Key takeaways
- The problem predates 2018. National surveys and clinical research had already identified gambling addiction in Brazil.
- Different figures answer different questions. Publications, participants, care records and prevalence need to be interpreted separately.
- Regulation can require safeguards. Limits, self-exclusion, information and intervention need to work in practice.
- Results need to matter in people’s lives. Less harm, protection for minors and access to treatment are criteria for assessing any policy.
Why discuss Brazil’s betting ban?
Brazil’s betting ban has brought a question back to the centre of the national debate: how can we protect people from gambling-related harm? Gambling addiction can affect finances, relationships and health. Families facing this problem need care and policies that work.
However, gambling addiction was documented in Brazil long before sports betting was legalised. This history shows that the problem occurs across different forms of gambling, whether legal or illegal. I also think it is important to examine how greater awareness and recognition of gambling addiction have shaped public perceptions of the problem.
I support robust regulation that can require companies to protect users, monitor risky behaviour and hold operators accountable. To make that case, I will examine both its tools and its shortcomings.
Brazil’s betting ban: what has changed?
On 25 September 2026, Provisional Measure 1,394 prohibited the operation, offering, intermediation and advertising of fixed-odds betting in Brazil. Its scope includes sports betting and virtual events in online games, including services offered by foreign operators to people in Brazil. Other lottery activities authorised by law were preserved. The provisional measure is in force, but it requires approval from the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate to become law.
To understand this change, we need to distinguish four stages. Passing a law that permits an activity and operating a market subject to authorisation and oversight are different steps.
2018 · Fixed-odds sports betting legalised. Law 13,756 of 12 December created this form of betting. This is the reference point used in the comparison of publications below.
2023 · A more detailed regulatory framework. Law 14,790 of 29 December established rules for fixed-odds betting and the online games covered by the framework.
2025 · Federal authorisations begin. The market began to operate under this regime on 1 January.
2026 · Fixed-odds betting prohibited. September’s provisional measure changed the policy for this form of betting.
This sequence matters when analysing harm. An interview conducted in 2023 took place after legalisation in 2018, but before operations under federal authorisations began in 2025. Its results do not measure the effect of that later regime.
The ban is still recent. Understanding its effects on addiction will require monitoring the population and access to care over time.
Gambling addiction existed before legalisation
Gambling is not new, and neither is addiction.
What is gambling disorder?
Brazil’s Ministry of Health describes gambling disorder as difficulty controlling the urge to gamble despite the harm it causes to finances, family life, work and emotional wellbeing. These consequences make it a health issue.
Placing a bet, showing signs of risk and meeting the criteria for a disorder are different situations. A study may measure any of them. A high percentage of people at risk is therefore not the same as a high percentage with a diagnosed addiction.
What did earlier studies in Brazil find?
A national survey interviewed 3,007 people aged 14 or over between November 2005 and April 2006. Published in 2010, the study reported a lifetime prevalence of 1.0% for pathological gambling with a separate figure of 1.3% for problem gambling, treated as a separate category. The criteria were based on the DSM-IV, the classification manual for mental disorders used at the time.
There is also clinical evidence. A study by Medeiros and colleagues examined 897 patients who sought treatment in São Paulo, recruited between 1996 and 2014. Of these, 63 had a disorder associated with jogo do bicho, an illegal Brazilian lottery. The others had a disorder associated with other forms of gambling. This is a patient sample and does not represent the frequency of the problem across the Brazilian population. Nevertheless, it documents addiction linked to an illegal form of gambling before the 2018 law.
These studies show that gambling addiction predates legalised betting in Brazil. Assessing any subsequent spread or worsening requires comparable measures of exposure, participation, losses and symptoms.
How common are gambling problems in Brazil?
