Brazil’s Election Is Over. Its Betting Shutdown Is Not.

By Erika Zach

**Partner content**

!EZ Business Development Group logo

47.03%. 51.79%. 28 days.

Three numbers explain why Brazil’s betting story became more consequential after the market was shut down.

Flávio Bolsonaro won 47.03% of valid votes in the first round of Brazil’s presidential election. Three weeks later, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva won the runoff with 51.79%. And, as of 26 October, the initial congressional consideration period for Provisional Measure No. 1,394 ends on 23 November, 28 days away. The measure prohibits fixed-odds betting and online games within its statutory scope; its initial 60-day term can be extended once for another 60 days. 1 2 3

Those numbers do not mean the election was a referendum on betting. There is no verified evidence that the shutdown decided the vote, or that the vote settled the policy.

They do mean something more important for the people and businesses now exposed to Brazil: the shutdown has moved from a sudden operating event to a test of regulatory credibility.

When an authorised betting market is switched off, the questions do not end with the last deposit or the last sponsor logo removed from a shirt. They become more personal and more difficult.

Can customers recover their funds without friction? Can they understand where to take a complaint? What happens to their data? Who remains responsible for prevention, treatment and support for people harmed by gambling? What is measured publicly, and by whom? And how does a country that closed an operating market explain a 2027 tax framework written for that same sector?

Those are the questions Brazil’s betting shutdown must now answer.

The election changed the political context. It did not change the calendar.

Brazil’s first post-shutdown political fact is Lula’s re-election. It gives continuity to the Executive that issued MP 1,394 on 25 September, citing household debt, mental-health concerns, exposure of children and adolescents, and wider social and economic harms connected with betting. 2 4

The second fact is the new political balance taking shape for 2027. The PL elected 121 deputies, making it the largest party in the next Chamber, while the PT-PCdoB-PV federation elected 88. In the Senate, the PL is projected to hold 29 of 81 seats from 2027, the largest caucus. 5 6

This matters. It will shape the debate over whatever framework comes after the current crisis: a permanent ban, a revised regime, a new bill, enforcement rules or a different balance between market access and consumer protection.

But it does not decide the immediate fate of MP 1,394.

This distinction is easy to miss. The next Chamber takes office on 1 February 2027. The current Congress is considering MP 1,394 now; the incoming Congress could become involved if the measure remains under consideration after the transition. The official docket still records the measure as awaiting installation of its joint committee. It enters urgency on 9 November, and the initial deliberation period ends on 23 November. If voting has not concluded in both chambers, the measure’s term is automatically extended once for an equal period. 3 7

So the realistic question is not, “Will the newly elected Congress restore betting?” The new Congress cannot decide this MP before it takes office; a continuation beyond that point would depend on the applicable procedural calendar.

The real question is: what will the current Congress do with a ban that is already being executed — and what standard of proof should Brazil demand before calling the result consumer protection?

Congress can turn the measure into a lasting law, amend it through a conversion text, or allow it to lapse. The route matters because the consequences are not limited to whether a website can take a bet. They reach consumer funds, commercial contracts, data, payments, sport, tax and the country’s credibility with businesses that relied on an authorised regime.

A shutdown ends operations. It does not end obligations.

One month later, the more important question is no longer how quickly sites went dark. It is what can be called regulatory aftercare: the duties that remain after an operating market is closed.

This is where the debate needs to leave slogans behind.

Money: a refund is not complete because a deadline exists

Brazil’s Secretariat of Prizes and Betting (SPA) set the post-closure process for final customer balances, banking information and continuing obligations. Its timetable provided for bank returns from 9 to 14 October and a Caixa Econômica Federal process from 15 October where a normal banking return could not be completed. Operators retain financial and regulatory duties into December. 8

That is an operational framework. It is not, by itself, proof that every customer has been made whole.

A serious public assessment needs more than a calendar. It needs clear information about the routes available to customers, the volume of completed returns, the number and nature of unresolved cases, response times, error correction and accessible complaint channels. That information must protect individual privacy, but it cannot be replaced by a press release saying that the process exists.

