Luiz Felipe Maia says Brazil’s betting ban could face reversal in Congress and the Judiciary

Lawyer Luiz Felipe Maia says the ban announced by Brazil’s president in late September is politically driven and unlikely to survive in the Brazilian Judiciary and Congress. For operators and PSPs, the point is not just politics: it is the return of legal uncertainty to a market that had only recently been formalised under SPA rules.

1. Speaking to iGaming Business during SBC Lisbon, Maia of Maia Yoshiyasu Advogados said the measure interrupts the development of a market that had been legalised, regulated and supervised. He said the Secretariat of Prizes and Bets (SPA) had implemented rules with identification and compliance mechanisms that were working as intended.
2. Maia said companies paid BRL30 million for a licence, which is why he describes the move as having “a clearly electoral character.” His argument is straightforward: operators entered the market under a legal framework, and a sudden ban sends the opposite signal to anyone considering investment in Brazil.
3. He warned that the change could raise perceptions of legal uncertainty among investors and damage trust in Brazil beyond betting. “How will the country guarantee stability, not only for our sector, but for any sector of the economy?” he asked, after noting reactions of disbelief at events in France and Portugal.
4. Maia believes both the National Congress and the Judiciary could reverse the decision. He pointed to the risk of compensation claims from licensed companies, an estimated annual loss of BRL15 billion ($2.99 billion) in revenue, and a shift of bettors into the illegal market.
5. He also challenged the Attorney General’s Office in seeking compensation and reimbursement to the SUS (Brazilian Public Health System). In his view, operators acted within the law, and the figures presented do not show a proven link between betting, indebtedness and damage to public health.

For high-risk payment providers, the practical issue is simple: Brazil is either a regulated betting market with licensing, compliance and collection rules, or it becomes a jurisdiction where policy can swing hard enough to unsettle merchants, acquirers and banks. Maia’s argument is that the market had already moved into the first category, and the ban tries to drag it back out again.