Industry Seeks Answers as Brazil Seals Documents Behind Betting Ban for Five Years

BRASÍLIA Access to the foundational documents and internal legal opinions used to justify Brazil's sudden prohibition of licensed sports betting and iGaming has been officially classified as confidential for five years. Enacted under Provisional Measure (MP) 1.394, the blanket secrecy agreement signed by the Ministry of Justice and Public Security’s (MJSP) Secretary for Digital Rights just a day before President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva signed the decree has drawn widespread condemnation from domestic operators, international gaming associations, and constitutional legal scholars.

The measure leaves the regulated market facing severe operational disruption and legal uncertainty. The initial 60-day Congressional review period for MP 1.394 is set to conclude on November 23, 2026, with a potential 60-day extension depending on legislative action.

The restricted classification, signed on September 24 by Secretary Victor Oliveira Fernandes, covers every document utilized to draft the measure. The ministry invoked public safety and monetary stability provisions under Brazil's Access to Information Law (LAI) to justify the hold. Simultaneously, the presidency’s Chief of Staff’s Office refused separate requests for legal opinions behind the ban, citing attorney-client privilege.

Official responses from other government entities raise significant questions regarding the technical data behind the ban. In a legal memorandum filed with the Supreme Federal Court (STF) by industry associations ABRAJOGO, Sindibets SP, and AMIG, a Ministry of Finance response to a freedom of information request confirmed that no preliminary economic, fiscal, or regulatory impact studies were conducted prior to issuing the measure. The Ministry of Sport similarly confirmed it was not consulted regarding sports integrity impacts, and licensed payment institutions operating under Central Bank supervision reported receiving no requests for betting flow data.

Industry attorneys suggest the pre-emptive classification was designed to prevent operators from leveraging internal government studies as evidence in ongoing lawsuits and compensation claims. Licensed operators, who paid R$30m each for five-year operating licenses, are actively challenging the non-refundable nature of the licenses at the STF, arguing that early termination without compensation constitutes an illegal retention of funds.

As constitutional challenges proceed under STF Rapporteur Justice Luiz Fux, legal scholars note that the court holds the authority to order the government to produce the full administrative record. The judicial outcome will determine whether Brazil's administration must formally prove the necessity of an outright ban or face substantial financial liability from affected international and domestic market participants.