Brazil’s betting ban faces Supreme Court scrutiny

Brazil's National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) and the Brazilian Institute for Responsible Gaming (IBJR) have asked the Supreme Court (STF) to suspend the betting ban introduced by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, which shut down the country's licensed market the previous week. The challenge, ADI 8027, was filed on 28 September. An ADI is a direct action of unconstitutionality, a lawsuit asking the court to strike down a law. The case targets Provisional Measure 1.394/2026 and also asks the court to confirm that Law 13.756/2018 and Law 14.790/2023, the two laws behind the regulated market, are constitutional.

The associations advance four main points. First, the urgency requirement of the Constitution is not met. Second, no impact study came before the government acted. Third, licensed operators face a loss of legal certainty. Fourth, the ban will strengthen the black market. On revenue, the associations note that licensed operators contributed R$9.95bn in federal taxes and R$2.5bn in licence fees during 2025. A licence carried a price of R$30m and ran until 2029. Studies cited by the associations put the illegal market's share at 41% to 51% before the ban took effect. Legitbet, ANJL's tool for spotting illegal betting sites, recorded 6,401 new such sites between 22 and 28 September.

The Attorney General's Office (AGU), under Jorge Messias, wants 72 hours from the court. That window would let the AGU and the Presidency reply before any injunction is issued. ANSEJA, the National Association for Legal Certainty in Gaming and Betting, has brought a second challenge, ADI 8024, which seeks suspension of the whole measure. Three earlier cases against the 2023 law regulating online betting and casino are also on the court's docket: ADIs 7721, 7723 and 7749. Two issues thus run side by side at the court: whether a regulated market should exist in the first place, and whether a decree from Lula can end it.

Justice Luiz Fux, who once headed the Supreme Court, now holds these cases. The related-case rule gives them to him because he already serves as rapporteur of RE 966.177, the leading case on whether land-based gambling stays a crime in Brazil. The three older online betting cases are his as well. In August, in that separate matter, Fux cast his vote for keeping the offence, pointing to over-indebtedness, mental health and suicide risk. Justice Dias Toffoli indicated support, and Justice Flávio Dino halted the judgment to request additional time for review.

An ADI normally moves along two tracks. One is quick and deals with the injunction, which would lift the ban for the duration of the case; the other is slower and leads to the final ruling. The rapporteur screens the petition first, typically within days, to confirm the filer has standing and the arguments are properly set out. A trade association qualifies through national reach, normally with members in at least nine states. Next comes the authority that issued the measure, which is heard up to five days ahead of any injunction; the AGU's 72-hour request puts its answer near 1 October. An injunction needs six of the 11 justices, a full-court majority, although the rapporteur may act alone when the matter is urgent, after which the full court confirms or reverses the decision in an online vote of roughly one week. On the quick track, the rapporteur may bypass the injunction and go directly to a final ruling: the government has 10 days to respond, and the AGU and the Prosecutor General (PGR) have five days apiece. A final judgment needs at least eight justices present and six in agreement, and any justice may stop the vote for as long as 90 days to study the case. Once granted, an injunction binds everyone from that moment, and the 2023 regulated-market rules return while the case proceeds.

A second clock runs in Congress. A provisional measure expires if Congress does not approve it within 120 days, but recess days are not counted, which means MP 1.394 could remain valid until March 2027. Leaders in Congress argue that the matter should be left until after the election. Should the measure expire, the court case may lose its purpose.

Extraordinary Appeal (RE) 966.177 has sat before the court since 2016, and it may settle whether any form of gambling can legally be run in Brazil; Fux is its rapporteur as well. At issue is whether Article 50 of Brazil's 1941 Criminal Misdemeanours Law, which treats running games of chance as an offence, survives the 1988 Constitution. Laerte Luis Gschwenter, the lawyer who argued RE 966.177 before the Supreme Court, described the ban and Fux's vote together as a "double blow". His reasoning: the provisional measure forbids offering bets yet leaves the 1941 offence in place, and prosecutors pursuing an illegal platform still need the bettor, the other side of the transaction. "It's a legion of 20 million criminals: former victims, problem gamblers, people in debt. They become criminals," he said. In his forecast, gambling-related cases will double from 10 million to 20 million within three months, then roughly 18 months of legal limbo will follow while Congress writes a new framework for land-based and online gambling.

According to the report, a full suspension looks improbable in the near term. The Supreme Court seldom invalidates a provisional measure on urgency grounds, and the justice handling the case has just voted to keep gambling a crime. With the election only days off, neither Benites nor Gschwenter anticipates a ruling by the 5 October deadline. Something short of full relief, for instance a longer transition period for licensed operators, is seen as more likely, and Congress rather than the court may have the last word. Before 6 October, operators have to take their sites offline.