To interpret a national percentage, we need to know the population represented, the period covered by the symptoms and the assessment method. The table compares two surveys from different periods. LENAD III is the third edition of Brazil’s National Survey on Alcohol and Drugs; its gambling findings are presented below.
| Survey | Relevant sample | Result | Measure used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data collected in 2005–2006, published in 2010 | 3,007 people aged 14 or over | 1.0% | Pathological gambling over a lifetime, using criteria based on the DSM-IV. |
| LENAD III: results relating to 2023; report published in 2025 | 4,860 people aged 14 or over in the gambling module | 0.8% | Problem gambling in the previous 12 months, PGSI score ≥ 8. 95% confidence interval: 0.5% to 1.3%. |
The PGSI is a screening tool for the severity of gambling-related problems. Classification as problem gambling indicates a need for attention. It does not amount to an individual clinical diagnosis for every participant in that category.
LENAD III included 16,608 participants overall. For the gambling figures in the report, the relevant sample is 4,860, and the overall survey was conducted in 2022–2024, before the federal regime began in 2025.
Why do 1.0% and 0.8% not demonstrate a decline?
One result considers experiences across a lifetime. The other considers the previous 12 months. The instruments and criteria also changed. It is like comparing photographs with different framing: both show something relevant, but the difference between them does not directly measure a change. Calculating a reduction between these percentages would give unwarranted precision to the comparison.
What do ANBIMA’s surveys of bettors show?
ANBIMA, the Brazilian Financial and Capital Markets Association, offers another perspective. Using an adapted index of susceptibility to addiction, it classified 10% of bettors as problem gamblers in 2024 and 11% in 2025. The difference is one percentage point. In the same findings, the moderate-risk category rose from 26% to 28%.
This signal deserves attention. These percentages refer to people who gamble and were calculated using ANBIMA’s own index, adapted from the PGSI. They are not the prevalence of gambling disorder across Brazil’s population. Comparing the survey rounds also does not separate the effect of regulation from other changes during that period.
These results should also inform the discussion about regulation: which measures could reduce harm among people who gamble?
Does greater visibility mean more addiction?
Greater recognition of the disorder, awareness of services and help-seeking can increase recorded cases. That makes the role of visibility worth investigating. To understand how much it explains, however, we need to distinguish better detection from an actual increase in gambling problems.
Health services may record more contacts because they recognise gambling problems more effectively, reach more people or see more people developing problems. These explanations can overlap. The number of recorded contacts alone does not tell us which factor accounts for the increase.
Scientific studies also need careful interpretation. A publication may analyse older interviews. A sample may include people with and without the disorder. Several papers may use participants from the same dataset.
This attention to context is also part of my work in data analysis.
Five years before and after the 2018 law
To explore the Brazilian evidence, I compiled a catalogue of original research articles with participants in Brazil. Each window covers five years, using first publication as the criterion: 12 December 2013 to 11 December 2018, before the law, and 12 December 2018 to 11 December 2023, after it.
Original articles identified
Number of publications
01020 articles
Sum of the main sample sizes
Sizes reported in the articles
05,00010,000
How to read this. The sum describes the sample sizes reported in the articles. It does not count unique people interviewed in each window or people with addiction. The median is the middle value among the sample sizes.
| Catalogue measure | Five years before | Five years after |
|---|---|---|
| Original articles identified | 16 | 6 |
| Sum of the sample sizes in the main analyses | 4,453 | 9,310 |
| Median sample size | 242.5 | 413 |
In this set, there were fewer articles after the law, but a larger sum of sample sizes. Two papers account for much of the later total: a reanalysis of 3,007 participants and a study of 5,407 lottery players. The first reused interviews from 2005–2006. The second represents lottery customers.
Another example is a paper published in 2019 about 368 patients recruited between 2006 and 2015. Although the paper was published after legalisation, the patients were recruited beforehand.
In this catalogue, the periods differ both in the number of publications and in the sum of sample sizes. These data do not establish that the differences represent changes in addiction or an effect of legalisation. How these differences relate to the visibility and recognition of the problem remains an open question. But the difference in the figures is noticeable.