The AGU’s action to obtain balance and transaction data from Select Operations — after the company failed to provide information in the prescribed process — illustrates why this is not merely administrative. The court order is company-specific, but the underlying issue is universal: a consumer-protection policy is tested first by whether it can trace and return money when its own transition becomes difficult. 9

People: protection is not a policy unless someone can use it

The government’s concerns about debt, addiction and under-age exposure should be taken seriously. They are not distractions from the regulatory discussion. They are the reason the discussion matters.

But a responsible-gambling policy cannot be evaluated only by the legal status of a product. It needs to be assessed through real access to safeguards: prevention, age protection, affordability interventions where appropriate, self-exclusion, trusted referral pathways, treatment, support for families and channels for consumers who believe they have been treated unfairly.

This is also where the most useful point in the latest SIGA interview lies. Emanuel Macedo de Medeiros, SIGA’s global CEO, argues that gambling harm and debt require coordinated measures, education and oversight rather than prohibition alone. That is a view from a sport-integrity organisation, not evidence that any single outcome will follow the ban. But it raises the right accountability question: what safeguards remain available on the day after a market closes, and which institution owns them? 10

The answer cannot be, “the market was legal before, therefore it was safe.” Nor can it be, “the market is prohibited now, therefore the harm is solved.” Both statements are too easy.

Data and payments: where responsibility becomes visible

Closing an online market creates a data problem as well as a payments problem.

Operators need to preserve records relating to balances, bets, prizes, tax and anti-money-laundering duties. Banks and payment institutions need to distinguish prohibited activity from the flows still needed to return customer money. Consumers need to know what is being retained, why it is retained, for how long, and how they can correct a mistake.

Brazil has already shown how much detail this requires. The MP’s enforcement structure reaches payment providers, platforms and other intermediaries. The central question is not whether those rules exist on paper. It is whether responsibilities, notices, redress and audit trails work when a customer, a payment institution and an operator have conflicting information.

This is the first place where a shutdown can either build trust or destroy it.

Enforcement: count outcomes, not announcements

The Ministry of Justice reported that 13,241 allegedly illegal sites were referred for blocking between 25 September and 6 October, and that the removal of 3,552 pages, profiles, channels, groups and servers was requested. The language matters. “Referred for blocking” is not the same thing as “permanently blocked.” “Removal requested” is not the same thing as “removed.” 11

That distinction is not a semantic trick. It is how good policy is measured.

Brazil does not need to choose a public narrative today about what consumers will do next. Predictions about demand, access and behaviour need evidence. What it does need is a credible public scorecard: actions taken, actions completed, time to resolution, enforcement methodology, complaints received, safeguards accessed and limitations in the data.

The metric is not the number of press releases, blocked domains or new obligations. The metric is whether people are safer and better able to obtain redress.

The 2027 tax question is not a loophole. It is a warning about institutional sequencing.

There is an obvious paradox in Brazil’s current position.

The country has a live prohibition on fixed-odds betting. At the same time, Complementary Law No. 214/2025 establishes a specific IBS/CBS regime for fixed-odds betting, online games classified as prediction contests, sweepstakes, horseracing bets and fantasy sports. 12

Some readers will see that and ask: if the activity is prohibited, why is there a tax regime for it?

The legal answer is straightforward. A tax architecture is not permission to operate. The IBS/CBS rules describe how the activity is treated if it is legally permitted. They do not displace MP 1,394 while the ban is in force.

The strategic answer is more interesting.

Brazil has built a fiscal and data framework for a sector whose operating status has been abruptly reversed. That does not make the policy incoherent in a legal sense. It does mean that regulation, tax and enforcement are moving on different clocks — and that international companies cannot treat “Brazil risk” as one simple issue.

