Consolidation of regulatory framework is legitimate and urgent demand, but this construction should be done with technical caution, respect for normative hierarchy and dialogue with market operators
The recent performance of the companies in the sector evidences an ostensive posture, marked by assessments and legal interpretations that have been generating questions regarding the adherence to the limits of the current legal framework. This movement is reinforced by the technical note of National Consumer Secretariat (Senacon)which, far from promoting safety and normative predictability, intensifies the feeling of legal insecurity in the sector.
What could represent a technical regulatory advance, legitimate and oriented to the public interest becomes, in practice, a scenario of institutional insecurity. In it, organs of exerting protagonism in the interpretation and reinterpretation of norms that require, above all, technical accuracy, regulatory parsimony and sectoral sensitivity.
When the zeal goes beyond the limits of the reasonable
The consumer protection discourse is essential. The betting sector, by its nature, even requires regulatory surveillance proportional to its risks. However, public action should always anchor to objective legal criteria, avoiding transforming supervision into an indirect form of regulatory intervention.
What is observed in certain recent manifestations is the adoption of premises that disregard the applicable normative milestone, confuse fundamental legal concepts such as the very nature of the service provided, and rely on generic foundations of “consumer offense” without any consolidated technical or jurisprudential ballast.
Instead of resorting to hasty assessments, it would be more coherent than the consumer protection bodies to take a predominantly guiding and educational role in the face of the sector. It is a market in structuring, still without regulation fully consolidated by the competent entity, and that demands, above all, institutional dialogue and interpretative security.
Adopting a preventive and cooperative stance, focusing on technical guidance and normative construction, would be a more effective way to protect the consumer without compromising the regulatory maturity of an increasingly relevant economic sector.
SENACON NOTE: GUIDANCE PRACTUED INSECURITY
The note issued by Senacon, although written in formal language, presents conclusions that distance themselves from the current legal system. The text anticipates judgments that, by appropriate way, would depend on judicial assessment or regular processing in administrative proceedings, guaranteed by contradictory and broad defense. Instead of promoting technical guidance, the note contributes to distorting the debate, compromising the confidence of market operators in the state’s institutional capacity to act with impartiality and legal certainty.
More than rigidity, what is evident in certain public manifestations is the conceptual confusion about legal institutes and operational structures typical of the betting sector. It is a sign not only of precipitation, but also a deficit of understanding of a market still in the phase of normative structuring, which demands study, prudence and dialogue throughout society, including regulatory and consumer protection.
The application of generic concepts, outside the technical context, compromises the effectiveness of consumer protection and weakens the institutional credibility of public action.
The State must be the inducer of legal trust, not the vector of regulatory insecurity. It is not about shielding the sector. It is a matter of demanding that public action is based on legal principles, due process and institutional responsibility not to compromise the normative coherence of the current legal system.
The strategic role of the legal: positioning, prevention and institutionality
In this scenario, the role of the legal departments of betting companies gains a new dimension: of defenders for legal certainty articulators. This change requires:
- Preventive mapping of the sensitive points of the operation, especially from the perspective of consumer protection and regulatory compliance
- Structuring consistent institutional responses, with solid legal basis and attention to political and sectoral sensitivity
- Active participation in dialogue forums with the public power and sectoral entities, including in the federative and legislative scope
- Reinforcement of internal legal governance programs, focusing on risk management, team training and monitoring of assessments
It is not enough to answer assessments. It is necessary to build an institutional narrative that values the consumer, without sacrificing the predictability necessary for the healthy development of the market.
The sector needs regulation, not improvisation
The consolidation of a regulatory framework for the betting sector is a legitimate and urgent demand. But this construction should be done with technical caution, respect for normative hierarchy and dialogue with market operators. There is no room for improvisations or unilateral acts that create obligations on the fringes of legality and administrative competence provided for by law.
Regulatory voluntarism, albeit well-meaning, generates legal uncertainty and compromises institutional stability. At times like this, it is up to the corporate legal not only to protect the company, but to act as guardian of institutional consistency, promoting the balance between the legitimate public interest and the integrity of the regulatory environment.
Legal certainty as market assets
The absence of regulation cannot be supplied by excessive interpretation. And legal insecurity cannot be naturalized as a protective tool. In a sector in the middle of normative transition, what is expected of institutions is sobriety. What is expected of the legal is strategy. And what is expected of the state is predictability. Because when the legal one anticipates, the business breathes. But when the state improvises, the risk becomes a rule.
*This text does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the young Pan.
