On 25 September President Lula signed Provisional Measure 1,394. It bans fixed-odds betting in Brazil, licensed or not. Sports betting and online casino both go, along with all betting advertising and sponsorship. It took effect the same day, and deposits stopped at once. Players had until 5 October to withdraw their balances. At midnight on 6 October every licensed site and app went offline. Open bets were voided and stakes refunded. Thirty days after publication every licence is cancelled. There is no refund of the R$30 million (about $5.8 million) each operator paid for it. Congress has 120 days to turn the measure into law or it lapses. The operators' association has said it will go to court.
Brazil's regulated market opened in January 2025. It did not reach its second birthday.
The government's case
The government made its case on health and household debt, using its own figures. More than 1.3 million self-exclusion requests had been made on the national register. Of the people who excluded themselves, 51% said it was linked to health problems. A study cited in the announcement put the annual social cost of online betting, including lost productivity, at R$38.8 billion, about $7.5 billion. The Finance Minister estimated that more than R$60 billion a year, about $11.6 billion, was being paid to licensed betting companies. The Central Bank had already found that in August 2024 alone, people in Bolsa Família welfare households sent R$3 billion, about $580 million, to betting companies through Pix.
Government figures as announced, converted at about R$5.2 to US$1 on 25 September 2026. Requests are not unique people and money transferred is not money lost.
Those numbers need care, and the small print above says why. But they are the figures the public heard. When numbers like these build up, policy can change very quickly.
Brazil already had strict rules
Brazil was not an unregulated market. Only authorised operators on the .bet.br domain could take bets, and each had paid R$30 million for the right. Credit cards were banned, so deposits came through debit cards, bank transfers and Pix. There was one central self-exclusion register across every authorised operator. The accounts of 2.8 million people on Bolsa Família and BPC welfare payments had been blocked. Advertising could not present betting as income or an investment. It could not create false urgency. Commentators could not give betting tips during broadcasts.
| Area | In place before the ban |
|---|---|
| Licensing | Only authorised .bet.br operators, at R$30m (about $5.8m) per licence |
| Payments | Credit cards banned. Debit, bank transfer and Pix only |
| Self-exclusion | One central register across authorised operators |
| Welfare | 2.8m Bolsa Família and BPC recipients' accounts blocked |
| Advertising | No betting as income or investment. No false urgency. No tips from commentators during broadcasts |
The rules were there. Public trust still fell away. People judge betting by what they see and hear around them, not by what is written in the regulations.
Three lessons for the rest of the industry
The first is that a licence is not the same as public support. The public decides whether betting has a future in a country, based on what families experience day to day. Once enough people decide it is doing more harm than good, a government can undo years of regulation faster than any business can adapt. In Brazil the ban was signed and in force on the same Friday.
The second is that many people bet with more than one bookmaker, and protection usually works one account at a time. Picture a customer who loses £100 with each of five bookmakers in the same week. Each bookmaker sees a £100 loss and nothing unusual. The customer has lost £500, and nobody is looking at that number. The figures are made up, but the pattern is well documented. GamProtect is the British scheme through which operators share data on customers at risk. Of the 5,527 customers flagged to it, 88% were matched by at least one other participating operator.
The third is a question. What happens to the players a ban does not stop? Unlicensed sites do not check a self-exclusion register, block welfare recipients or follow advertising rules. Brazil's operators' association has warned that the ban could push 30 million bettors into the irregular market. The government is relying on banks, Pix and app stores to stop that happening. A regulated market only protects people if they choose to use it. That depends on trust, and the industry has to earn it.
Six principles for player protection
None of these is a new idea. The hard part is building them into the product rather than leaving them in the policy document.
- Look at the person behind the accounts. Bring betting activity together across bookmakers, where the necessary data access, integrations and permissions are in place.
- Show what is recorded, and what is missing. Give the player a clear view of stakes, returns and net result across participating bookmakers, with gaps and exclusions stated plainly.
- Let protection travel with the player. A limit, a break or an exclusion set in one place should still apply when the player moves to the next bookmaker.
- Marketing listens to protection. Don't send offers to someone taking a break. Don't use losses to trigger bonuses or create false urgency. A marketing consent should never override a protection decision.
- Sport first, betting optional. Fans should be able to follow the game without feeling pushed to bet. When a bet is shown, make what could be lost as clear as what could be won.
- Measure what changes. Count outcomes for players, not just the number of tools available. Get independent evaluation and publish the results.
One question for every board
Every board in this industry should be able to answer one question. Four smaller ones sit underneath it.
- Can the player understand their recorded activity across participating bookmakers, and what is not included?
- Which protective decisions follow them to the next bookmaker?
- Which offers are switched off, and who checks?
- Who acts, how quickly and how do we know it worked?
If the honest answer is a policy document, there is more work to do.
The players are the business
If the industry does not look after them, sooner or later there is no business to run. Brazil is a hard lesson. Operators have lost their licences and a lot of good people will lose their jobs. But the public lost faith first, and the whole industry shares some of the responsibility for that. If the industry gets player protection right, it has a long future. If it does not, governments will make the decision for it. Brazil's just did.
Where Funteron fits
Funteron connects many bookmakers in one place. That makes joined-up protection possible. Funteron powers betting inside media brands' own apps and sites, and connects fans with licensed bookmakers. It sets no odds, holds no funds and accepts no bets. With the right partner in each region, the platform can support:
- Shared visibility. Recorded sports-betting activity across participating bookmakers, with gaps shown.
- Coordinated controls. Limits and breaks respected across connected accounts.
- Marketing that listens. Offers suppressed where protection requires it.
- Sport first. The game at the centre, betting optional, in the partner's brand.
If you are working on this as a media brand, league, operator or regulator, email keith@funteron.com.
Funteron has the platform and technology to support this and needs to partner in each region to make it happen. Current scope: sports betting only. Casino and activity outside connected data feeds are not visible. Gambling carries risk.
Keith O'Loughlin is CEO of Funteron, which puts sports betting inside the brands fans already trust. The fan stays inside the sport, and Funteron runs no casino. He was CEO of OpenBet until its sale to Endeavor, completed in 2022, and chairs Christchurch Casino in New Zealand.