Which safeguards can regulation require?
Regulation establishes obligations for companies and mechanisms for public authorities to enforce them. Authorisation can help protect users when it involves verifiable obligations and consequences for non-compliance.
Under Brazil’s framework before the ban, betting regulation included the responsible gambling, rights and duties, and advertising guidelines in Ordinance SPA/MF 1,231/2024. This model allowed concrete safeguards to be required.
Limits and self-exclusion
Limit-setting tools allow users to cap their deposits and bets, while account histories make spending more visible. Users need to be able to find these tools and understand what they control.
One concern is that someone may continue gambling on another platform after excluding themselves from one. The centralised self-exclusion system was designed to block access across the operators covered by it. This gives a self-exclusion request wider coverage, although it does not automatically extend to illegal operators.
Providing a tool is only the first step; we also need to assess whether it works.
- Is the exclusion enforced?
- How long does it take?
- Can people access care?
These outcomes say more about protection than the mere availability of a button.
Monitoring, intervention and protecting minors
The rules also provided for monitoring risk patterns and operator responses, alongside prohibiting access by minors. Commercial activity was subject to duties that the authorities could enforce.
Identifying a risk pattern needs to lead to a response that protects the person. Which situations trigger an intervention, who checks that it happens and how does the bettor receive support?
Holding operators accountable for advertising
The regulatory regime allowed companies to be held accountable for abusive or misleading advertising by contracted partners, including influencers. This mechanism extended accountability to the relationship between an operator and those promoting its services.
This is one of regulation’s main benefits: making protection an obligation that can be investigated and enforced. Effectiveness depends on identifying breaches and imposing consequences. Cautionary messages lose their force when commercial practices encourage behaviour that increases harm.
Data for oversight
The regulatory framework also provided authorities with access to operational systems and data. That access allowed them to examine compliance and demand explanations from those responsible.
Obligations need to be audited, and protection indicators should allow the public to assess results while respecting users’ privacy.
Where regulation needs to improve
There is a difference between having tools and being able to use them. In May 2025, Brazil’s Federal Court of Accounts (TCU) identified weaknesses in government coordination, indicators, campaigns and protection for vulnerable people. The audit also indicated that care records might be underreported. This assessment should inform the evaluation of subsequent measures.
The way people access gambling also deserves attention. In a July 2026 campaign, the Ministry of Health highlighted platforms’ round-the-clock availability and features that may encourage longer and repeated use. Ease of access and commercial exposure need to be included when analysing risk factors.
There have also been new care initiatives. In August 2026, the Ministry of Health announced expanded remote care capacity for people with gambling-related problems and their families. Its effects need to be assessed through actual access, continuity of care and treatment outcomes.
Progress requires improvements in business practices, advertising, oversight and health services. The ability to control one’s own behaviour varies, especially when someone is already experiencing loss of control.
Regulation, prohibition or no effective oversight: what changes?
Each policy affects the availability of gambling services in a different way. The comparison below sets out mechanisms and risks to monitor.
| Model | Potential benefit | Limitation or risk to monitor |
|---|---|---|
| Regulation with oversight | Require safeguards, obtain data and hold operators accountable. | The availability and advertising of gambling services need controls. Obligations may not be adequately enforced. |
| Prohibition | Restrict access to legal gambling services and their advertising to reduce exposure. | Monitor whether people continue to gamble, switch to other forms of gambling or turn to illegal operators. |
| Gambling services without effective regulatory oversight | Fewer commercial barriers for providers. | Fewer specific, verifiable protection standards. Voluntary initiatives may be insufficient. |
Prohibition can reduce access to the products it covers. Assessing its results requires observing whether that reduction lasts and how people change their behaviour. Brazil’s history of problems associated with jogo do bicho shows that an illegal form of gambling can continue to cause harm.
The formal relationship between authority, operator and user allows information and safeguards to be required. Their effectiveness depends on oversight and measures appropriate to the products’ risks.
