Interviews
Exclusive Safer Gambling/Harm Prevention Roundtable
The latest EGBA reports have indicated that not only are members sending more safer gambling messages than ever before, but also that these messages are becoming increasingly personalised. How important do you think it is for gambling companies to keep looking at the topic of safer gambling/harm prevention and finding more tailored ways to reach their at-risk customers?
Oliver Niner (ON): PandaScore is on the supplier side of the industry, but responsible gambling is very important to the business and everyone who works for it. We go to great lengths to ensure that the data that we provide to our operator partners allows them to do the best job they can of looking after their players, that their activity can be monitored and that any potential problem gambling issues can be picked up early. It’s not our responsibility to protect players, but we do everything we can to facilitate safe gaming. This includes ensuring that all participants in the esports matches that we provide data and odds for are over the age of 18 and we also have a blacklist of matches and tournaments where the likelihood of collusion and other issues are high. This means that we only provide data and odds for matches that are fair and where all players are over the age of 18. Personalisation is a must for operators across all areas of their business, and responsible gambling is no different. If you really want to engage a customer, you need to connect with them on a personal level.
Alex Iaroshenko (AI): Having a solid policy in place for safer gambling/harm prevention and paying close attention to related technology such as Fraud Detection Systems (FDS) are two of the most important things an iGaming business needs to do. When they can prove to the industry that they’re focused on these matters and are committed to developing more sophisticated ways of dealing with at-risk players, their business obviously becomes a lot more trustworthy and they’re likely to attract greater cooperation from companies on the B2B side in future. From the B2C side, speaking openly about safer gambling and how you intend to protect your players also improves your standing in the eyes of bettors as it reassures them they’re playing in an environment where their best interests are being looked after.
What is it about personalised messaging that you think makes it more impactful with customers? Does following betting behaviour closely and responding to events in real time potentially enable gambling operators to intervene at the exact moment where customers are most at risk?
ON: So this isn’t really in PandaScore’s wheelhouse but I am a firm believer that personalised messaging and closely monitoring betting behaviour are highly effective when it comes to improving responsible gambling. There are powerful technologies in the market that allow for real-time monitoring of player behaviour, with the first sign of problem play flagged, often automatically. So long as the operator has the right processes in place, individual players can then be engaged and supported before it becomes a major issue for them. As a provider, we do everything we can to support our operator partners in their efforts to protect players – as mentioned above, this includes providing them with the best data only from tournaments and matches where players are over the age of 18. Ultimately, responsible gambling requires commitment from all stakeholders and as a supplier of data and odds, we are doing everything we can to contribute to this effort.
AI: Absolutely. By closely following a customer’s betting activity and responding to certain “red flag” behaviours in real time, gambling operators can potentially intervene at the precise moment where their messaging will be at its most impactful. This is often referred to as responsible gambling or harm minimisation and has become a key part of overall safer gambling strategy, with many gambling regulatory authorities now requiring operators to issue these personalised interventions and use other RG measures to protect vulnerable customers. Generally speaking, a personalised message is always going to be more likely to get a customer’s attention than a generic one, and while this can be beneficial for safer gambling purposes, operators should ensure these tailored communications are used responsibly elsewhere and aren’t encouraging users to engage in harmful gambling behaviour.
In light of the above, how big of a role do you think AI has to play in improving the protection that’s offered to at-risk players? Presumably if gambling operators are able to monitor betting activity and issue appropriate safter gambling messaging automatically, it will eliminate human error and ensure that no players fall through the cracks when they’re at their most vulnerable?
ON: PandaScore is a big proponent of AI – so long as it is used in the right way – and we have embraced this technology and used it extensively when building our product offering. AI can absolutely be used to improve responsible gambling, especially when it comes to monitoring player behaviour and patterns to identify potentially at-risk players early. That said, AI needs to be combined with human oversight in order for it to be deployed responsibly and for operators to be able to leverage the full potential of the technology, especially when it comes to safe gaming. By combining humans and AI, the technology can be further developed and refined specifically for the purpose of safe gaming so that it keeps getting better at identifying potentially at-risk players and then delivering the right messaging at the right time.
