The comment, issued as a press release, does not challenge the Brazilian government's legal authority to impose the order, nor does it constitute a legal filing of any kind. What it does is stake out a familiar industry position: that prohibitionist measures, however well-intentioned, tend to erode the player-protection infrastructure that licensing frameworks are designed to provide.
The mechanism Play'n GO points to is straightforward. Licensed operators carry responsible gambling obligations — deposit limits, self-exclusion tools, identity verification — that unlicensed platforms simply ignore. A ban that licensed operators comply with, and unlicensed operators do not, shifts the market toward the less regulated end without reducing demand. Whether that dynamic actually materialises in Brazil is an empirical question the press release cannot answer.
What the Brazilian order has not yet established, at least as reported, is a permanent legislative prohibition. A provisional executive order carries legal force but is structurally different from enacted statute; it can be modified, challenged or allowed to lapse. That distinction matters because it determines how durable the market disruption will be and, consequently, how seriously the compliance calculus changes for suppliers currently holding Brazilian exposure.
Play'n GO's comment is advocacy, not evidence. The unresolved question is whether Brasília treats the order as a pressure valve or a permanent exit.
Marcus Azzopardi 
Gabriel Fenech 
Isla Camilleri 
Alexandre Noir