For these reasons, I think the better question is which mechanisms can protect the population and how their results will be measured. Tax revenue, the number of operators and the number of websites blocked can show the size of a market or the action taken by authorities. Assessing the impact on people’s health requires a different set of measures.
How to assess a gambling policy
To assess regulation or prohibition, I propose four questions.
- Has harm decreased? Track loss of control, financial strain and harm to family life and work, using comparable assessment tools.
- Are the most vulnerable people protected? Check minors’ access, exposure to advertising and whether controls work.
- Can people who need help access care? Measure access, waiting times, continuity and treatment outcomes, including family support.
- Are operators monitored and safeguards enforced? Monitor compliance with limits and self-exclusion, responses to breaches and gambling with illegal operators.
These questions require data collected over time. A change in records may reflect fewer problems or changes in identification and help-seeking. Interpretation is stronger when population surveys, health service records and data on the availability of gambling are considered together.
I support regulation that requires limits, monitors operators’ practices and holds them accountable, with measurable improvements in protection for people who gamble.
Investigating the role of visibility may help guide prevention and care. Policy assessment should prioritise the people affected.
Which measures do you consider essential to protect people from gambling-related harm?
Where to seek care. In Brazil, people with gambling-related problems and their families can seek help at a basic health unit (UBS) or a psychosocial care centre (CAPS). The Ministry of Health also provides guidance on accessing remote care through Meu SUS Digital.
Frequently asked questions
Is betting prohibited in Brazil?
Yes. Provisional Measure 1,394/2026 prohibited the operation, offering, intermediation and advertising of fixed-odds betting in Brazil, including sports betting and the online games covered by the measure. Other lottery activities authorised by law were preserved. The measure is in force, but it requires approval from the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate to become law. Read the Chamber of Deputies’ explanation.
Who legalised betting in Brazil?
Law 13,756/2018 created fixed-odds sports betting and was signed by then-president Michel Temer. Law 14,790/2023 set out the regulatory framework in more detail. Federal authorisations began in January 2025.
Did gambling addiction exist before legalisation?
Yes. The 2005–2006 national survey and clinical research conducted before 2018 had already documented pathological gambling and gambling disorder in Brazil.
Did legalisation increase addiction?
The studies presented do not isolate the law’s effect. Answering that question would require comparing equivalent measures over time and considering other changes, such as the availability of online gambling, advertising and access to care. The disorder’s earlier existence also does not demonstrate that its frequency remained unchanged.
What percentage of people in Brazil have gambling addiction?
The LENAD III report gives a PGSI problem gambling figure of 0.8% among people aged 14 or over, referring to the previous 12 months. This is a screening measure covering several forms of gambling, rather than an estimate limited to fixed-odds betting.
Does a betting ban eliminate addiction?
Prohibition restricts access to the forms of gambling covered by the measure. Its effects on harm need to be monitored, taking account of other forms of gambling, illegal operators and access to treatment. People already experiencing problems still need care.
What does responsible gambling mean in practice?
Under the regulatory regime, it involves measures such as limits, exclusion, information and responses to risk patterns. Making these work requires company obligations and oversight, alongside support for people experiencing problems.
Sources and references
- Tavares and colleagues, 2010. Gambling in Brazil: Lifetime prevalences and socio-demographic correlates. National data collection in 2005–2006.
- UNIFESP/INPAD, LENAD III gambling report, 2025. Module methodology and table 6, p. 39.
- ANBIMA, Raio X do Investidor, 2026 edition. Comparison of the adapted index between 2024 and 2025.
- Medeiros and colleagues, DOI registered in 2015, 2016 issue. Clinical research on jogo do bicho and other forms of gambling.
- Carneiro and colleagues, first published in 2019. Reanalysis of the 2005–2006 national dataset.
- Kim and colleagues, first published in 2022. Research involving 5,407 lottery players.
