Brazil’s Secretariat of Prizes and Betting (SPA) opened a public consultation on revising the rules for betting licence applications. The 45-day consultation runs from 27 July to 9 September 2026, and the SPA said it will consider submissions when preparing a decree.
Operators can submit views on proposed changes to Brazil’s betting authorisation process.
The day’s most important stories, free. One email a day.
Industry representatives warned at a Supreme Federal Court hearing in Brazil that the betting ban could shift activity to unlicensed operators. The Ministry of Justice said it had requested the removal of 36,905 websites between 25 September and 29 October; representatives also said betting volumes fell 32% in the latest three-month data compared with a year earlier.
A debate has intensified in Brazil over whether the betting ban protects consumers or steers gambling toward unregulated operators. The matter featured at a Supreme Federal Court (STF) public hearing on Tuesday. At that hearing, 34 entities discussed Provisional Measure 1.394, the measure that banned betting in Brazil.
Brazil’s Secretariat of Prizes and Betting said it had found no studies assessing the effects of banning fixed-odds betting, online games or sector advertising. The Finance Ministry gave that response on 24 September 2026, less than a day before the government issued Provisional Measure 1.394/2026, which prohibited sports betting, online casinos and related advertising nationwide.
Brazil's Secretariat of Prizes and Betting (SPA) told a freedom-of-information request on 24 September 2026 that it had no study on the impact of banning fixed-odds betting. Less than 24 hours later, the government issued Provisional Measure 1.394/2026, which banned sports betting, online casinos and sector advertising across the country.
Brazil’s Provisional Measure 1.394/2026 prohibits fixed-odds betting and related advertising, marketing and sponsorship, according to an opinion article. It requires advertising and sponsorship materials to be removed within ten days of publication and operators’ existing authorisations to end after 30 days. The article says the changes raise questions about existing commercial contracts.
Brazil's Provisional Measure 1.394 of 25 September 2026 prohibits fixed-odds betting in the country, according to an opinion article. The article was written by Marcos Paulo de Castro Pereira, a lawyer at Ciscato Advogados Associados.
The IBJR said its monitoring and economic simulation identified 60,477 suspected betting sites in Brazil, with data updated to 27 October. It estimated annualised clandestine-market GGR at R$56bn, up from R$27.9bn, but said the 101% increase was a simulation rather than a direct market measurement. The report also said 85 federal authorisations covering 82 companies expired on 25 October after a 30-day period.
The Brazilian Responsible Gambling Institute (IBJR) said its LegitBet monitoring system identified 60,477 suspected betting sites operating in Brazil after the federal government's provisional measure banned fixed-odds betting. The institute estimated that the clandestine market may have grown 101% since 25 September, with data updated to 27 October, according to the IBJR.
A media-reported review of 19 cases challenging Brazil’s provisional measure banning fixed-odds betting found no injunction currently in force to protect continued operations. The review said a temporary order for Stake Brazil had been suspended; the collective case brought by the National Association of Games and Lotteries is paused pending a Supreme Federal Court ruling.
A review published on Tuesday 27 October found that no injunction currently in force in the federal courts ensures the continuity of operations in any of the 19 lawsuits tied to Brazil's provisional measure 1.394/2026, which prohibited fixed-odds betting. The checks behind that review were carried out the day before on the systems of the Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region (TRF1) and the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region (TRF3). As a result, companies that turned to the federal courts for individual rulings lacked, at the time of the review, precautionary measures guaranteeing that their operations could continue.