Betting in Brazil: Between regulation and silence

In the following article, Valter Delfraro, Oddsgate’s director of Regulatory Affairs, analyses Brazil’s new advertising rules for fixed-odds betting and discusses the balance between consumer protection, regulation and the risks of excessive restrictions.

Opinion.- Brazilian Federal Government has published two ordinances that significantly change the scenario for fixed-odds betting advertising in Brazil: Ordinance SPA/MF No. 1,964/2026 and Interministerial Ordinance MF/SECOM/MJSP No. 73/2026. Both aim to strengthen consumer protection and regulate the way this rapidly expanding market communicates with the public. These are measures that, at first glance, may appear merely bureaucratic, but they reveal a clear attempt to contain the social and economic impacts of betting.

SPA/MF Ordinance No. 1,964/2026: mandatory warnings

Published on July 3, 2026, by the Secretariat of Prizes and Betting of the Ministry of Finance, this ordinance determines that all betting advertising must include standardised warning messages, such as:

• “Betting can cause addiction”;
• “Betting makes you lose money”;
• “Betting is not an investment”.

These messages must appear in a horizontal format, with clarity and readability, occupying at least 10% of the advertisement’s area. The idea is simple: ensure that consumers are constantly reminded of the risks associated with gambling. This is a transparency measure aimed at preventing advertising from portraying betting as something glamorous or financially advantageous.

Interministerial Ordinance No. 73/2026: limits on advertising

A few days later, on July 10, came the Interministerial Ordinance signed by the Ministries of Finance, Justice and Public Security, and the Secretariat of Social Communication. It expands the scope of regulation by establishing general rules for all betting advertising, communication and marketing activities. Among the main points:

• Prohibition of advertising that misleads consumers;
• Ban on comments from experts encouraging betting on specific games;
• Blocking the promotion of unauthorised operators;
• Special protection for children, teenagers and vulnerable individuals.

In addition, oversight will now be shared among different bodies, such as Senacon/MJSP and the National Secretariat for Digital Rights, reinforcing the seriousness of the measure.

The positive side of regulation

There is no doubt that these ordinances represent progress. They:

• Hold companies and media agents accountable, as they must now follow clear standards;
• Protect consumers against abusive and misleading practices;
• Align the sector with the Consumer Protection Code, reinforcing the principle of responsible gambling;
• Bring transparency to a market that moves billions and particularly attracts young people and individuals in vulnerable situations.

In a country where access to digital betting is growing exponentially, ignoring the risks would be irresponsible. In this sense, the government is right to impose limits and warnings.

The risk of silence

However, there is one point that cannot be ignored: regulation cannot mean censorship or a total ban. Gambling exists, moves money and attracts millions of Brazilians. Pretending that it does not exist, or trying to hide it, means sweeping under the rug an issue that needs to be openly discussed.

• Silence does not eliminate the problem. Betting will continue, often migrating to illegal channels beyond the reach of oversight.
• Education is more effective than repression. Teaching about risks, personal finances and addiction is the most responsible way to address the phenomenon.
• Radical prohibition creates social hypocrisy. Gambling begins to be treated as a taboo, while continuing to grow in the shadows.
• International examples show that countries investing in educational campaigns and responsible gambling programs can reduce cases of addiction without suffocating the legal sector.

The illegal market: the other side of the coin

It is necessary to recognise that the illegal betting market exists and will always exist. In Brazil, there are only two possible sides: legal, regulated and supervised gambling, or illegal gambling, without any control. When attempts are made to suffocate the authorised sector, space is created for illegal operators to prosper, offering even greater risks to consumers.

The choice, therefore, is not between betting or not betting, but between allowing this activity to take place within the law — with rules, transparency and protection — or pushing millions of Brazilians into informality, where there are no guarantees or accountability.

Conclusion: speaking is protecting

Ordinances No. 1,964/2026 and No. 73/2026 are important steps towards regulating betting advertising and protecting consumers. But it is necessary to go further: the true solution does not lie in banning or hiding, but in educating and raising awareness.

Society needs to openly discuss risks and responsibilities, because not talking about them only perpetuates ignorance.

If Brazil truly wants to address betting-related issues, it must combine strong regulation with information and prevention policies. Only then will it avoid allowing gambling to become an invisible problem — and therefore an even more dangerous one.