The IBJR calls for focusing the fight against illegal gambling in Brazil
The Brazilian Institute for Responsible Gaming (IBJR) has stepped into the public debate, commenting on the "Bloqueo en Tigrinho" campaign, promoted by artists and civil society organizations. The entity's stance was direct: efforts to combat problems associated with gambling should focus on illegal platforms, not on operators authorized by the Federal Government. This intervention comes at a sensitive time, with much of public opinion viewing the regulated sector with suspicion, and with a Brazilian congress where proposals to toughen activity coexist with others to ban part of the casino catalog.
The IBJR argues that so-called predatory gambling, mentioned by the promoters of "Bloqueo en Tigrinho," is directly linked to the illegal market, where platforms operate without controls, without compliance obligations, and without tools designed to protect consumers. Faced with this scenario, the entity demands institutional clarity to avoid lumping authorized houses and clandestine operators, who compete for the same player with different rules, into the same category.
The Regulated Operator, with an Extensive List of Obligations
In contrast, the institute recalled that authorized operators in Brazil, identified by the .bet.br domain, are subject to a demanding set of regulatory obligations: prohibition of payments with credit cards and cryptocurrencies, mandatory identification and facial recognition processes, self-exclusion mechanisms, gaming limits, deposit controls, and measures aimed at preventing problematic behaviors. The operational difference between a .bet.br and a clandestine platform is structural and, according to the IBJR, should guide the political interpretation of the debate.
The entity stated that regulation is currently the main tool to protect the financial and mental health of Brazilian bettors and supported its position with data. It cited a study by Instituto Locomotiva and LCA Consultoria which estimates that clandestine platforms move between R$26 billion and R$40 billion, equivalent to US$5 billion and US$7.7 billion, and generate estimated losses of R$10.8 billion annually for public accounts. The size of the illegal market explains a good part of the social problems that civil society attributes to online gambling without distinguishing between channels.
Advertising, Influencers, and the Challenge of Communicating to the Player
The other front addressed by the IBJR was advertising. The entity stated that restrictions should focus on illegal operators, as they are the ones who resort to influencers and digital channels without any control to attract users, often without adequately informing them about the risks associated with gambling. The criticism points to a phenomenon that has been concerning regulators and responsible gambling entities throughout the region: the use of content creators to promote platforms that are not subject to the obligations of a licensee.
The institute concluded its intervention by expressing its willingness to collaborate with the organizers of the "Bloqueo en Tigrinho" campaign, providing technical information to enrich the debate on sector regulation. For the Latin American ecosystem, the IBJR's approach functions as a manual for institutional defense of the regulated operator in scenarios of political pressure. Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Peru, and Mexico are going through similar discussions regarding illegal gambling and the role of advertising, and the Brazilian institute's stance provides a clear argumentative framework: combat the clandestine market, regulate advertising by channel, and differentiate the regulated actor from the informal player. A recipe that the region is beginning to need as regulated markets consolidate.
Tags: Brazil, IBJR, Illegal gambling Brazil, Responsible gaming LatAm, iGaming regulation, Tigrinho Block