Fact-check: Folha article on women and bets cites research correctly in places, but omits context and stretches the findings

The article argues for Brazil’s Provisional Measure No. 1.394/2026, which banned fixed-odds betting in the country, using the “Mulheres & Bets” study as support. The thing is, some of the numbers are right, but the leap from what the research measured to what the article claims is where it starts drifting.

1. The MP did not ban “online betting” in general. Provisional Measure No. 1.394 bans the operation, offering, intermediation, and advertising of fixed-odds betting lotteries, whether physical or virtual. Other lottery products authorized by law remain outside the measure, including those sold online. In other words, the ban targets one betting format, not all online wagering.
2. “54% of Brazilian women deal with bets” is correct, but incomplete. The study does contain that figure, but it combines different groups. According to the survey, 42% of women have bet online or still do. Of that total, only 20% are current bettors, while 22% have already stopped. Another 12% have never played, but say they are affected by relatives or friends. So when the article says these women “deal with” bets, it folds former bettors into what is presented as a present-tense problem.
3. “62% of Brazilian women support the ban, and half of men do too” is correct, but the article leaves out key context. The numbers check out: 62% among women and 50% among men. But the survey also found that 56% of the overall population supports the ban, that the poll was conducted on July 8 and 9, before the MP was issued, and that 41% of women believe platforms should keep operating without advertising. The study itself did not recommend a total ban either; among its proposals was a gradual restriction of betting formats, starting with online casinos.
4. “The money goes back home: more than half of Brazilian women are in debt” is misleading. The debt figure comes from the study itself and is self-declared: 56% of women say they are in debt. The problem is the chain the article builds from there. Among women who bet, the reasons given for betting include paying basic expenses (16%) and settling debts (11.5%). That points to debt existing before the bet, not debt being resolved by shutting betting down. The study does not show that ending bets makes those debts disappear.

For high-risk operators and PSPs, the useful part here is not the political argument but the mechanics: the source study supports narrower claims than the article makes, and the line between “fixed-odds betting” and “online betting” matters. In regulated markets, that distinction is exactly where product scope, marketing exposure, and enforcement usually get decided.