CCT approves broad restrictions on betting advertising and reignites warnings about the strengthening of the illegal market.
The Senate's Science, Technology, Innovation and Informatics Committee (CCT) approved on Wednesday (2) the opinion of Senator Alessandro Vieira (MDB-SE) on Bill No. 2.470, of 2026, authored by Senator Damares Alves (Republicanos-DF) and six other parliamentarians. The text, approved in the form of a substitute, significantly expands restrictions on marketing communication, sponsorship and product architecture of fixed-odds betting, amending Law 14.790/2023 — the regulatory framework for the sector.
The approval came a day after a public hearing held by the committee itself, with the participation of representatives from the Ministry of Health, the Secretariat of Prizes and Betting (SPA/MF), civil society organizations, and the regulated sector. The committee also approved a request for urgency on the matter, which now goes to the Senate Plenary for deliberation. Following ordinary procedure, the next step is the Committee on Social Affairs (CAS), for a final decision.
It is important to note from the outset that Bill 2470/2026 is still far from becoming law. After the Senate — where it still needs to go to the Plenary, if the urgency is voted on, or to the CAS (Committee on Social Affairs), in the final procedure — the proposal needs to be analyzed by the Chamber of Deputies and, finally, sanctioned (or vetoed, totally or partially) by the Presidency of the Republic. Any practical effect of the law is, therefore, hypothetical at this stage.
What changes in the text?
The substitute bill consolidates the new rules within Law No. 14.790/2023 itself, instead of creating a parallel regime. The central points are:
⇒ Broad ban on marketing communication (art. 16): as a rule, any advertising — direct or indirect — of fixed-odds betting is prohibited, including TV, radio, print media, social networks, streaming, programmatic advertising, electronic gaming environments, and content from affiliates and tipsters . The exception is restricted to strictly institutional dissemination through the operator's own channels (official website, app, logged-in areas, and customer service), without promises of winnings, bonuses, or incentive-based language.
⇒ Prohibition of sponsorship (art. 17-A): prohibits contracts with clubs, competitions, sports broadcasts, cultural events, social projects and digital influencers — with the exception of sponsorship of mental health campaigns, suicide prevention and financial education, provided that there is no brand exposure.
⇒ Product risk classification (articles 29-D to 29-N): creates categories of "high risk" and "excessive risk" — the latter encompassing roulette, slot machines, crash games and simulated virtual sports, the offering of which is now prohibited.
⇒ New criminal offense (art. 48-A): criminalizes, with imprisonment from one to five years, the paid promotion by an unauthorized operator — the so-called "clandestine bets" —, with increased penalties if the promoter is an influencer, athlete, or well-known person.
⇒ Transition periods : 365 days to cease prohibited advertising; 24 months to adapt or terminate sponsorship contracts; 90 days to remove excessively risky products from the market.
⇒ Sanctioning regime : fines ranging from R$ 100 to R$ 50 million, with the possibility of suspension and revocation of authorization, allocated to the National Health Fund.
The warning: banning legal advertising could strengthen illegal advertising.
The point that most worries entities linked to the regulated market is precisely the core of the proposal: the almost total prohibition of advertising by authorized betting sites. According to the Brazilian Institute for Responsible Gaming (IBJR), the argument is straightforward — without legal advertising, the consumer loses the main tool to differentiate licensed operators, which collect taxes and comply with player protection rules, from clandestine platforms based abroad, which offer no guarantee of prize withdrawal or data protection.
The logic is familiar from other regulated markets: when advertising for legal products disappears, it doesn't eliminate demand—it merely removes the signal from the consumer that a regulated and responsible option exists. The space tends to be filled by advertising from illegal operators, who, by definition, already operate outside the law and are not deterred by an additional legal prohibition.
This is, in fact, a contrast that the substitute bill itself seems to partially acknowledge: while expanding the prohibitions on advertising by authorized operators, the text creates Article 48-A to criminalize those who promote, for payment, unauthorized operators. But the new criminal offense falls on the promoter of illegal bets—it does not resolve the communication vacuum that the broad prohibition leaves for the consumer in the regulated market, who will have increasingly less contact with any indication that an operator is legitimate.
There is also a significant economic impact pointed out by other sectors. According to data published by Veja magazine , the end of betting sponsorships in Brazilian football could generate a revenue loss exceeding R$ 842 million among Serie A clubs alone—resources currently used, among other things, for the operation of the sports institutions themselves. TV stations, radio stations, portals, and advertising agencies would also lose one of the largest sources of advertising revenue in recent years, with a potential impact on the financing of the specialized and generalist press that covers the sector—as is the case with publications like this one.
The counterpoint: the public health justification.
On the other side of the debate are the arguments that underpin the project itself. The authors of the bill argue, in the justification attached to the text, for an estimate of social cost, in addition to pointing out the inadequacy of the self-regulation conducted by the National Council for Advertising Self-Regulation (CONAR), which — according to the report — focuses on formal parameters of responsible advertising and does not reach the internal architecture of betting products.
Also cited by media outlets covering the topic is a study by the National Confederation of Commerce (CNC) which indicates that betting has diverted a large volume of resources from retail trade over two years—a figure that has been used as a central argument by proponents of stricter restrictions, although its methodology has already been questioned by sectors of the regulated market.
Bill 2470/2026 is still under consideration — the text approved in the CCT still depends on a vote in the Senate Plenary (or the CAS, in a final decision), analysis by the Chamber of Deputies, and presidential approval before having any practical effect. BNLData will follow the next steps in the process.
Report and Substitute Bill to Draft Law No. 2.470/2026 approved by the CCT.
