LatAm industry figures question Brazil betting ban in Focus Gaming News report

Industry representatives and specialists from Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Peru and Uruguay have questioned Brazil's Medida Provisória 1.394/2026, the measure that bans fixed-odds betting and online casinos in the country, according to a special report. The report says several of those interviewed warn that the measure could affect investor confidence and regulatory predictability in the region, and that it could move part of demand towards illegal operators.

Bárbara Teles, director of government relations at ABC-BET and founder and director of AMIG, said the measure represents a break of considerable institutional relevance. She said the activity concerned had been legalised, regulated and subject to a complex and costly authorisation process, and that the issue was not that the state reviews its policies but that it replaces a detailed regulatory system with an almost complete prohibition in a very short period. Teles said an authorisation does not give a right for legislation to remain unchanged, but distinguished between progressive reform and the abrupt elimination of an activity authorised by the state itself. In the latter case, she said, discussions could open on restitution of payments and possible compensation claims, whose outcome would depend on the circumstances of each case.

Miguel Ángel Ochoa Sánchez, executive president of Mexico's AIEJA, questioned the effect of the decision on the image of Latin American markets. He said the Brazilian case could remain a specific episode but contributes to projecting an image of instability, and that any investment requires long-term legal certainty, particularly when the amounts at stake and the structures required are substantial. He said governments must understand the industry's economic importance and develop public policies that outlast electoral cycles, warning that otherwise countries risk favouring illegality and losing tax contributions that could go to public services. Ochoa Sánchez said prohibition favours the illegal market and capital flight, adding: "No es ningún secreto: la prohibición, sea hacia cualquier producto o servicio, favorece siempre el mercado ilegal y la fuga de capitales. Y quien dice ilegalidad, dice indefensión para el consumidor". He said AIEJA maintains that strengthening the industry requires a legal framework that combines clear and firm rules with sufficient flexibility for bettors to find greater benefits with a legal operator.

Tatiana María Vásquez, a lawyer specialising in gambling regulation and a partner at Vásquez & Asociados in Colombia, said her main question was the coherence of the response. She said that if there are problems of indebtedness, public health or protection of vulnerable people the state should intervene, but that such intervention should identify the specific deficiencies and assess why a general prohibition would be more effective than correcting them within the regulated system. Vásquez linked the discussion to the Colombian experience, where tax changes also put pressure on operators' economic conditions. She said that while changing tax burdens and prohibiting an activity are different legal situations, both show the importance of consistency between the decision to regulate and the conditions imposed for operating, and warned: "Una política que promueve la formalización pierde coherencia si otras medidas terminan haciendo cada vez más difícil permanecer en ella".

Carlos Fonseca, managing partner of Gaming Law SAC and managing partner of Gaming Law LatAm, said prohibiting the legal offer does not eliminate demand but displaces it to the black market. According to Fonseca, that displacement can affect several parties: the state loses tax revenue, workers face the loss of jobs and users can be left without effective mechanisms to file claims. He also warned that minors and people with gambling problems could be exposed to operators with no incentive to apply controls or restrictions.

Luis Gama, executive secretary of Uruguay's CUOASEC, said a prohibition can reduce exposure to gambling within the regulated market but warned that a significant part of demand could move to illegal operators, where the same age controls, spending limits, player protection mechanisms and fraud prevention tools do not exist. In that scenario, he said, a policy designed to protect consumers could leave them more exposed. Gama said the case should serve as a warning to the regional industry about the importance of regulatory stability, compliance and responsible gambling policies, and that it does not necessarily show a wave of prohibitions will occur in Latin America.

Cecilia Valdés, executive president of Chile's ACCJ, said the Brazilian case creates uncertainty because operators had paid for licences and invested on the basis of an established legal framework. She said the difference should be drawn above all from the law in force, and that while unauthorised online gambling remains outside Chile's legal framework it should be pursued with the available tools, but if the legislator decides to authorise the activity under certain conditions the state must guarantee compliance with the new framework and protect those who have legitimately obtained a licence. Valdés said regulation cannot be limited to setting who may operate and how much they must pay, and must include user protection, prevention of problem gambling, protection of minors, responsible advertising, traceability of funds and anti-money-laundering measures.

The interviewees agreed that the episode invites a review of how regulated markets in Latin America are built and sustained. Teles said the main lesson is that regulation should not be treated as a transitional stage before a possible prohibition, and that problems of advertising, indebtedness or protection of vulnerable people should be addressed through evidence, supervision and proportionate policies. She also said the Brazilian decision could influence how other governments and investors assess their own regulatory frameworks.