i Gaming Brazil
The wave of restrictions imposed by municipal governments on sports betting advertising has sparked an intense dispute over which level of government holds the constitutional authority to decide on the matter.
While federal government rules have just come into effect, state capitals such as Rio de Janeiro (RJ), Belo Horizonte (MG), Rio Branco (AC), and Teresina (PI) have already approved their own regulations, focusing on bans in public spaces and at public events.
In São Paulo (SP), a similar bill is making its way through the legislative process, with a promise from City Hall that the measure will be signed into law “as soon as it is approved by the City Council.”
Who has the legal authority to ban betting advertisements in the country?
The epicenter of this legal battle is in Rio Grande do Sul.
In April, the state enacted a law imposing restrictions on companies in the sector.
However, the National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) has petitioned the Supreme Federal Court (STF), stating that it is monitoring the situation with concern.
The Office of the Attorney General of the Union (AGU) endorsed the suspension of the Rio Grande do Sul regulation, arguing primarily that the Constitution grants the power to legislate on commercial advertising and lotteries solely to the Union.
Furthermore, on the other side of the dispute, the Attorney General’s Office of the State of Rio Grande do Sul stated that it defends the full constitutionality of its law and that the state government is “in the process of issuing the regulation that will detail the procedures for enforcement and application of the rules already set forth in the legal text.”
Analyzing the situation, Pedro Serrano, a lawyer specializing in constitutional law, clarified the separation of powers.
State jurisdiction applies when there is an interest that belongs neither to the Union nor to the municipality; this is what we call residual jurisdiction.
In Brazil, betting and advertisements for betting operators are, in principle, a matter for the federal government, not for states or municipalities. This is because it is a national issue rather than merely a regional one, making the federal government’s interest very evident.
The impact of insecurity and the advertising market’s perspective
Serrano emphasized that exceptions exist depending on the scope of the law.
“If local laws apply exclusively to municipal property—for example, by prohibiting betting advertisements on municipal assets.”
“In that case, there could be a blanket ban. What might lead the Supreme Court to deem these laws unconstitutional is the fact that they address advertising on social media and in general media outlets,” he explained.
This fragmentation of regulations directly affects the communication chain.
The Brazilian Association of Advertising Agencies (ABAP) argued that the impact of the situation “goes far beyond betting companies.”
“What concerns ABAP is not the regulation of betting advertising itself, but rather doing so through parallel and disjointed channels—at a time when the federal framework is still being fine-tuned and has yet to yield effects that need to be observed before being superseded.”
