Online Casino Licences in Brazil
Brazil's current position differs from its former licensing market
As of 6 November 2026, a guide to Brazilian online casino licences must begin with Medida Provisória 1.394 of 25 September 2026. It prohibits the covered fixed-odds betting activity, including online games and sports betting, and also addresses intermediation and advertising. The measure applies to offers made by overseas businesses to people located in Brazil. A former authorisation, a foreign licence or an accessible website does not establish a current right to continue the prohibited activity.
The provisional measure remains before Congress. That makes the position subject to future legislative developments, but it does not turn the present prohibition into a proposal that operators may disregard. Anyone examining an old account or a site's legal claims needs to distinguish the law currently in effect, the status of parliamentary consideration and the historical period in which the operator accepted bets. Mixing those three questions can produce a misleading answer even when each document being quoted is genuine.
How the previous federal framework developed
Law 13.756/2018 introduced the fixed-odds betting framework, and Law 14.790/2023 supplied the later legal basis for the regulated market that included covered online games. The Secretariat of Prizes and Betting, known as SPA, administered the federal authorisation system and its implementing rules. The nationally regulated operation that began in January 2025 is therefore a historical phase with a specific legal basis, not a timeless description of Brazil's gambling rules.
That chronology matters in disputes. A document showing that a business applied for authorisation is different from a decision granting it. A grant is different from permission covering a particular brand and period. A later rule can change the effect of an earlier permission without making the earlier document fictitious. When reconstructing an account's history, record the relevant dates rather than attaching a single permanent label to the business. This allows a past authorised operation and the current prohibition to be described accurately together.
What an old SPA listing can still establish
The former federal lists identified authorised companies, related brands and their Brazilian domains. They remain useful for establishing which legal entity stood behind a historical account. A player may remember a brand while a bank statement shows a corporate name. Matching both against the record from the relevant period can help identify the correct party for a balance enquiry. It does not prove that the account balance was calculated correctly or that every transaction complied with the rules.
The former .bet.br domain convention should now be read in that same historical context. The suffix once helped identify the federal market, but an address retained in an archive or browser history is not a continuing authorisation. Equally, a copied licence number on another address does not transfer the rights of the company named in the official record. Record the exact spelling of the domain used for the account and any documented changes, rather than treating similar brand names as the same legal destination.
State permissions and overseas licences do not bypass the measure
The September measure expressly reaches fixed-odds betting permissions at state and Federal District level. It also covers an overseas supplier offering the covered activity to a person in Brazilian territory. These provisions are important when a service claims that only federal permissions were affected or that moving its registered office abroad allows it to continue unchanged. Such claims require a legal basis beyond the location printed in the website footer.
A foreign licence can describe the status of a particular company under another jurisdiction's rules. It cannot be treated as a universal passport for every country from which its site is reachable. For a historical complaint, that foreign record may still help identify the business or the authority responsible for its foreign activities. Its relevance should be stated precisely. It does not replace the Brazilian legal analysis, establish access to Brazil's closure process or guarantee that a foreign regulator can recover an individual's money.
The transition had several different deadlines
New money entering the platforms was prohibited from 25 September 2026. The initial voluntary withdrawal period ran until 23:59 on 5 October, and betting-site and app access was scheduled to become unavailable from 6 October. The announced bank-return phase ran from 9 to 14 October. These were distinct steps in ending operations and returning balances. The thirty-day extinction period for authorisations did not create an unrestricted thirty-day period for new deposits and normal play.
By 6 November, those initial dates are in the past. A notice repeating the 5 October deadline should not imply that all rights to an unresolved balance disappeared that night. The subsequent process was designed to address money that remained after voluntary withdrawals. At the same time, the existence of that process does not prove that a particular claimant has been identified, that the operator supplied accurate information or that the necessary funds reached the institution handling the return.
Which amounts belong in a closure calculation
The measure distinguishes available balances, stakes on open bets that became ineffective under the transition rules, and prizes due from results determined within the relevant period. Those categories should be kept separate when checking an account statement. An unsettled stake is not automatically a winning bet, and a displayed potential payout is not the same as a prize already due. The correct calculation depends on the event's status and the applicable transition provisions.
A useful account reconstruction begins with the last reliable statement. Add any amounts that became due, identify any stake reversals, and subtract withdrawals actually received. Avoid counting both the original stake and a later return of that same stake as separate losses. If an operator provides only a single closing figure, request the entries that explain it. The objective is to establish the amount claimed from records, not to substitute an estimate based on all deposits ever made to the platform.
How to approach the Caixa stage for unresolved balances
The federal public guidance directs people who did not receive their money to Caixa from 14 October. The measure provides for Caixa's role where the normal return cannot be completed, with the relevant funds and information transferred through the closure arrangements. This concerns eligible balances within that process. It is not a blanket promise that Caixa will reimburse every loss, every informal transfer or every claim against an offshore gambling business.
Before pursuing an unresolved amount, gather the operator's legal name, account reference, CPF identification used on the account, original payment records, closing statement and any withdrawal confirmation. Use a verified official channel and ask what records or procedural step are missing. Do not send identity documents to an intermediary merely because it claims to specialise in betting refunds. A notice that money was scheduled for return, a support message saying it was sent and a credit visible in the receiving account are three different levels of evidence.
