Why the IBJR's Aviator argument misses the mark

The Instituto Brasileiro de Jogo Responsável (IBJR) recently tried used the Spribe's UK license suspension as evidence to argue that suppliers should work only with licensed operators in Brazil's regulated market.

However, the Spribe suspension was more of an administrative issue and the company aims to be back online in the UK within a month.

So what's the story here?

IBJR aims for supplier exclusivity

In its statement, the group said the case highlights the risks of providers offering games both inside and outside the regulated system, claiming that exclusivity is necessary to protect players and ensure a level playing field.

However, the example it chose, the Gambling Commission's temporary suspension of Spribe OÜ's license, tells a different story.

What happened with Spribe

Spribe, developer of the crash game Aviator, had been operating in the UK for five years under a gambling software license. The Gambling Commission (GC) later ruled that, because Spribe hosts players on its own servers, where users from multiple operators can play at once, it actually needs a hosting licence instead.

The regulator says it warned Spribe several times about this requirement. Spribe maintains it was not given enough notice before the suspension took effect. Either way, this is an administrative correction, not a compliance breach.

There are no allegations of misconduct, player harm, or integrity failures and Spribe is expected to have its licence reinstated within weeks.

Why the IBJR's argument falls flat

By using the Spribe case to justify supplier exclusivity, the IBJR conflates a licensing formality with a regulatory loophole. The UK decision had nothing to do with cross-market operations or illegal activity.

Industry observers note that no major jurisdiction enforces exclusivity for suppliers. Instead, regulators rely on licensing, certification and transparency standards to maintain oversight.

Brazil's framework does not yet include supplier licensing or monitoring systems, meaning an exclusivity rule would be premature and largely symbolic.

Rather than proving the need for exclusivity, the Aviator episode shows how regulatory systems evolve and how clear technical guidance matters more than restrictive market rules.