IBJR criticizes Brazil’s AGU over R$ 1 billion lawsuit against betting operators, citing legal uncertainty

The Brazilian Institute of Responsible Gaming (IBJR) says the federal government’s R$ 1 billion action against 17 betting operators “lacks essential elements” and adds to legal uncertainty in the sector. For high-risk payments providers, the point is straightforward: when a jurisdiction starts litigating against a regulated vertical it has already licensed, everyone downstream has to reassess exposure.

1. The lawsuit was filed on Monday (28/9) by the Advocacia-Geral da União (AGU) in the Federal Court of Pernambuco, seeking R$ 1 billion in damages from 17 betting companies. IBJR, which represents electronic betting platforms in Brazil, said in a statement published on Thursday (1/10) that the claim “lacks essential elements.”
2. According to IBJR, a claim of this size would require proof of damage, proof of causation between that damage and the companies’ activity, and an individual allocation of responsibility. The institute says those elements were not demonstrated by the AGU in the filing.
3. IBJR also objected to what it described as repeated references to the tobacco industry in the court papers, noting that the court itself ordered corrections. Its view is that a “billions” claim against a regulated sector cannot be built on arguments borrowed from a completely different industry, especially without accounting for the legal and regulatory specifics of fixed-odds betting.
4. The institute framed the case as an “institutional contradiction”: the Union is seeking to hold companies accountable for an activity that it says is legal, authorized, and regulated by the federal government itself. IBJR pointed to Law No. 14.790/2023 and the rules issued by the Secretariat of Prizes and Betting under the Ministry of Finance, and argued that any liability should be assessed individually, not through a blanket accusation against the regulated sector.
5. IBJR also said the constitutional limits of Brazil’s betting model are already being debated in the Supreme Federal Court, with Justice Luiz Fux serving as rapporteur in related actions. In its view, a broad civil action in lower court with a billion-real claim risks cutting across that debate and widening legal uncertainty for the regulated market.