The measure was announced by the Secretary of Prizes and Betting at the Ministry of Finance, Regis Dudena, and is expected to affect more than 20 million people registered as holders of the Bolsa Família program.
According to the government, the measure complies with a Supreme Federal Court (STF) decision, unanimously approved by the justices in November 2024. The interpretation is that it is up to the Executive branch to prevent funds from social assistance programs from being used on so-called bets.
The proposal, however, had already been considered difficult to implement by the Office of the Attorney General (AGU). The agency informed the STF that it would not be feasible to directly block the use of Bolsa Família funds for betting, since the accounts are not exclusive to the benefit and are also used for salaries, transfers, and payments.
Another option discussed was blocking transactions made with the program’s cards, but this measure clashes with the General Data Protection Law (LGPD), as it would require transferring beneficiaries’ personal information to betting platforms.
In November, Justice Luiz Fux ordered the adoption of “immediate special protection measures” to prevent social assistance funds from being used in betting. For attorney Bernardo Cavalcanti Freire, legal advisor to the National Association of Gaming and Lotteries (ANJL), the way the Ministry of Finance decided to apply the STF decision may be harmful.
“The interpretation given by the Secretariat and the Ministry of Finance to the STF ruling is misguided. What the ruling states is that Bolsa Família and BPC funds cannot be used for betting, but it doesn’t say that beneficiaries cannot gamble. This is dangerous because, in the fight against illegal operators, it ends up pushing this entire group of players toward the black market,” he said.
Freire argues that there are more appropriate alternatives, such as creating accounts specifically for benefit payments, preventing transfers to betting companies. He also suggests that beneficiaries who attempt to use their aid for betting could be suspended from the program, a measure he says aligns with the STF’s ruling.
The lawyer also warns of the risk of infringing rights: “Now, prohibiting beneficiaries from betting is highly invasive and even discriminatory. This is unconstitutional. Imagine starting like this, and soon beneficiaries might not even be allowed to have a beer at a bar because they receive Bolsa Família.”
Attorney Raphael Paçó Barbieri, a sports law specialist at CCLA Advogados, also considers the restriction misguided.
“Limiting betting for Bolsa Família beneficiaries is addressing the issue in an oversimplified and even somewhat populist way. The problem is not limited to program users. In fact, there are certainly beneficiaries who may bet but do not do so pathologically. At the same time, we need to look at non-beneficiaries who face gambling problems — they represent the vast majority of addiction cases.”
For Barbieri, the measure could be technically feasible, since platforms can block access by taxpayer ID (CPF), but it would not address the core issue: tackling gambling addiction across the population.
The Brazilian Support Company for Compulsive Gamblers (EBAC), responsible for developing monitoring and support tools for compulsive bettors, also criticized the decision.
According to Cristiano Costa, psychologist and CKO of the EBAC, repression is not an effective solution. “If repression worked against compulsion, we would have already won the war on drugs. How many people die, how many repressive actions take place in this country, and what has been the effectiveness of such repression?” he asks.
Costa advocates for educational and awareness measures. “The Brazilian State cannot take on this paternalistic role, treating people as if they have no personal responsibility. What truly works is awareness,” he concludes.
With experts warning of constitutional risks, increased migration to the illegal market, and the ineffectiveness of the ban, the government’s decision opens a new chapter in the debate on how to balance gambling addiction prevention, social protection, and respect for individual freedoms.
Source: InfoMoney
