Regulatory Radar | Fixed-Odds Betting – Ed. 15

Week of August 31 to September 4, 2026

It was a week of pressure from every direction. Congress advanced bills restricting advertising; the Presidential Palace spoke of a “more drastic measure” amid a war of numbers over the size and cost of the sector; states and municipalities issued their own bans; the regulator handed down fines; the Central Bank set its sights on betting inside financial apps; and the courts ordered platforms blocked for failing to protect minors. Below are the points that deserve your attention.

Congress steps up its crackdown on advertising – now in the Senate too

After months of bills in the lower house, the movement reached the Senate. A bill sponsored by Senator Alessandro Vieira, broadly banning betting advertising and sponsorship – on TV, in football, by influencers and even through bonuses and cashback –, cleared a committee this Tuesday (09/02). The text goes beyond advertising: it creates a criminal offense for promoting illegal betting, targets so-called “addictive design” of platforms, and provides for a cooling-off period for former public officials. In parallel, a package of bills banning advertising is moving jointly through the lower house and gained traction over the week.

What this means: The direction of the wind in Congress is clear: more restriction on advertising, now with a criminal edge aimed at the illegal market. Lawyers point out that part of the text may conflict with the Betting Law, opening a legal dispute if it advances. Anyone who depends on marketing and sponsorship should treat a restrictive scenario as likely and draw up contingency plans, including regulatory-change clauses in new contracts and renewals.

War of numbers heats up as the Palace threatens a more drastic measure

Right after the bill advanced in the Senate, the political temperature rose. The numbers became a battlefield: estimates circulated that Brazilians deposited more than R$ 200 billion in bets in 2025 and that every real collected generates social costs several times higher. Associations of the legal sector challenge the methodologies and the lumping together, in a single bucket, of licensed platforms and the illegal market. In this climate, after a meeting with entities critical of the sector, the President spoke of taking a “more drastic measure,” and the government is weighing issuing its own rule – a route that would take effect quickly but also carries the risk of resistance in Congress. On the tax front, a lower-house committee approved an opinion on taxing the period before regulation, and the government is already signaling collection of the Selective Tax on betting from 2027.

What this means: Inflated figures tend to become an argument for more tax and more restriction, so methodology matters – and should be read with skepticism, on both sides. The concrete short-term risk is a rule issued by the Executive, with quick effects and little room for prior adjustment. Add to that the tax front, which is heading toward a heavier burden on the sector. Now is the time to map regulatory and tax exposure and to follow the government’s moves closely.

States and municipalities push against advertising – and the risk is constitutional

While Congress debates national rules, a wave of local bans is taking shape. City and state governments have issued decrees and bills barring betting advertising in public spaces – from billboards and bus shelters to stadiums. Rio de Janeiro and Minas Gerais already have rules in force (in Minas, the decree reaches the Mineirão stadium and orders the state lottery to end sports betting); in the city of São Paulo, a bill cleared the justice committee and the mayor signaled he would sign it; in João Pessoa, an approved bill was awaiting signature at week’s end (08/31). Campinas and Uberaba have already issued similar rules.

What this means: This is the most delicate point for the sector. The Constitution reserves to the federal government the power to legislate on lotteries and, in the market’s view, on betting advertising – which makes these local rules strong candidates for challenge in the courts, on grounds of overstepping jurisdiction. The practical risk is twofold: a patchwork of different rules city by city, and the uncertainty of operating under rules that may be struck down. For anyone with local sponsorship and media, it is worth mapping exposure market by market and watching for the constitutional challenges likely to emerge.

Public Security constitutional amendment reshapes betting money – and preserves sport funding

The Senate’s constitution and justice committee approved the base text of the Public Security constitutional amendment this Tuesday (09/02). Along the way, the earmarking of roughly 30% of betting revenue to fund security was removed and replaced by pre-salt oil resources – sharply reducing the amount that would come from the sector. An important point for those in sport: the Olympic Committee’s mobilization led to the removal of the provision that would have cut funding already allocated to sport, which was preserved. Votes on amendments and two rounds in the floor are still pending.

What this means: For the sector, there are two sides to this. On one hand, the proposal to tie much of betting revenue to public security – which reinforced the “betting pays the bill” logic – is gone. On the other, the design may still change on the floor and there is a risk the text returns to the lower house. For clubs, federations and sponsors, preserving sport funding is the good news of the week.