AI: While AI can significantly enhance responsible gambling measures, it’s important to note that it should always be used in conjunction with human oversight and viewed through a lens that also takes ethical considerations into account. At this precise moment in time, human expertise remains crucial in interpreting AI-generated insights and using them to make decisions that balance player protection with a positive user experience. All AI systems must therefore be designed with transparency, fairness and privacy in mind to ensure they are used responsibly and ethically. Essentially, a good AI system should act as a reliable co-pilot that can track, inform and make recommendations when there’s a safer gambling issue, but it’s down to staff to interpret this data and decide the best course of action.
In terms of safer gambling, one of the most encouraging signs for the industry is that in addition to operators, the players themselves are also becoming more engaged with responsible gambling, with 30% voluntarily using safety tools like time outs, bet limits and self-exclusion. Do you think this shows operators are doing a good job in promoting these tools and making them easy to use?
ON: I think the majority of players are self-aware and understand the need to stay in control of their play. This is certainly the case with esports players and bettors, and if this continues to filter down into the wider gambling world then that’s absolutely a good thing. Of course, there is always more that can be done, and operators should be more proactive when it comes to responsible gambling. The market leaders are doing well in this regard and are setting a solid standard for others to follow. There is a lot that can be learned from the esports space, too. It is very much community-driven with players connecting via platforms such as Discord where they openly talk about their gaming activity in what they consider to be a safe environment. This will hopefully trickle down into traditional sports betting, providing operators with an opportunity to better engage players in an authentic way and share messages around safe gaming rather than pushing them at players, which is the case now.
AI: Ultimately, responsible gambling is a shared responsibility between operators and players. The former have an important role to play in providing necessary tools and resources to their customers, but the latter must then take the responsibility to use them wisely and seek help when they feel it’s necessary. As such, a collaborative process between the industry and its customers is key to fostering a safer and more responsible gambling environment; and the stats we’re seeing indicate this approach is starting to take root. So yes, operators should be given credit for promoting these tools and making them easy to use, but we must also praise customers for being responsible and taking control of their situations.
One of the many services available at BETBAZAR is KYC, which obviously assists clients in ensuring their depositors are of age and able to gamble responsibly. How important are services like KYC in helping operators quickly/reliably verify their customers so they can better protect them?
AI: KYC services are essential tools for operators in the gambling industry that allow them to verify the identity of their customers, prevent fraud, comply with regulations and promote responsible gambling. By implementing KYC processes, operators can better protect their customers, uphold the integrity of their platform and – in some cases – even prevent harmful gambling behaviour before it happens. The key to a good KYC process is having a system in place that enables the operator to get all of the data that they need approved and verified quickly, while not making things complicated for the user and discouraging them from completing their sign-up process. The tools that we provide at BETBAZAR certainly do just that, ensuring a seamless process for both the client and their customers
While safer gambling/harm prevention measures are obviously very important, do you think there needs to be a balance struck between protecting players and ensuring they’re not too restricted? It seems that if you impose too many checks, verification processes or controls on players gambling, you run the risk of driving them directly to unsafe sites with fewer regulations…
ON: There does need to be a balance. One way this can be achieved is to make improvements to the user experience and incorporate responsible gambling tools into that. The front-end experience has changed very little over the past five years or more, and there is space for operators and suppliers to pioneer new approaches here. Onboarding needs to be fast and frictionless, but with smart design, this can be achieved while bringing responsible gambling to the forefront. The underlying technology required for this is readily available, but most operators have focused their use of this on ensuring payments are rapid and bonuses personalised, rather than how to better integrate safe gaming into the overall player experience. A change in tack here could have a profound impact on safe gaming.
AI: Having overly stringent safer gambling/harm prevention measures can indeed drive players to unregulated or unsafe gambling sites, which can pose an even greater risk to their well-being than if the site they originally wanted to play at was a little more relaxed in the first place. As such, both regulators and operators must work together to ensure a suitable balance is struck between protecting players and maintaining a positive user experience. As mentioned above, KYC checks are essential but should be designed to be as seamless and non-intrusive as possible. Then, rather than solely relying on restrictions, operators should invest in educating players about responsible gambling practices and empower them to make their own decisions. To complement this, operators may also consider using a tiered system where customers choose the level of protection that best suits them.