Payment restrictions do not prevent the required wind-down
The measure restricts financial and payment institutions from processing transactions for the prohibited betting activity while preserving transactions necessary to end operations and return money. A closure-related refund should therefore not be confused with permission to take a new deposit. The distinction is particularly relevant where a service presents a fresh payment request as a condition for releasing an old account balance. A new stake or funding transfer does not establish entitlement to an existing refund.
When checking a bank record, use the transaction reference and recipient or sender identity, not only the familiar Pix label. Pix identifies a payment mechanism, not the legal status of the underlying service. A payment that completed technically does not prove the gambling activity was authorised. If an unexpected transfer appears, preserve its details and ask the bank to identify its relationship to the claimed return. Do not assume that two equal amounts must be the same transaction without matching their references and dates.
The operator remains relevant after its betting site closes
Extinguishing an authorisation does not erase SPA's supervisory powers over events that occurred while that authorisation existed. The measure also requires operators to maintain updated legal-representative and contact information for outstanding obligations. A closed betting interface therefore does not, by itself, mean that every account, reporting and regulatory responsibility has vanished. The legal entity remains the starting point for identifying who held the account and what information should exist.
Keep correspondence that identifies the entity handling the wind-down, especially where a brand's ordinary support channel has changed. Ask for the status of a specific balance or transaction instead of requesting a general explanation of the ban. If one business says another business is responsible, request the basis for that transfer of responsibility. A company name, a date and a documented role make the reply assessable. An unexplained referral to a software supplier does not answer a question about customer funds.
Complaints work better when the missing step is identified
A complaint about an unpaid return should distinguish a disputed amount from a failed transfer. In the first case, the central issue is the closing calculation. In the second, the parties may agree on the amount but still need to identify the failed payment or missing account match. A complaint about a platform continuing to solicit deposits concerns a different conduct issue. Combining all three without a chronology can make it difficult for the receiving organisation to determine what action is requested.
For an account issue, keep the operator's responses and use the applicable official consumer or supervisory route where the matter remains unresolved. Identify the business precisely and describe the remedy sought, such as an itemised statement or an explanation of a missing credit. A report of suspected unlawful activity should preserve the address, date and relevant solicitation without sending money to test it. Filing a report creates a record. It does not establish that an investigation has concluded or that reimbursement has been approved.
Advertising and supply claims require their own scrutiny
The prohibition reaches advertising and intermediation as well as the underlying covered activity. An old sponsorship photograph, a celebrity endorsement or a provider announcement from the previous market does not establish current permission. Dates are essential when such material remains searchable. A historical statement can be accurate about its original period while becoming misleading if republished as a description of what Brazilian users may do today.
For readers assessing a claim, separate the product being advertised from the company and destination being promoted. A familiar studio may create a game, but that does not authenticate every site displaying it. A football-related brand association similarly provides no evidence about the status of a particular account operator. Claims of renewed access should be evaluated against an actual legal change and the resulting operator status. A fresh campaign, new app or replacement address cannot supply that evidence on its own.
Identity checks and account security still need care
The closure process uses personal identification and payment information to match balances to individuals. That makes accuracy important, but it also creates opportunities for impersonation. A caller may know a brand name or an approximate balance without being authorised to handle a claim. Verify the organisation and contact route before providing documents, and disclose only the information required for the identified purpose. Keep a record of what was requested, by whom and through which channel.
Passwords, one-time login codes and remote control of a device are not evidence of a gambling balance. Do not provide them to someone claiming that they are needed to check a refund. If a legitimate identity or account-ownership check is requested, ask how the information will be submitted securely and what the check is intended to resolve. The distinction between verifying an identity and handing over access to an account should remain clear throughout an unresolved case.
Other lotteries and foreign activity need separate analysis
The measure excludes other lottery modalities authorised by law from this particular prohibition. That limited exclusion should not be enlarged into a general exception for anything marketed as a lottery or a game. The actual format, legal basis and responsible entity matter. A commercial label chosen by a website cannot determine whether a product falls outside the covered fixed-odds activity. A reader should not infer that one unaffected lottery category validates an unrelated online casino offer.
Similarly, a company can have lawful activities elsewhere while being unable to make the covered offer to people in Brazil. Its continued international operations do not necessarily contradict the Brazilian closure. For an individual case, keep location, account entity and transaction date explicit. A review written for another country may describe an entirely different legal and payment relationship. Copying its licence assessment into a Brazilian profile can remove the very facts needed to understand which protections and procedures actually apply.
What would justify changing the present assessment
Congressional consideration can lead to a change in the legal framework, but an amendment proposal or a statement by an interested business is not the same as an operative change. The relevant questions are what instrument took effect, when it took effect, which activities it covers and how it treats earlier permissions. A future reopening, if legally established, would need to be assessed on those terms. It should not be assumed from the existence of the former authorisation lists.
Until there is such a verified change, the useful distinction is between historical licensing evidence and current permission. Historical records can identify the responsible company, support an account chronology and clarify the period in which a dispute arose. Current legal records determine whether an offer may operate now. For an unresolved balance, preserve the documents, establish the amount and follow the applicable closure or complaint route. No licence badge, catalogue screenshot or recovery promise can replace those concrete steps.