IBJR criticizes ban on bets and calls for legal security at STF
The Brazilian Institute for Responsible Gambling criticized the ban on betting during a hearing at STF and called for legal security. The entity claims that banning betting pushes gamblers into the illegal market and that indebtedness has structural causes.
The Brazilian Institute of Responsible Gambling (IBJR) criticized the ban on betting in Brazil and defended the maintenance of the regulated market during audiência pública held by Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) on Tuesday (3.nov.2026). In a note published on Wednesday (4 November 2026), the organization asked for legal certainty for companies in the sector and warned that the restriction could expand the activity of clandestine operators. The entire document was made available in PDF format of 133 kB.
IBJR advocates regulation and criticizes ban
In the note, the IBJR states that “banning the regulated market has not made it a habit to gamble cease: it only pushes the gambler into the illegal market.” The ban does not eliminate demand for games, but instead transfers it to environments without control, without consumer protection, and without tax collection.
The organization also highlights the importance of public debate: “The public and democratic space is essential so that the issue is treated with transparency and responsibility, based on data, evidence and the participation of all those involved: sector, clubs, government and society”.
The demonstration comes amid discussions about the impacts of betting on the economy and financial health of families. The IBJR represents companies that operate in the regulated market and argues that effective oversight and stricter rules are the way to mitigate risks, rather than the total ban. The statement ends with the phrase, “Because prohibiting is not protecting.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TbwtmxAaMs
Video: YouTube | Source: www.poder360.com.br
The government wants to restrict hearings
During the session at STF, representatives of the federal government defended the ban on betting. The Union’s Advocate General, Jorge Messias, stated that the State can interrupt an economic activity when it compromises fundamental rights and the existing protection instruments are insufficient. The speech indicates a firm position of the Executive in favor of the restriction, based on the protection of rights such as health and heritage of citizens.
The Minister of Justice, Wellington César Lima e Silva, presented data on operations against suspicious movements linked to the bets. The information reinforces the government’s concern with financial crimes and money laundering associated with the sector. Power360 published a summary of the demonstrations of Lula’s ministers at the hearing, detailing the arguments presented.
IBJR disputes association between bets and debt
The IBJR challenged the direct association between bets and household debt. In the note, the organization stated that debt has structural causes, among them the credit market, and that the data do not allow to associate the default to any specific consumption pattern. The entity argues that factors such as high interest rates, unemployment and inflation have a more relevant role in the compromise of family income than the spending on bets.
This divergence of interpretation on economic data is central to the debate: while the government points to betting as a risk factor, the IBJR argues that the problem is broader and requires structural public policies, not the prohibition of a regulated sector. The entity calls for decisions to be based on evidence and not on alarmist perceptions.
Legal security and the clandestine market
The request for legal certainty made by IBJR reflects the concern of companies with regulatory instability. The possibility of prohibition after the regulation of the sector generates uncertainty for investments and can lead to the migration of operators to less rigid jurisdictions. The entity warns that, without a stable legal environment, the illegal market tends to grow, as bettors will continue to search for unauthorized platforms.
The IBJR argues that regulation, with clear rules and effective oversight, is more effective in protecting consumers and combating clandestinity than prohibition. The note reinforces that the regulated sector allows monitoring, collection and responsible gambling mechanisms, while the illegal market operates on the margins of the law.
The debate at STF has not yet been decided, but the demonstrations indicate a deadlock between the government’s prohibitionist view and the defense of regulation by the sector. The continuity of the discussion should consider the social and economic impacts of each approach, as well as the experience of other countries that have opted for regulatory models.
📄 Related Documents
📎 in full (04.11-Note-do-IBJR-Audiencia-publica-no-STF.pdf)
Read Also
Government imposes 5-year secrecy on betting documents
Even in the US, Flávio Bolsonaro participates in Senate voting and supports Security PEC
Deputado Aliel defends end of bets and punishment for those who disclose illegal bets
Font
www.power360.com
Prioritize Power in Google (www.google.com)
Brazilian Institute of Responsible Gaming (ibjr.org.br)
Supremo Tribunal Federal (portal.stf.jus.br)
MP 1.394 of 2026 (www.congresonacional.leg.br)
Jorge Messias (www.gov.br)