Finally, is there anything that you think the online gambling industry in general should be doing differently when it comes to promoting safer gambling and harm prevention? Should there be a more open dialogue between regulators and operators when it comes to deciding policy/strategy?
ON: There should always be an open dialogue between regulators, operators and other stakeholders. Collaboration is key to progress, and this must come from the top down. Operators know they must protect players and are doing this, but there is always room for improvement. Esports is all about community and I think the wider gambling industry would do well to look to come up with community-led initiatives that bring players together and allow them to engage with them in a more authentic environment. They should also look to redeploy their technical capabilities into responsible gambling – they can profile players and segment them on a granular level for the purpose of marketing and bonusing, but are they really using these capabilities to be more benevolent and take player protection to the next level?
AI: As we’ve outlined above, there are several areas in which the online gambling industry could improve its approach to promoting safer gambling and harm prevention. These include increased transparency, enhanced education for players, greater collaboration with regulators – including research and data sharing – technological innovation and having regular audits and assessments of safer gambling practices to establish what’s working and what isn’t. At the end of the day, promoting safer gambling is a shared responsibility between operators, regulators and players, so by fostering an open dialogue, sharing data and insights and working together, the industry can create a safer, more responsible gambling environment that protects players’ well-being while preserving the integrity of the industry
Filipe Senna, sócio da Jantalia Advogados e secretário-geral da Comissão de Direito dos Jogos e Apostas da OAB/DF, analisa a recente decisão no Brasil de bloquear plataformas de mercado preditivo como Kalshi e Polymarket.
Ele argumenta que a medida reflete um passo regulatório necessário para sanar ambiguidades legais em um segmento que se situa entre ferramentas informativas, sistemas de apostas e derivativos financeiros, reforçando a necessidade de coerência e tratamento igualitário nos mercados regulamentados em constante evolução do Brasil.
Por Filipe Senna
O bloqueio de plataformas de mercado preditivo como Kalshi e Polymarket no Brasil, a partir de medida do Conselho Monetário Nacional (CMN) e de orientação da Secretaria de Prêmios e Apostas (SPA), é juridicamente consistente e segue a mesma lógica já aplicada a operadores de apostas ilegais.
A decisão não nasce de um impulso restritivo, mas da necessidade de preservar a coerência de um mercado que passou a ser regulado de forma mais clara nos últimos anos.
Embora essas plataformas se apresentem como instrumentos de leitura da opinião pública, sua atuação prática vai além do caráter informacional.
Parte relevante dos produtos ofertados se aproxima, e em alguns casos se equipara, às apostas de quota fixa reguladas pela Lei nº 14.790/2023. Eventos esportivos disponibilizados nesses ambientes replicam dinâmicas semelhantes às chamadas bolsas de apostas, o que torna difícil sustentar uma distinção material entre um modelo e outro.
Há ainda um segundo ponto sensível. Algumas dessas plataformas oferecem instrumentos que se assemelham a derivativos financeiros, com ativos vinculados a preços de mercado.
Por operarem fora do país, não se submetem às exigências da Comissão de Valores Mobiliários. O resultado é uma assimetria regulatória relevante, na qual empresas estrangeiras competem em condições mais favoráveis do que operadores que seguem as regras brasileiras.
Nesse cenário, o bloqueio cumpre uma função de proteção institucional, ele resguarda tanto o mercado de apostas quanto o mercado financeiro de distorções concorrenciais.
Empresas que atuam no Brasil com autorização precisam cumprir obrigações rigorosas, que incluem recolhimento de tributos, políticas de prevenção à lavagem de dinheiro e mecanismos de proteção de dados.
Permitir que outras operem à margem dessas exigências compromete a isonomia do sistema.
A medida também tem caráter indutor. Caso essas plataformas desejem atuar no país, deverão se adequar ao enquadramento jurídico correspondente ao tipo de produto que oferecem.
Se a atividade se assemelha a apostas, deve seguir a regulação das bets. Se se aproxima de instrumentos financeiros, deve observar as regras aplicáveis a esse mercado. Trata-se de um princípio básico de organização econômica em setores regulados.
