The Federal Public Defender’s Office (DPU) filed a request with the Federal Supreme Court (STF) to join a lawsuit that questions the constitutionality of the Betting Law (Law No. 14,790/2023). The entity defends that betting continues to be allowed, but with restrictions, such as limiting advertising and offering treatment for gambling addicts.
“The stance adopted by the Public Defender’s Office is similar to that of countries with experience in regulating the online gambling sector, such as the United Kingdom, Spain and Portugal. They impose obligations on companies to balance economic freedom with the protection of the vulnerable,” states the document from the Public Defender’s Office of the Union.
Actions in the STF and CPI in the Senate
Two lawsuits are pending in the Supreme Federal Court: one filed by the National Confederation of Commerce and another proposed by the Attorney General of the Republic, Paulo Gonet. Meanwhile, the Bets CPI remains in the Senate, where the rapporteur, Senator Soraya Thornicke, took an important step.
On Tuesday, the 30th, she arrested businessman Daniel Pardim Tavares Lima, representative of Peach Blossom River Technology. All of this, because he allegedly lied in his testimony.
DPU’s arguments on the Betting Law
The Public Defender’s Office advocated the implementation of protection and treatment systems for gamblers. One of the points defended is the prohibition of the use of credit cards to place bets, in addition to the restriction of advertising.
The document from the Public Defender’s Office of the Union highlights: “This stance is adopted in several countries with longer experience in regulating the online betting sector, such as the United Kingdom, Spain and Portugal, which impose positive obligations on companies similar to those proposed here, demonstrating that shared responsibility is the most appropriate way to balance economic freedom with the protection of the vulnerable and the preservation of fundamental rights.”
Furthermore, the DPU expresses concern and is frankly against the search for solutions that involve some type of punishment for the most vulnerable. Therefore, as proposed in PL3703/2024, which goes as far as to foresee the loss of social benefits if they are used to carry out sports betting and online games.
