The Brazilian Institute of Responsible Gaming (IBJR) considers that the lawsuit filed by the Office of the Attorney General of the Union (AGU) against certain authorized fixed-odds betting operators lacks essential elements to support a claim for R$1 billion. A claim of this magnitude requires evidence of the alleged harm, a demonstration of the causal link between such harm and the companies’ activities, and the individualization of responsibilities — elements that, to date, have not been demonstrated.
It is also a matter of concern that a lawsuit of such significance contains several references to the tobacco industry, to the extent that the courts themselves ordered corrections to the filing. In the IBJR’s view, this demonstrates that a billion-real claim against a regulated sector cannot be constructed by adapting arguments developed for a completely different industry, without taking into account the specific legal and regulatory characteristics of the fixed-odds betting market.
There is also an institutional contradiction that cannot be ignored. The Federal Government is seeking to hold companies accountable for conducting a legal activity that is authorized and regulated by the Federal Government itself. Operators operate under Law No. 14,790/2023 and regulations issued by the Secretariat of Prizes and Betting of the Ministry of Finance. Any potential liability must be assessed on an individual basis, rather than through a generic allegation against the regulated sector.
The IBJR also emphasizes that the constitutionality and limits of the regulatory framework for betting are already under review by the Federal Supreme Court and in related proceedings, under the rapporteurship of Justice Luiz Fux. In this context, a generic civil action filed before a lower court, accompanied by a billion-real claim, could indirectly preempt a matter currently before the Supreme Court, increasing legal uncertainty for the regulated market.
The Institute reaffirms its respect for the Judiciary and its confidence in the technical handling of constitutional proceedings. It also reiterates its commitment to Responsible Gaming, bettor protection, and market integrity. The IBJR supports evidence-based public health policies, rather than arguments presented in legal proceedings without empirical support.