In an exclusive article for Gaming Americas, Udo Seckelmann, partner in the Gambling & Crypto department at Bichara e Motta Advogados, examines how the Brazilian iGaming market has entered a new phase of maturity following BiS SiGMA South America 2026.

Moving beyond regulatory expectations, the industry now faces real operational, political, and economic pressures, raising critical questions about sustainability, enforcement, and the balance between growth and consumer protection in one of the world’s most dynamic betting markets.

BIS SIGMA 2026 made it clear that the conversation around Brazil’s betting sector has fundamentally changed. The industry is no longer being discussed as a future opportunity shaped by regulatory expectations, but as a functioning ecosystem already subject to real-world pressures. With the framework in force and operators active, the focus has shifted to how the market actually behaves under regulation — and where that framework is being put to the test.

This shift was evident both in the quality of the discussions and in the profile of participants. In past editions, much of the debate focused on the ideal regulatory framework, taxation, and market entry strategies. In 2026, the focus moved toward more sophisticated — and, in many ways, more challenging — topics: regulatory implementation, enforcement, and the balance between growth and consumer protection.

An additional element that permeated many discussions was the recent hardening of political discourse toward the sector. Statements from the President suggesting the potential elimination of the regulated betting market, as well as initiatives in Congress aimed at broadly restricting betting advertising, reveal legitimate concerns about negative externalities but also a concrete risk of public policy being shaped in a way that is disconnected from the newly established regulatory reality.

The criticism here is not directed at the concern for consumer protection — which is undoubtedly essential — but rather at how this debate has been conducted. Prohibitive or overly restrictive measures, particularly in the field of advertising, tend to produce adverse effects already observed in other jurisdictions: reduced channeling capacity toward the regulated market, the strengthening of illegal operators, and a weakening of consumer protection mechanisms themselves.

In this context, advertising should not be viewed solely as a risk factor, but also as a public policy tool. It is through advertising that licensed operators can differentiate themselves from unregulated entities, communicate responsible gambling practices, and operate within auditable parameters. Disproportionate restrictions, in practice, reduce the visibility of those subject to regulation while simultaneously expanding the space for those operating outside it.

Moreover, the instability of political discourse — especially when it flirts with prohibition scenarios after years of efforts to structure a regulated market — creates significant legal uncertainty. Investments made based on a recent regulatory framework are reassessed, compliance costs increase, and the appetite of new entrants tends to decline. Ultimately, this undermines not only the development of the sector but also government revenue and the original regulatory objectives pursued by the Government.

Another key topic discussed during the event was the impact of increased taxation — particularly following the rise in the Gaming Tax — on the competitiveness of the regulated market. There is a legitimate concern that an overly burdensome environment, combined with severe advertising restrictions, may create an economically unviable scenario for licensed operators, once again encouraging migration to the unregulated market.

Another highlight of the event was the debate surrounding the role of technological intermediaries — including market makers in emerging segments such as prediction markets. The expansion of these models raises important regulatory questions: to what extent are existing frameworks sufficient to accommodate these innovations? And when will it be necessary to move toward specific regulatory regimes, potentially under the oversight of authorities such as the securities regulator?

A comparison with previous BIS SIGMA editions clearly demonstrates the sector’s growing maturity. If Brazil was once seen as a major promise, it is now a complex reality that requires fine-tuning and institutional coordination. The agenda has shifted from market opening to governance — now under much more intense political and social scrutiny.

Finally, one aspect that deserves particular attention is the increasing professionalization of all stakeholders involved. Operators, regulators, service providers, and even the broader public debate have evolved significantly. There is now a clearer understanding that the success of the Brazilian market depends on its credibility and long-term sustainability.

Udo Seckelmann
Partner in the Gambling & Crypto department at Bichara e Motta Advogados