ANJL warns Brazil against tightening rules on licensed online betting, says it could boost illegal gambling and cut tax intake

Brazil’s National Association of Games and Lotteries says “policy backtracking” or extra restrictions on legal platforms would push players to unregulated sites, weaken consumer safeguards like age checks and responsible-gaming tools, and reduce public revenue at a time when authorities are still battling thousands of illegal domains.

Brazil’s National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) has publicly raised concerns about signals that the federal government could move toward tighter restrictions on licensed online betting platforms. In a note circulated to the press, the trade group argued that additional limits on the legal market would be counterproductive, driving consumers to illegal operators and undermining the very protections regulators are trying to strengthen.

ANJL’s core warning is that illegal platforms operate outside Brazil’s compliance perimeter: no reliable age-gating, fewer responsible gambling controls, weaker dispute resolution, and a higher risk of fraud or non-payment. The association also claims the “parallel market” still represents a large slice of activity and points to estimates that illegal platforms account for around half of bets in Brazil—meaning any regulatory squeeze on licensed brands could shift volume back to the grey/black market rather than eliminating demand.

The timing matters because Brazil is already spending enforcement capacity to contain illegal supply. The federal betting secretariat has reported that more than 25,000 illegal betting sites were blocked after a year of the regulated market, while government channels have also promoted a centralized self-exclusion tool intended to help users block themselves from authorized platforms. In ANJL’s view, that policy direction (blocking illegal sites + building safer-play tools) is undermined if legal operators face new restrictions that make illegal alternatives more attractive.

ANJL’s position is that the next step should be stronger targeting of illegal operators—payments, advertising distribution, and domain infrastructure—rather than imposing broad limits on compliant companies that have already paid licensing/authorization fees and built compliance systems. The association says it is ready to provide technical input to improve guidelines without shrinking the regulated channel.

If the debate turns into concrete proposals, the practical question for the market will be scope: whether policymakers focus narrowly on specific high-risk products and advertising practices, or pursue measures that materially reduce the competitiveness of legal platforms—potentially handing growth back to operators that sit beyond Brazil’s oversight.