Brazil: Fux Acknowledges Illegal Betting Risks Amid Ban Debate
Brazil.- 5 November 2026 | www.zonadeazar.com The debate surrounding Brazil’s online betting prohibition has raised further concerns about the potential expansion of the illegal gambling market.
During a public hearing held on 3 November, Federal Supreme Court (STF) Justice Luiz Fux expressed support for banning online betting while acknowledging the need to assess the consequences of the measure.
The discussion attracted attention within the iGaming industry after Ivam Medeiros, an industry professional with experience managing licensed betting operations in Brazil, warned that the prohibition could push consumers towards illegal platforms.
Luiz Fux Outlines His Position on Betting
During the hearing, Fux stated that, in his view, online betting should be prohibited in Brazil.
However, he clarified that his individual position does not determine the Supreme Court’s final decision.
The Justice noted that the other ten members of the Court must also examine the issue.
Consequently, he considers it necessary to gather further evidence and arguments before the Court reaches a collective decision.
Illegal Gambling Reports Raise Concerns
One issue highlighted by Fux was the emergence of reports suggesting an increase in illegal betting platforms following the prohibition.
The Justice explained that he had invited the Minister of Justice to participate in the discussion, partly to examine those reports.
The concern centres on the possibility that consumers will continue gambling through platforms operating outside the licensed market.
Reports of additional illegal websites do not, by themselves, establish how many unlicensed operators emerged as a direct consequence of the prohibition.
Ivam Medeiros Questions the Effectiveness of the Ban
In a LinkedIn post, Ivam Medeiros argued that prohibiting regulated betting could produce the opposite effect to that intended by policymakers.
Having previously been involved in managing a licensed betting operation in Brazil, he maintained that removing authorised platforms does not necessarily eliminate consumer demand.
Instead, customers may migrate to illegal websites that do not apply equivalent safeguards.
Medeiros considers this potential shift one of the principal risks associated with a nationwide prohibition.
Differences Between Licensed and Illegal Operators
Medeiros highlighted the obligations imposed on authorised betting companies.
Key regulatory safeguards include:
- Identity verification: confirming customers’ identities.
- Age checks: preventing underage participation.
- Regulatory supervision: compliance with official requirements.
- Financial oversight: monitoring relevant transactions and operations.
- Consumer protection: providing complaint and support mechanisms.
According to his assessment, illegal platforms can operate without implementing these protections.
This may expose customers to additional risks and make enforcement more difficult.
The Risk of Displacing Customers
A central argument in Medeiros’ analysis is that prohibition does not necessarily remove consumer interest in gambling.
Instead, it may change the channels through which customers access betting products.
When licensed platforms stop operating, users may seek alternatives that remain accessible online.
He argues that removing regulated operators also eliminates the safeguards associated with licensing and official supervision.
Supreme Court Examines Provisional Measure 1,394/2026
The public hearing took place as part of Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) 8027.
The proceedings challenge the constitutionality of Provisional Measure 1,394/2026, through which the Brazilian Government prohibited fixed-odds betting operations.
The hearing brought together representatives of government institutions, sporting organisations, business associations and the gambling industry.
Issues under examination include public health, consumer protection, economic consequences and legal certainty.
Player Protection Remains Central to the Debate
The competing positions reflect two important concerns for Brazilian authorities.
Supporters of the prohibition emphasise the consequences of gambling-related harm for public health and household finances.
Meanwhile, critics warn that completely restricting legal betting could benefit unlicensed operators.
The discussion highlights the need to assess both the harms associated with gambling and the risks of activity moving outside the regulated system.
Industry Impact and Next Steps
The Supreme Court hearing demonstrated that Brazil’s debate over online betting remains unresolved.
Although Luiz Fux expressed support for prohibition, he acknowledged that the final decision rests with the Court.
Ivam Medeiros’ assessment introduces an important warning for the industry: eliminating licensed betting platforms could move part of the market towards illegal operators, reducing the safeguards available to protect consumers.
The Supreme Court will assess the arguments presented before proceeding towards a decision on the measure’s constitutionality.
Edited by: @fonta
