The necessary containment of predictive markets in Brazil

Filipe Senna, Partner at Jantalia Advogados and Secretary-General of the Gaming and Betting Law Commission of the OAB/DF, analyzes the recent decision in Brazil to block predictive market platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket.

He argues that the measure reflects a necessary regulatory step to address legal ambiguities in a segment that sits between informational tools, betting systems, and financial derivatives, reinforcing the need for coherence and equal treatment within Brazil’s evolving regulated markets.

By Filipe Senna

The blocking of predictive market platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket in Brazil, following a measure by the National Monetary Council (CMN) and guidance from the Secretariat of Prizes and Betting (SPA), is legally sound and follows the same logic already applied to illegal betting operators. The decision does not stem from a restrictive impulse, but rather from the need to preserve the coherence of a market that has become more clearly regulated in recent years.

Although these platforms present themselves as tools for gauging public opinion, their actual operation goes beyond an informational function. A significant portion of the products offered approaches—and in some cases is equivalent to—fixed-odds betting regulated under Law No. 14,790/2023. Sporting events made available in these environments replicate dynamics similar to so-called betting exchanges, making it difficult to sustain a material distinction between one model and another.

There is also a second sensitive issue. Some of these platforms offer instruments resembling financial derivatives, with assets linked to market prices. Because they operate outside the country, they are not subject to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The result is a relevant regulatory asymmetry, in which foreign companies compete under more favorable conditions than operators that comply with Brazilian rules.

In this context, the blocking fulfills an institutional protective function: it safeguards both the betting market and the financial market from competitive distortions. Companies operating in Brazil under authorization must comply with strict obligations, including tax payments, anti-money laundering policies, and data protection mechanisms. Allowing others to operate outside these requirements undermines the system’s fairness.

The measure also has an inducing character. If these platforms wish to operate in the country, they must adapt to the legal framework corresponding to the type of product they offer. If the activity resembles betting, it must follow betting regulations. If it approaches financial instruments, it must comply with the applicable rules for that market. This is a basic principle of economic organization in regulated sectors.

There is no violation of free enterprise. In the Brazilian legal system, economic freedom coexists with the need to comply with rules, especially in activities involving financial risk and social impact. State action, in this context, aims to ensure that competition occurs on legitimate grounds, without undue advantage for those operating outside national jurisdiction.

There is, in fact, an informational component in these environments. Predictive markets can provide useful signals about collective expectations. The problem arises when this element coexists with structures that replicate the logic of betting or high-risk financial products. In such cases, users no longer interact solely with information but instead assume risks typical of gambling or speculative operations.

An example helps illustrate this boundary. There are markets in which participants must predict, in 5-minute intervals, the variation of assets such as Bitcoin. Although presented as predictive, the dynamic is closer to gambling or mechanisms similar to the former binary options, whose nature has always been associated with high risk and insufficient user protection.

Faced with this gray area, the regulator’s stance is prudent. Suspending the activity allows for deeper debate, clearer criteria to be defined, and prevents regulatory gaps from being exploited. Only after such delimitation will it be possible to discuss, with legal certainty, any future regulation for this type of platform.

The ultimate goal is to preserve a balanced economic environment in which innovation and free enterprise can coexist with clear rules. Without this, the risk is not only legal, but also related to the credibility of the entire system.

Filipe Senna
Partner at Jantalia Advogados and Secretary-General of the Gaming and Betting Law Commission of the OAB/DF (Brazilian Bar Association, Federal District chapter). Author of the book ‘The Regulation of Luck on the Internet’.