Brazil lawyer Luiz Felipe Maia says betting ban erodes investor trust and could be reversed by Congress

Luiz Felipe Maia of the law firm Maia Yoshiyasu Advogados has criticised the betting ban announced by Brazil's president in late September. Speaking to iGaming Business during SBC Lisbon, he described the measure as politically motivated and said it interrupts the maturation of a legalised, regulated and supervised market.

Maia argued that the rules put in place by the Secretariat of Prizes and Bets (SPA), including identification and compliance mechanisms, rank among the best in the world. He said Brazil could have become a global benchmark for regulation and compliance had the market continued on that path. He noted that companies paid BRL30 million each for a licence, and that people he met at events in France and Portugal reacted with disbelief. In his view, the ban damages perceptions of legal certainty and raises the question of how the country would guarantee stability for any sector of its economy.

He linked the decision to the election calendar, pointing to the use of a provisional measure issued without a fiscal impact study. He also said the president's remarks about suicides tied to debt were not backed by an examination of whether gambling was the actual cause. Maia compared the case with other industries, such as mining and beverages, which are not shut down despite harms associated with them.

On the outlook, Maia described himself as realistic rather than optimistic. He said operators have legal arguments and actions before the Judiciary, and that he expects the National Congress to reject the provisional measure. He cited the risk of significant compensation claims against the state if contracts are not honoured, an estimated BRL15 billion ($2.99 billion) in forgone annual revenue, and the migration of bettors, which he put at 30 million, to the illegal market and organised crime.

Maia also challenged the action by the Attorney General's Office, which is seeking BRL1 billion in compensation for collective moral damages and BRL2.6 billion in reimbursement to the Brazilian Public Health System (SUS). He called the timing strange, on the eve of the election, and argued that operators acted within the law and that the figures presented do not demonstrate a proven link between betting, indebtedness and public health damage.