Anyone following the betting market in Brazil knows the topic has never been so widely debated. The enactment of Law No. 14,790/2023, the so-called “Bets Law”, was a landmark: it ended years of regulatory limbo and opened the door for a billion-dollar industry to step out of the shadows.
Of course, the law wasn’t born perfect—nor could it have been—but it undeniably brought progress. Since then, the legal chessboard has been in constant motion: the Supreme Federal Court (STF) on one side, states on the other, and the market testing limits. Much like in a chess match, each move reveals strengths, mistakes, and, above all, what still needs adjustment for the game to proceed fairly and competitively.
Why the law was necessary
Until recently, Brazil’s betting sector was a wide-open field: companies earning big, consumers unprotected, and the country collecting almost nothing in taxes. Law 14,790 changed that scenario by setting minimum rules, providing legal certainty, and granting the State its rightful share in a game that was already happening on a massive scale.
It may not be a dream law, but having an imperfect regulatory framework is far better than living in a legal vacuum. That point is non-negotiable.
The legal chessboard in motion
Some provisions of the law were problematic from the start and needed correction. Fortunately, the STF—and even the market itself—have been carrying out these adjustments.
1. Federal leadership, state participation
The Constitution is clear: it is up to the Union to legislate on lotteries (Art. 22, XX). The STF reaffirmed this but ensured that states cannot be stifled in their revenue collection. This balance is crucial to maintain regulatory unity without destroying local autonomy.
2. The mistake of geographic restrictions
One of the biggest missteps was limiting a company to operating in just one state. In today’s digital environment, that was nearly nonsensical. Luckily, the STF struck down this barrier, opening the way for multi-state operations. Greater competition means better service and better consumer protection.
3. Advertising without naïve borders
Restricting advertising to a single state’s territory was another impractical limitation. Imagine a club sponsored by a betting operator playing in a continental tournament with a “blank” jersey because the brand could not be displayed outside its state.
The Court has already resolved this: advertising can cross borders, provided there is no improper targeting. The focus now is responsibility. And let’s be honest—with today’s geolocation tools, access control is a simple matter.
4. State consortia: the missing piece
Here lies a sticking point: the prohibition on states forming consortia to create joint lotteries. Global history shows the opposite—some of the biggest lotteries emerged precisely from the pooling of forces. More states = greater scale = bigger prizes.
Why the Brazilian block? Fear of undermining Caixa Econômica Federal’s monopoly. The problem is that, behind the scenes, Caixa has already been approaching some states. The lingering question: what does it have to offer? More of the same? More agencies selling outdated products?
The message is clear: states must use the powers the law grants them. Creating their own lotteries with modern products and competitive prizes is a duty, not an option. Anyone who simply replicates the traditional model will miss the chance to turn revenues into meaningful public policies.
5. The “jabuticaba” (Brazilian peculiarity) of municipalities
Here comes another distortion: the attempt to push municipal lotteries. Let’s be clear—nowhere in the world is there evidence that municipalities have the competence to regulate or operate betting.
This push is being championed by lawyers left out of advising major operators who are now seeking new niches. In that eagerness, they overlook the damage they could cause. Fragmenting regulation across thousands of small municipalities would be chaos for oversight, credibility, and the sector’s sustainability.
The game is not over
Law 14,790 was just the opening move of a long match. It delivered undeniable progress but also left important challenges unresolved.
The future of this market depends on:
- The Union regulating broadly, while states develop their own operations.
- Multi-state operations free of artificial restrictions.
- Responsible advertising without unrealistic borders.
- States doing their homework—creating their own lotteries instead of hiding behind Caixa.
- And, urgently, abandoning the illusion of municipal lotteries.
Brazil has the chance to build a competitive, modern, and fair betting market. To achieve this, it must have the courage to correct distortions, dismantle privileges, and make the right move at the right time. Bit by bit, poorly placed pieces are leaving the board. Let’s hope the next move truly benefits both the public and the market.
Daniel Romanowski
President of Lottopar
