Key Points
- Legislation seeking to prohibit gambling operator marketing in Belo Horizonte was removed from the June 10 voting schedule after failing to secure adequate council backing
- The measure’s author, Councilor Pedro Rousseff, pulled the proposal following recognition that necessary votes were unavailable
- An accompanying piece of legislation was simultaneously stopped per municipal procedural regulations
- Advocates point to problem gambling and financial hardship as justification for the marketing restrictions
- Multiple Brazilian municipalities, including Teresina, have already enacted comparable marketing limitations
The municipal legislature of Belo Horizonte has postponed consideration of gambling marketing restrictions after the sponsoring councilor recognized insufficient support existed for passage.
During a plenary meeting held June 10, Councilor Pedro Rousseff removed his proposal from consideration. Securing approval in the second voting round necessitated affirmative votes from no fewer than 21 participating council members—a threshold Rousseff acknowledged he couldn’t meet.
“Support was lacking at this juncture, prompting our request for a one-month continuation,” Rousseff informed Estado de Minas. He indicated his intention to engage with all 41 council members prior to resubmitting the measure.
This marks the second postponement for the legislation. The initial delay occurred in April following a request from Belo Horizonte’s municipal government for additional review time.
Dual Legislative Approach
The shelved measure wasn’t operating in isolation. Companion legislation authored by Councilor Ferreira was concurrently halted according to municipal legislative protocols. Proposals linked to withdrawn bills cannot advance independently.
Both pieces of legislation address gambling marketing through distinct approaches. Rousseff’s version concentrates on public venue advertising and social media promotion. Ferreira’s proposal encompasses broader restrictions, including partnerships between municipal entities and gambling operators, promotional giveaways, competitive events, physical kiosks, and naming arrangements involving city-owned facilities.
Ferreira expressed frustration regarding the postponement. He contended that citizens would continue facing gambling marketing exposure throughout the extended deliberation period.
“Citizens within our municipality will continue receiving these promotions. Addiction problems will persist. Numerous individuals face debt collectors at their doorsteps,” he stated during his legislative remarks.
Marketing During Festival Season
Ferreira referenced gambling promotional activities during Belo Horizonte’s Carnival festivities as demonstrating the issue’s severity. He noted promotional materials were prominent throughout Municipal Park and extending along Avenida Afonso Pena during celebrations.
According to his statements, the municipal tourism authority, Belotur, had established partnerships with gambling operators and facilitated marketing placement citywide.
Rousseff confirmed his plans to resubmit the legislation during the following month’s session. He characterized the measure as “excessively significant” to abandon.
He additionally suggested that approving the restrictions would position Belo Horizonte as Brazil’s inaugural capital city implementing such gambling marketing limitations. Nevertheless, several municipalities have already pursued comparable regulatory paths.
Teresina enacted regulations earlier this calendar year governing gambling marketing on municipal public facilities. Goiânia is similarly evaluating analogous legislation.
At the state jurisdiction level, Rio Grande do Sul authorized new gambling marketing constraints in April. The National Association of Gaming and Lotteries has contested those regulations, asserting that marketing oversight falls exclusively under federal governmental authority.
The legislation is anticipated to reappear on Belo Horizonte’s council calendar during July proceedings.