For betting and the other prediction-contest activities covered by the special regime, the tax base is the entity’s own revenue: amounts collected, less prizes paid and mandatory legal allocations. It is not automatically the total value of bets placed. 12

Following a 2026 test phase, regular CBS collection begins in 2027. IBS remains in a transitional 0.1% phase in 2027 and 2028, while the broader transition continues through 2033. That 0.1% is not the total future tax burden on the sector. No credible adviser should publish one all-in rate without reference rates, credits, deductions and the facts of the specific operation. 13

For foreign operators and suppliers, the practical issue is not a tax headline. It is readiness: identity, location, residence, reportable amounts, prizes, statutory allocations and the ability to reconcile them in an auditable way.

This is why taxes are not the footnote to the ban. They are evidence that the question of what Brazil does next is more complex than “closed” or “open.”

Four markets, four warnings — and no universal template

The easiest international story is that governments legalise gambling, tax it and then ban it. It is appealing because it is short. It is also wrong.

The better comparison is not a global cycle. It is four different stress tests.

India shows that scope matters. Its 2025 online-gaming law targets online money games involving a stake and an expectation of winnings, whether they rely on skill, chance or both. It also reaches advertising and payment facilitation. Yet it explicitly preserves esports without wagering and social games without a stake. Its constitutional litigation remains unresolved. 14 15

The lesson for Brazil is not that the two countries are identical. It is that a “ban” is never just a headline. Definitions, exclusions, payments, data and redress determine the real scope of policy.

The United Kingdom shows that pressure can be fiscal and behavioural without becoming prohibition. The UK kept its licensed market open while increasing Remote Gaming Duty from 21% to 40% in April 2026. A 25% rate for most remote betting is due to apply from April 2027; bets on UK horseracing are among the exceptions. Those duties sit alongside a separate statutory gambling levy and stronger consumer-protection requirements. 16 17

The lesson is that taxation, funding for harm prevention, product controls and market access are distinct choices. A country can change the economics of a sector without pretending that all risk has disappeared.

The Netherlands shows why the headline tax rate is not the whole story. Its gambling tax increased from 30.5% to 34.2% in 2025 and to 37.8% in 2026. The Dutch regulator reported that around 91% of players used only legal operators, while legal operators accounted for 53% of gross gambling revenue (stakes minus winnings paid out). It also cautioned that tax changes arrived alongside advertising restrictions, deposit limits and other developments, making single-cause claims unreliable. 18 19

The lesson is measurement. Policymakers must distinguish the share of people reached by a regulated system from the share of economic activity it captures. They also need to resist the temptation to attribute every result to a single tax or rule.

The United States shows why labels matter. Several states have acted against sweepstakes casinos. But sweepstakes models — often involving free-entry requirements and dual-currency mechanics — are not legally identical to licensed iGaming. California and New York distinguish unlicensed sweepstakes activity from lawful regulated gambling. 20 21

The lesson is classification discipline. A serious global market map cannot turn every action against a different product category into a generic “iGaming ban.”

These markets do not give Brazil a script to copy. They give Brazil a set of questions it cannot avoid.

Congress has more to decide than whether betting returns

By 23 November, MP 1,394 reaches the end of its initial consideration period in the current Congress; its term can be extended once for a further 60 days. But the choice is larger than a binary vote on the word “ban.”

It must confront the scope of any permanent framework: which products are covered, which intermediaries carry duties and which rules apply to advertising, payments and sport. It must confront transition: customer funds, commercial disputes, tax obligations, data retention and complaint handling. It must confront protection: whether the next model has usable safeguards for people at risk, not merely a list of obligations. And it must confront accountability: what Brazil will publish to show that the model works.

The election makes those questions politically sharper. Lula has a renewed mandate. The opposition will have greater institutional weight in the 2027 Congress. But the measure is before the existing Congress now, and the quality of the eventual decision will be judged by more than the final vote count.

A country’s regulatory reputation is shaped by its ability to change course transparently, explain its choices, protect people during transition and distinguish a political announcement from an operating solution.

Brazil has already proved that it can close a betting market quickly.

The harder task starts now: proving that it can manage everything a market leaves behind.

Strategic information only; this article is not legal advice or a legal opinion.