Não há violação à livre iniciativa. No ordenamento brasileiro, a liberdade econômica convive com a necessidade de cumprimento de regras, especialmente em atividades que envolvem risco financeiro e impacto social.
A atuação estatal, nesse contexto, busca garantir que a concorrência ocorra em bases legítimas, sem favorecimento indevido a quem opera fora da jurisdição nacional.
Existe, de fato, um componente informacional nesses ambientes. Mercados preditivos podem oferecer sinais úteis sobre expectativas coletivas.
O problema surge quando esse elemento convive com estruturas que reproduzem a lógica de apostas ou de produtos financeiros de alto risco.
Nesses casos, o usuário deixa de interagir apenas com informação e passa a assumir riscos típicos de jogos de azar ou de operações especulativas.
Um exemplo ajuda a ilustrar essa fronteira. Há mercados em que o participante precisa prever, em intervalos de 5 (cinco) minutos, a variação de ativos como o Bitcoin.
A dinâmica, embora apresentada como preditiva, se aproxima mais de jogos de azar ou de mecanismos semelhantes às antigas opções binárias, cuja natureza sempre esteve associada ao risco elevado e à ausência de proteção adequada ao usuário.
Diante dessa zona cinzenta, a postura adotada pelo regulador é prudente. Interromper a atividade permite aprofundar o debate, definir critérios mais claros e evitar que lacunas normativas sejam exploradas.
Só a partir dessa delimitação será possível discutir, com segurança jurídica, eventual regulamentação futura para esse tipo de plataforma.
O objetivo final é preservar um ambiente econômico equilibrado, em que inovação e livre iniciativa possam coexistir com regras claras. Sem isso, o risco não é apenas jurídico, mas também de credibilidade de todo o sistema.
Filipe Senna
Sócio do Jantalia Advogados e Secretário-Geral da Comissão de Direito dos Jogos e Apostas da OAB/DF. Autor do livro ‘A Regulação da Sorte na Internet’
The post A necessária contenção dos mercados preditivos no Brasil appeared first on Americas iGaming & Sports Betting News.
Filipe Senna, Partner at Jantalia Advogados and Secretary-General of the Gaming and Betting Law Commission of the OAB/DF, analyzes the recent decision in Brazil to block predictive market platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket.
He argues that the measure reflects a necessary regulatory step to address legal ambiguities in a segment that sits between informational tools, betting systems, and financial derivatives, reinforcing the need for coherence and equal treatment within Brazil’s evolving regulated markets.
By Filipe Senna
The blocking of predictive market platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket in Brazil, following a measure by the National Monetary Council (CMN) and guidance from the Secretariat of Prizes and Betting (SPA), is legally sound and follows the same logic already applied to illegal betting operators. The decision does not stem from a restrictive impulse, but rather from the need to preserve the coherence of a market that has become more clearly regulated in recent years.
Although these platforms present themselves as tools for gauging public opinion, their actual operation goes beyond an informational function. A significant portion of the products offered approaches—and in some cases is equivalent to—fixed-odds betting regulated under Law No. 14,790/2023. Sporting events made available in these environments replicate dynamics similar to so-called betting exchanges, making it difficult to sustain a material distinction between one model and another.
There is also a second sensitive issue. Some of these platforms offer instruments resembling financial derivatives, with assets linked to market prices. Because they operate outside the country, they are not subject to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The result is a relevant regulatory asymmetry, in which foreign companies compete under more favorable conditions than operators that comply with Brazilian rules.
In this context, the blocking fulfills an institutional protective function: it safeguards both the betting market and the financial market from competitive distortions. Companies operating in Brazil under authorization must comply with strict obligations, including tax payments, anti-money laundering policies, and data protection mechanisms. Allowing others to operate outside these requirements undermines the system’s fairness.
The measure also has an inducing character. If these platforms wish to operate in the country, they must adapt to the legal framework corresponding to the type of product they offer. If the activity resembles betting, it must follow betting regulations. If it approaches financial instruments, it must comply with the applicable rules for that market. This is a basic principle of economic organization in regulated sectors.
