Can a Country Really Ban Online Gambling? Lessons From India and Brazil

Governments can close licensed casinos, prohibit advertising, block websites and restrict payments. But can they actually stop people from gambling online?

That question has become increasingly important as India and Brazil pursue sweeping restrictions on online money gaming and betting. Both governments cite concerns about financial harm, addiction and consumer protection. Yet their experience raises an uncomfortable question for regulators. Does prohibition reduce gambling, or does it push players toward operators that governments cannot effectively supervise?

India's prohibition offers an early indication of what can happen after a major online gaming market is shut down. Brazil, which ordered its licensed betting platforms offline on October 6, 2026, is now conducting an even more visible experiment in digital enforcement.

India Case Study Shows That The Legal Market Shrinks, but Offshore Gambling Persists

India's Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 prohibits online money games, including games involving skill or chance. It also restricts their advertising and associated financial transactions.

The consequences for India's domestic industry were immediate.

According to a 2026 report by The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry and Ernst & Young's Risk Survey, revenue from the country's money-gaming segment fell from ₹179 billion in 2024 to ₹133 billion in 2025, a drop of about 26%.

However, the figures measure the formal industry's reported revenue and exclude subsequent illegal operations. They cannot establish whether total gambling participation declined by the same amount.

Research suggests that at least some players continued gambling through offshore websites.

A study by CUTS International involving former real-money gaming users in Maharashtra found that offshore platform usage increased from 66.7% before the ban to 91.7% afterward.

Separately, research by Primus Partners and the Institute for Competitiveness found offshore participation rising from approximately 68% to nearly 82% among surveyed users.

Both studies suggest that gambling behavior was being displaced toward offshore platforms rather than eliminated. However, their survey samples should not be treated as representative of India's entire population.

The central lesson is that shutting down domestic operators does not automatically remove consumer demand.

Brazil Shows  A More Aggressive Test of Digital Prohibition

Brazil is following a similar path, but its enforcement operation has expanded rapidly.

Under a Provisional Measure, the government prohibited fixed-odds sports betting and online casino games, including services offered by offshore operators to people located in Brazil.

The restrictions do not cover every legally authorized form of gambling or lottery activity.

On October 6, previously licensed betting platforms were required to become unavailable. The government also began coordinating the return of player balances through financial institutions.

By that date, authorities had referred 13,241 illegal gambling websites for blocking and requested removal of 3,552 social-media pages, profiles, channels and groups.

The operation extends across telecommunications providers, digital advertising, app distribution and the financial system.

Brazil has therefore demonstrated that a government can force its authorized operators to close within a relatively short period.

What it has not yet demonstrated is whether the same measures can prevent players from migrating to offshore alternatives.

With the prohibition only recently implemented, reliable evidence about long-term changes in gambling participation remains limited.

Why Players May Continue Gambling After a Ban

Online gambling differs from industries that depend on physical locations.

A land-based casino requires premises, employees and local operating infrastructure. An offshore gambling platform can reach customers across borders without maintaining a comparable physical presence.

Blocking a domain can interrupt access, but customer acquisition can shift toward private communities, messaging platforms and less transparent promotional networks.

Payment restrictions introduce another obstacle, although offshore operators may seek alternative financial channels.

None of these alternatives guarantees that an operator can continue serving customers successfully. Coordinated enforcement can increase costs, discourage casual users and make illegal gambling less accessible.

Nevertheless, the Indian experience suggests that restrictions alone may not eliminate demand among people determined to continue gambling.

The Consumer Protection Paradox

There is a difficult trade-off at the center of gambling prohibition.

Governments introduce bans partly to protect consumers from addiction, financial losses and harmful gambling behavior.

But when players move from regulated platforms to unauthorized operators, they may lose access to safeguards such as mandatory identity verification, responsible gambling controls, complaints procedures and supervised withdrawals.

Illegal operators may also be harder to investigate when payments are delayed or winnings are withheld.

That does not prove regulation is always preferable to prohibition. A ban could still reduce overall participation and gambling-related harm, even if some players continue using offshore sites.

The essential question is whether the reduction in gambling activity outweighs the risks created by any remaining activity moving outside regulatory oversight.

India's early research raises concerns about that balance. Brazil's longer-term results will provide another important test.

What Should Regulators Watch in 2027?

The success of these policies should not be measured solely by the number of websites blocked.

The more meaningful indicators are changes in total gambling participation, household gambling expenditure, offshore traffic, payment activity, gambling-related harm and consumer complaints.

Governments should also examine whether restrictions reduce gambling among vulnerable consumers or primarily displace existing players toward harder-to-monitor platforms.

For Brazil, the durability of the prohibition itself remains another important factor, given the legislative and constitutional challenges surrounding the measure.

For India, the question is whether continued enforcement can reverse the migration toward offshore operators identified in early research.

The implications extend well beyond these two countries. Governments across Europe, Latin America and Asia are debating stronger gambling advertising restrictions, payment blocking and tougher enforcement against unauthorized operators.

India and Brazil may ultimately demonstrate that a country can close its regulated online gambling industry without necessarily eliminating online gambling itself.

A successful prohibition should be judged not only by how many legal operators disappear, but by whether fewer people gamble, whether financial harm declines and whether consumers become safer.

That is the challenge facing gambling regulators in 2027.

References

CUTS International. (2026). Access to offshore betting websites after the online gaming ban: Maharashtra research report.
Ernst & Young, & Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry. (2026). India's media and entertainment economy: 2026.
Government of India, Press Information Bureau. (2026). Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025.
Ministry of Finance, Brazil. (2026). Medida Provisória nº 1.394/2026: Entenda as novas regras para as apostas de quota fixa [Provisional Measure No. 1,394/2026: Understanding the new rules for fixed-odds betting]. 
Ministry of Justice and Public Security, Brazil. (2026, October 6). Bets fora do ar: Plataformas cumprem determinação e encerram apostas no Brasil [Betting platforms go offline: Operators comply with the order and end betting in Brazil]. 
Primus Partners, & Institute for Competitiveness. (2026). Trends in India's online gaming landscape post-PROGA 2025: Evidence of rising offshore participation.