- Cowie and colleagues, 2019. Analysis of patients recruited between 2006 and 2015.
- Law 13,756/2018, Law 14,790/2023 and Provisional Measure 1,394/2026.
- SPA, responsible gambling legislation, protection tools and technical requirements.
- Centralised self-exclusion service.
- Ministry of Finance, announcement on abusive advertising, 2024.
- TCU, assessment of prevention measures, May 2025.
- Ministry of Health, July 2026 campaign and expanded remote care, August 2026.
- Ministry of Health, definition of the disorder and access to care. Guidance on UBS, CAPS and remote care through Meu SUS Digital.
The catalogue contains 22 original articles identified with participants in Brazil, classified by first publication within the two five-year windows described above.
View the complete list of 22 studies
- Gambling onset and progression in a sample of at-risk gamblers from the general population. DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2014.01.035
- Pathological gambling subtypes: A comparison of treatment-seeking and non-treatment-seeking samples from Brazil and Canada. DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.03.006
- Gambling disorder in older adults: A cross-cultural perspective. DOI: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2014.12.021
- Gambling Disorder Due to Brazilian Animal Game (“Jogo do bicho”): Gambling Behavior and Psychopathology. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-015-9527-0
- A naturalistic study of recovering gamblers: What gets better and when they get better. DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2015.03.003
- Mapping brain volumetric abnormalities in never-treated pathological gamblers. DOI: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2015.04.001
- Electronic gaming machines and gambling disorder: A cross-cultural comparison between treatment-seeking subjects from Brazil and the United States. DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2015.09.032
- A cross-cultural study of gambling disorder: a comparison between women from Brazil and the United States. DOI: 10.1590/1516-4446-2015-1718
- Topiramate Combined with Cognitive Restructuring for the Treatment of Gambling Disorder: A Two-Center, Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Trial. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-016-9620-z
- Development and validation of Gambling Follow-up Scale Self Report. DOI: 10.1590/1516-4446-2016-1911
- Assessing the Relationship between Disordered Gamblers with Psychosis and Increased Gambling Severity: The Mediating Role of Impulsivity. DOI: 10.1177/0706743717730825
- Who Are the Anonymous? Involvement and Predictors of Gamblers Anonymous Attendance Among Disordered Gamblers Presenting for Treatment. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-018-9774-y
- Demographic, psychiatric, and personality correlates of adults seeking treatment for disordered gambling with a comorbid binge/purge type eating disorder. DOI: 10.1002/erv.2606
- Comorbid addictive behaviors in disordered gamblers with psychosis. DOI: 10.1590/1516-4446-2017-2307
- The impact of an exercise program as a treatment for gambling disorder: A randomized controlled trial. DOI: 10.1016/j.mhpa.2018.07.003
- Gambling-related cognitive distortions mediate the relationship between depression and disordered gambling severity. DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.11.038
- Demographic and psychiatric correlates of compulsive sexual behaviors in gambling disorder. DOI: 10.1556/2006.8.2019.35
- Gender Differences in Gambling Exposure and At-risk Gambling Behavior. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-019-09884-7
- Gambling disorder and comorbid behavioral addictions: Demographic, clinical, and personality correlates. DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112763
- Uncovering Underlying Processes Before Illusion of Control Begins in Gambling Disorder: A Pilot Study. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-020-09947-0
- Neuroimaging of Dopamine Transporter Density in the Striatum of Disordered Gamblers. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-021-10100-8
- Examining the Gambling-Related Harms, Gambling Disorder, and Player Characteristics of Jogo do Bicho (an Illegal National Lottery) in a Representative Sample of Brazilian Lottery Players. DOI: 10.1007/s11469-022-00865-3
About the author
Karla Ruiz de Matos
Multilingual writer and researcher with a background in psychology, including a completed research project in cognitive psychology. I combine source evaluation, critical appraisal of research and data analysis with more than ten years of editorial experience.