There is no violation of free enterprise. In the Brazilian legal system, economic freedom coexists with the need to comply with rules, especially in activities involving financial risk and social impact. State action, in this context, aims to ensure that competition occurs on legitimate grounds, without undue advantage for those operating outside national jurisdiction.
There is, in fact, an informational component in these environments. Predictive markets can provide useful signals about collective expectations. The problem arises when this element coexists with structures that replicate the logic of betting or high-risk financial products. In such cases, users no longer interact solely with information but instead assume risks typical of gambling or speculative operations.
An example helps illustrate this boundary. There are markets in which participants must predict, in 5-minute intervals, the variation of assets such as Bitcoin. Although presented as predictive, the dynamic is closer to gambling or mechanisms similar to the former binary options, whose nature has always been associated with high risk and insufficient user protection.
Faced with this gray area, the regulator’s stance is prudent. Suspending the activity allows for deeper debate, clearer criteria to be defined, and prevents regulatory gaps from being exploited. Only after such delimitation will it be possible to discuss, with legal certainty, any future regulation for this type of platform.
The ultimate goal is to preserve a balanced economic environment in which innovation and free enterprise can coexist with clear rules. Without this, the risk is not only legal, but also related to the credibility of the entire system.
Filipe Senna
Partner at Jantalia Advogados and Secretary-General of the Gaming and Betting Law Commission of the OAB/DF (Brazilian Bar Association, Federal District chapter). Author of the book ‘The Regulation of Luck on the Internet’.
The post The necessary containment of predictive markets in Brazil appeared first on Americas iGaming & Sports Betting News.
Rafael Brunati y Celso Basílio, abogados de Silveiro Advogados especializados en mercados regulados, derecho corporativo y derecho de la competencia, analizan las recientes medidas adoptadas por el Consejo Monetario Nacional (CMN) de Brasil y la Secretaría de Premios y Apuestas (SPA/MF), así como su impacto en la industria del iGaming y las apuestas deportivas.
En este artículo, examinan cómo el nuevo marco regulatorio redefine los límites entre las apuestas, los instrumentos financieros y los modelos emergentes de mercados digitales, al tiempo que refuerza la Ley N.º 14.790/2023 como pilar central de la regulación del sector.
Por Rafael Brunati y Celso Basílio
El conjunto de medidas adoptadas recientemente por el Consejo Monetario Nacional (CMN) y la Secretaría de Premios y Apuestas del Ministerio de Hacienda (SPA/MF) representa un nuevo capítulo en la consolidación regulatoria del mercado brasileño de iGaming y apuestas deportivas.
Más que una respuesta puntual a los llamados mercados predictivos, las iniciativas señalan un intento más amplio de reorganizar los límites entre apuestas autorizadas, instrumentos financieros y actividades consideradas irregulares en el país.
La Resolución CMN N.º 5.298/2026 prohibió la oferta y negociación de derivados vinculados a apuestas, eventos deportivos, juegos en línea y temas políticos, electorales, culturales o de entretenimiento sin referencia económico-financiera.
En la misma línea, la Nota Técnica SPA/MF N.º 2.958/2026 encuadró las plataformas de mercados predictivos como explotación ilegal de apuestas de cuota fija, lo que derivó en el bloqueo de decenas de plataformas por parte de la Anatel.
El movimiento refuerza de manera clara la centralidad de la Ley N.º 14.790/2023 como marco regulatorio exclusivo para la explotación de apuestas de cuota fija en Brasil.
En la práctica, el gobierno ha comenzado a delimitar con mayor precisión quién puede operar en este mercado y bajo qué condiciones.
Las plataformas que buscaban posicionarse como mercados financieros, contratos de eventos o estructuras tecnológicas alternativas pasaron a ser tratadas materialmente como operadores de apuestas.
El mensaje regulatorio es directo: si el producto compite por el mismo público, utiliza una lógica económica similar a las apuestas y conlleva riesgo asociado a eventos futuros, tiende a quedar dentro del perímetro regulatorio de la SPA.
Desde la óptica regulatoria y de competencia, esto genera un efecto relevante para los operadores autorizados.