New rule spells out how the government will seize illegal operators’ funds

A Ministry of Justice ordinance published in the Official Gazette this Friday (09/04) organizes the administrative forfeiture process – that is, the seizure – of blocked funds from operators acting irregularly. The rule sets out who conducts the process, guarantees a 15-day right of defense, provides for appeal to the minister, and channels the funds to the National Public Security Fund. The forfeiture itself still depends on a court decision; the ordinance handles the administrative stage that precedes it. Along the same lines, the government widened the financial squeeze on illegal platforms, freezing funds.

What this means: The state is building the machinery to turn freezes into a permanent loss of resources for the illegal market. For the regularized operator, the message is one of contrast: the more robust the architecture against the illegal market, the greater the value of being inside the rules. For payment institutions and fintechs that process these flows, knowing who you are transacting with becomes ever more important.

Regulator fines an operator nearly R$ 1 million – and the sanctions machine gets going

Enforcement is no longer a promise. The Official Gazette this Friday (09/04) carried the summons, by public notice, of a fine of about R$ 930,000 imposed on a smaller operator, with a 10-day payment deadline under penalty of registration as active government debt. A few days earlier, another public-notice summons had targeted a second operator, which could not even be located at its registered address. Both acts came from the SPA/MF sanctions unit – which, it is worth noting, has just seen a change at its head.

What this means: The message is concrete: the enforcement bar already reaches small operators and the bill arrives with a short deadline, not as a distant threat. Keeping addresses, representatives and service-of-process channels up to date is no longer a detail – a summons by public notice runs even without the company becoming aware, and an unpaid fine becomes government debt collected by the Treasury. It is worth reviewing regulatory compliance routines and the tracking of official notices.

Central Bank sets its sights on betting inside financial apps

At a financial-sector event this week, Central Bank officials signaled discomfort with the presence of betting inside bank and fintech apps – they went so far as to call it “incoherent” for a financial app to advertise betting on its own home screen. The Central Bank said it is studying transparency and macroprudential measures tied to household indebtedness, a topic to be discussed at the National Monetary Council.

What this means: The financial regulator has fully entered the betting debate, and the focus is the border between payment and betting. For fintechs and payment institutions, it is time to review how betting appears and is funded inside apps – credit, installments and Pix used to bet are on the radar. No measures have come out yet, but the signal is firm enough to prompt getting ahead of the changes.

Court orders the telecoms regulator to block platforms over failure to protect minors

The courts in Paraíba ordered this week (09/03) that the telecoms regulator block, nationwide, access to betting platforms flagged for failures in protecting minors, with fines accumulating into the millions. In the same period, a court upheld the restriction on a popular “crash”-type game, rejecting the company’s appeal. These are decisions that, though taken in specific cases, produce broad practical effect.

What this means: Protecting minors has become the most powerful legal hook against platforms – and the nationwide block through the telecoms regulator shows that a local decision can halt operations across the entire country. Age controls, identity verification and access barriers have gone from best practice to direct exposure to being blocked. It is worth urgently reviewing the mechanisms protecting children and adolescents.

ANBIMA maps the Brazilian bettor

ANBIMA published a qualitative study on who bets in Brazil, and the portrait deserves attention. Listening to 60 people, the capital-markets association describes motivations, journeys and a finding that is of close interest to those thinking about regulation: some bettors have started to speak the language of investing, with “strategy,” “return” and “yield,” and one in five even treats betting as a financial investment.

The diagnosis is good. The conclusion, incomplete. The report treats “online betting” as a single block and does not separate the authorized operator from the illegal market, a distinction that organizes everything. The clarity ANBIMA asks of the consumer – knowing that this is betting and carries a risk of loss – is already a legal obligation of the regulated operator, which carries warnings, verifies age and offers limits and self-exclusion. Those who promise a “foolproof method” and “guaranteed income” operate outside the law.

In other words: financial education and regulation do not compete. They point in the same direction, and only the legal market can deliver it.

The week ahead

• The Supreme Court is expected to continue with its package of betting cases, including the one on whether a state may, on its own, restrict the sector’s advertising – a jurisdictional question that concerns the entire market.
• The advertising-restriction bill moves to another Senate committee, possibly on a “terminative” basis – that is, without needing to go to the floor.
• The Public Security amendment still needs two rounds on the Senate floor and may return to the lower house.
• The government is weighing issuing its own rule on betting, with possible effects as early as October; the Central Bank signals transparency measures to be discussed at the National Monetary Council.
• Congress begins to empty out due to the election calendar, narrowing the window for new votes.

Our team is available to discuss the impact of any of these topics on your business.

This material is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The analyses reflect the team’s understanding as of the publication date and may be revised as regulation or case law evolves. For specific guidance on particular situations, consult a member of the team. © Souto, Correa Advogados – Gaming & Betting Practice.