. Earlier, IBJR and ABRAS clashed over the ban’s effect on supermarket sales.