Betting Advertisements: A Controversial Battleground in Brazil’s Regulated Market
Betting advertisements remain a contentious issue within Brazil’s regulated market, particularly amid recent legal challenges faced by several notable operators in Rio de Janeiro.
The National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) has publicly criticized the Rio de Janeiro Public Defender’s Office (DPRJ), which has taken legal action against 43 online betting platforms, alleging that their advertisements are misleading to consumers. This lawsuit aims to hold these operators accountable for failing to adequately inform bettors about the risks associated with gambling, a claim that has sparked heated debate.
On July 20, the DPRJ made headlines by filing a Public Civil Action (ACP), seeking BRL 300 million (approximately $53.9 million) in damages from the accused operators. The action highlights concerns that the promotional content does not provide essential warnings about potential gambling pitfalls.
The DPRJ has tapped into its Consumer Defence Centre to advocate for improved transparency and consumer protection within the betting landscape, voicing urgent calls for clearer communication of the risks involved in gambling.
In response, the ANJL has defended its members vigorously, calling the DPRJ’s accusations unfounded. The association raised alarms that the lawsuit could inadvertently confuse consumers about the legitimacy of licenced versus illicit operators, complicating the regulatory environment further.
It’s worth noting that a working group was established in 2023 by the National Advertising Self-Regulation Council (Conar), focusing on establishing clear ethical guidelines for gambling advertisements in Brazil. ANJL President Plínio Lemos Jorge emphasized that regulated betting houses are already adhering to responsible and transparent advertising practices, indicating that the DPRJ’s claims are misdirected.
Dissecting the DPRJ’s Lawsuit
Among the defendants in the lawsuit are some of Brazil’s most recognized betting operators, including Betano, Bet365, and Esportes da Sorte. The proposed BRL 300 million in damages represents just a fraction—1%—of the estimated BRL 30 billion in monthly betting activity in Brazil, based on data from the Central Bank. Should the DPRJ win the case, the funds are earmarked for initiatives to combat gambling addiction.
A significant aspect of the DPRJ’s legal strategy includes a request to restrict the use of the phrase “Play responsibly” in advertising, labeling it too vague to effect real change. Instead, the office advocates for more explicit warnings regarding the dangers inherent in gambling.
Public Defender General Paulo Vinícus Cozzolino Abrahão has voiced concern about the public perception of gambling as a lucrative investment opportunity, describing the notion as misguided. He likens the need for heightened awareness about gambling to the historical movement against smoking in the 1990s, emphasizing the urgency for public education on these risks.
Despite these claims, the ANJL contests the assertion that operators are promoting gambling irresponsibly, pushing back against the narrative that equates responsible gaming warnings with mere window dressing.
The Ongoing Debate Surrounding Betting Advertisements
Betting advertisements are under increasing scrutiny in Brazil. In fact, recent legislative developments have attempted to impose stricter regulations on such promotions. In May, the Senate approved new restrictions, including a ban on advertising during live sports broadcasts and the prohibition of celebrity endorsements.
Additional limitations dictate that ads can only appear on television, social media, and streaming platforms between the hours of 7:30 PM and midnight. Radio advertisements are restricted to specific morning and evening slots, and print advertisements are banned altogether.
Now, the bill awaits review by the Chamber of Deputies, with industry stakeholders warning that excessive advertising restrictions may unintentionally bolster the black market for gambling.
Udo Seckelmann, a legal expert at Bichara e Motta Advogados, cautioned that the pursuit of stringent ad regulations “lacks evidence-based support.” He argued that while intentions may be well-meaning, the potential real-world consequences need to be considered, and research suggests that informed and responsible regulation often yields better results than outright prohibition.
As the debate over gambling advertisements continues to unfold, it remains clear that both the regulatory landscape and consumer protections must evolve in tandem to ensure an effective and responsible betting environment in Brazil.