Luiz Felipe Maia Criticises Betting Ban and Warns Over Brazil’s Image
Brazil.- 1 October 2026 | www.zonadeazar.com Luiz Felipe Maia, partner at MYLaw Advogados and a gambling regulation specialist, has strongly criticised Brazil’s fixed-odds betting ban and warned of potential consequences for legal certainty and the country’s international business reputation.
The lawyer argues that Provisional Measure 1,394/2026 creates uncertainty around investments made under a regulatory framework that had only recently been established by the Brazilian state.
Criticism of the Process
Maia described the prohibition as authoritarian in nature.
His criticism focuses particularly on the speed of the regulatory reversal and what he considers the absence of a proportionate transition period for businesses that had received federal authorisation to operate.
The assessment represents the lawyer’s legal interpretation of the Government’s decision.
Five-Year Authorisations
One of the central issues raised is that operators had paid R$30 million per authorisation for federal licences expected to remain valid for five years.
A total of 85 companies made those payments, generating approximately R$2.55 billion in authorisation fees.
The new measure provides for the end of the regime without automatically guaranteeing reimbursement or compensation.
Legal Certainty
Maia argues that changing previously granted authorisations could affect confidence among companies considering investment in Brazil.
In his view, the issue may extend beyond gambling because investors in other industries could consider the episode when assessing regulatory stability and contractual predictability.
Brazil’s International Image
The lawyer also warned of possible reputational consequences.
His argument is that a country that grants licences, requires substantial investment and then abruptly changes the underlying conditions may create uncertainty among international businesses.
That interpretation forms part of the wider legal challenge now surrounding the measure.
Potential Claims Against the Government
Maia believes operators are likely to pursue compensation through the courts.
Possible claims could involve more than the proportional return of authorisation fees and may include:
- Investments already made.
- Existing commercial contracts.
- Wind-down costs.
- Lost profits.
- Other alleged economic losses.
Any entitlement to compensation and its eventual value would depend on future court decisions.
Illegal Market Concerns
Another key argument is that eliminating regulated supply does not necessarily remove consumer demand.
Maia warns that users could move towards illegal platforms, including offshore operators using alternative domains and other tools to circumvent enforcement measures.
Potential black-market growth is also a central argument in legal challenges brought by industry associations.
Consumer Protection
Under the regulated framework, licensed operators were subject to rules covering identity checks, anti-money laundering controls, protection of minors and responsible gambling measures.
Maia argues that migration towards illegal platforms could remove some of those safeguards.
The Government, meanwhile, has justified the prohibition by citing economic, social and public-health concerns related to betting.
Supreme Court Challenge
The dispute has already reached Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court.
ANJL and IBJR have requested suspension of the Provisional Measure and argue that it raises constitutional and legal-certainty concerns.
Justice Luiz Fux is rapporteur for proceedings linked to the controversy.
Congressional Debate
The measure has immediate effect but must still be considered by Congress to remain permanently in force.
Lawmakers can amend, approve or reject parts of the text during the legislative process.
That debate represents another major front for affected companies.
Wider Economic Impact
The ban also affects football clubs, suppliers, agencies, media companies, employees and technology businesses that developed commercial relationships with the regulated industry.
Maia argues that this wider economic chain should be considered when assessing the consequences of the decision.
Next Steps or Impact
The legality and economic consequences of the measure will continue to be debated before both the Supreme Court and Congress.
Luiz Felipe Maia’s comments add to criticism from operators and trade bodies challenging the way the prohibition has been implemented.
Unless a judicial or legislative decision changes the framework, the Federal Government’s shutdown timetable remains in force.
Editó: @fonta