Las empresas que invirtieron en licencias, cumplimiento normativo, prevención de lavado de dinero, integridad deportiva, políticas de juego responsable y estructura regulatoria dejan de competir con plataformas que operaban al margen de estas exigencias mediante encuadres jurídicos alternativos. Se produce así un fortalecimiento indirecto del valor económico de la licencia regulatoria otorgada por la SPA.
Al mismo tiempo, este fortalecimiento viene acompañado de un aumento significativo de las obligaciones operativas y de cumplimiento.
Las recientes medidas también reabren un debate importante sobre los límites regulatorios de las llamadas betting exchanges y los modelos peer-to-peer.
La propia Nota Técnica SPA/MF N.º 2.958/2026 reconoce que la negociación entre apostadores y la existencia de precios dinámicos no desnaturalizan necesariamente la condición de apuesta de cuota fija. Esta interpretación es relevante porque acerca los mercados predictivos a las estructuras de bolsas de apuestas ya previstas en la Ley N.º 14.790/2023.
Este punto podría abrir espacio, en el futuro, para modelos regulados de betting exchange en Brasil, siempre que estén dentro del perímetro autorizado por la SPA.
Sin embargo, la regulación operativa de este formato aún no ha sido desarrollada por la autoridad, lo que mantiene un nivel importante de incertidumbre para los operadores interesados en innovación de producto.
Desde otra perspectiva, las medidas también tienden a generar una intensa judicialización. Existen debates relevantes sobre los límites de la competencia del CMN para restringir ciertos tipos de derivados, sobre la actuación interpretativa de la SPA respecto a los mercados predictivos y sobre el bloqueo de plataformas sin orden judicial.
Independientemente del desenlace de estas disputas, lo cierto es que el mercado brasileño de iGaming y apuestas deportivas entra en una nueva fase.
La lógica regulatoria deja de centrarse únicamente en la autorización formal para operar y pasa a incorporar de forma más intensa temas como integridad financiera, protección de usuarios vulnerables, gobernanza de datos, trazabilidad de pagos y supervisión operativa continua.
El sector continúa creciendo, pero ahora dentro de un entorno significativamente más sofisticado —y más exigente. Para los operadores autorizados, esto representa simultáneamente una barrera de entrada para competidores irregulares y un aumento relevante en los costos de cumplimiento. En un mercado cada vez más regulado, la diferencia competitiva tiende a depender menos de la capacidad de ofrecer apuestas y más de la capacidad de operar con seguridad regulatoria, integridad operativa y rápida adaptación a las nuevas exigencias del Estado.
Rafael Brunati, abogado en las áreas de Derecho Societario, Contratos, M&A y Private Equity, así como del sector bancario en Silveiro Advogados, es graduado en Derecho por la Universidad Presbiteriana Mackenzie, posee un LL.M en Derecho Societario por INSPER y es miembro de la Comisión de Derecho Bancario de la OAB/SP.
Celso Basílio, abogado en las áreas de Mercados Regulados, Telecomunicaciones, Contratos y Derecho de la Competencia en Silveiro Advogados, es máster en Derecho por la FGV Derecho SP, posee un LL.M en Derecho de los Contratos por INSPER y es graduado en Derecho por la Universidad Presbiteriana Mackenzie.
The post Nuevas reglas del CMN y SPA reorganizan el tablero del iGaming y las apuestas deportivas appeared first on Americas iGaming & Sports Betting News.
-
Africa5 days agoSpringbok Casino Presents “Wild Galaxy Month” with 25 Free Spins on Prosperity Pots
-
affiliate marketing6 days ago
CasinoCanada partners with FortuneJack to expand crypto casino coverage
-
Asia5 days ago
NOVOMATIC to Debut New Linked Progressive Innovations and Expanded Portfolio at G2E Asia 2026
-
Baltics6 days ago
Kanggiten: From B2C Insight to B2B Performance in iGaming
-
Alex Fonseca5 days ago
Superbet expands football presence with naming rights deal at Bahia-based club
-
Canada5 days ago
CasinoCanada announces partnership with FortuneJack casino
-
Central Europe5 days ago
Tipico Casino Enters into Partnership with Holstein Kiel
-
bet3654 days ago
Evoplay adds bet365 to its Brazil operator lineup
