Brazil Supreme Court Suspends Betting Ban Lawsuits

Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court (STF) has suspended all lower-court proceedings challenging President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s nationwide ban on online betting, leaving the future of the measure dependent on a definitive constitutional ruling by the country’s highest court.

Justice Luiz Fux granted a request from Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet and the Office of the Prosecutor-General (PGR) to freeze the lawsuits, citing the possibility of contradictory judicial decisions while the STF examines the government’s Provisional Measure (PM) 1,394/2026. The injunction prevents companies and industry opponents from pursuing separate legal routes to challenge the ban or obtain permission to resume operations.

Fux said the suspension would provide greater legal certainty in a dispute involving an activity that the government considers a significant social risk. The decision was issued as an interim measure and must still receive approval from the STF Plenary, which comprises all justices of the court.

“There is a risk of legal uncertainty due to the possibility of multiple decisions in divergent directions, compounded by the fact that this concerns the potential authorization of an activity recognized as harmful and of high social risk, namely the operation of fixed-odds betting,” Fux wrote in the decision according to CNN Brasil.

The PGR approached Fux on Friday, 6 November, after several lower courts considered applications from betting companies seeking exemptions from the nationwide prohibition. Gonet argued that allowing individual judges to determine whether the provisional measure was constitutional before the STF had examined the issue could result in unequal treatment across the market.

The prosecutor-general described the situation as an “asymmetric application of the rule to those it applies to,” with some companies potentially receiving permission to operate while others remained subject to the ban.

Court Intervention Follows Disputes Over Operating Exemptions

The suspension follows a series of conflicting developments involving operators that attempted to challenge the government’s decision through the ordinary courts.

One prominent case involved CDA Gaming, whose three betting platforms, Casa de Apostas, BetSul and Jogo Online, received temporary permission to resume operations through a ruling by federal appellate judge Adriana Pileggi de Soveral of the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region (TRF-3).

However, the authorization was subsequently overturned by the court’s president, federal appellate judge Luís Antonio Johonsom di Salvo, following an appeal from the Office of the Attorney General (AGU).

Stake also obtained temporary permission to continue operating after the presidential announcement. That authorization remained in place only until 25 October, the date of Brazil’s presidential election run-offs, before authorities revoked the exemption.

These cases contributed to growing uncertainty over how the prohibition should apply to companies that previously held authorization under Brazil’s regulated betting framework.

Fux’s latest intervention effectively centralizes the legal dispute at the STF. Companies seeking to overturn the ban and government representatives defending it will have to await the Supreme Court’s assessment rather than pursue competing outcomes through lower judicial authorities.

The underlying lawsuits were filed by associations representing licensed betting operators and other organizations following Lula’s announcement on 25 September. Their arguments focus on the government’s decision to abruptly terminate an established regulated market.

Industry representatives contend that the provisional measure violates constitutional protections covering legal certainty, free competition and due process. They have also questioned whether the federal government has respected the administrative autonomy of Brazil’s states.

The dispute concerns the framework established under the Bets Law, which Lula signed in late 2024 to regulate the country’s online betting sector. Industry groups argue that the new intervention effectively removes an operating market before Congress has completed its assessment of the government’s decision.

Constitutional Review Draws Arguments From Both Sides

The legal challenge has developed alongside public hearings organized by Fux to collect evidence and opinions about the consequences of the prohibition.

The proceedings began on 3 November and brought together representatives of the betting industry, Brazilian football, media organizations, government departments and other interested parties. The discussions covered the potential effects of the ban on public health, household finances, sports funding and the development of illegal gambling operations.

The government, represented by Attorney General Jorge Messias, defended the intervention on public health grounds. Messias characterized the previous regulatory approach as a “failed experiment ”, arguing that the expansion of online betting had created risks for consumers and household financial stability.

Health Minister Alexandre Padilha also presented evidence concerning problem gambling, addiction and the potential consequences for family welfare.

The government maintains that the existing regulatory and monitoring mechanisms have failed to provide adequate protection against gambling-related harm. Its position is that the provisional measure is necessary to address the consequences of betting activity for Brazilian households.

Opponents have challenged the effectiveness of a nationwide prohibition. Representatives from the sports sector and betting industry warned that removing licensed operators could redirect existing demand toward unauthorized platforms, while also reducing commercial income and putting jobs at risk.

Football clubs highlighted the potential financial consequences during the hearings, particularly the loss of sponsorship agreements with betting companies.

Flamengo estimated that the prohibition could cost the club R$430 million annually, while Fluminense projected losses of R$200 million. Vitória outlined the importance of betting sponsorship to its existing financial position, reporting that agreements with gambling operators accounted for R$45 million, equivalent to approximately 17% of its revenue.

Industry representatives also argued that the government’s decision could damage businesses that had previously invested in obtaining licenses and complying with the regulatory framework.

The debate therefore extends beyond the constitutional status of the provisional measure, with both sides presenting competing assessments of its likely economic and social consequences.

Congress Faces November Deadline on Lula’s Measure

While the STF considers the constitutional arguments, Brazil’s National Congress must independently review Provisional Measure 1,394/2026.

The legislation provides a 120-day period for lawmakers to assess the government’s decision. Congress can approve the measure, introduce amendments or reject it altogether. If the legislative process is not completed within the established timeframe, the provisional measure will expire.

Lawmakers have already submitted 99 proposed amendments, which must undergo committee scrutiny before the measure proceeds to votes in the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate.

The initial 60-day period expires on 23 November. If Congress has not completed its review by then, the measure automatically receives another 60 days.

However, the legislative process has yet to advance through its formal committee structure. The Joint Committee responsible for examining the provisional measure has not been established, and lawmakers have yet to appoint its chair and rapporteur.

This leaves the measure subject to two significant developments: the STF’s examination of its constitutionality and Congress’s decision on whether the presidential intervention should remain in force.