Brazil’s STF weighs betting suspension as legal challenges raise uncertainty
Regulation2 min read
Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court (STF) is considering the constitutionality of Provisional Measure 1,394/2026, which temporarily suspended the regulated fixed-odds betting market. At a 3 November hearing, Justice Luiz Fux raised questions about legal certainty, non-retroactivity and the measure’s constitutional basis; the source says the court may consider how a ruling affects companies already approved. A separate appellate ruling granted temporary relief to CDA Gaming, though the source text ends before detailing its effect.
Justice Luiz Fux of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) scheduled a hearing on November 3, and 36 associations attended to debate Provisional Measure (MP) 1,394/2026. Under that measure, Brazil's regulated fixed-odds betting market was put on temporary hold.
Fux said at the close of the hearing that he had formed “the perception that betting companies should be banned”. Even so, he named legal certainty, non-retroactivity and legitimate expectations as issues the STF must weigh. He also raised the question of whether the measure met the constitutional tests of urgency and relevance. The justices would also consider tailoring the impact of their ruling, possibly including its effect on companies already approved.
Government officials said the measure would fill gaps in current regulation on consumer debt, gambling and links with organised crime. Attorney General Jorge Messias said the government had a right to rethink its policy. Health Minister Alexandre Padilha has maintained that the prohibition is the best and only solution. Some statistics presented at the hearing were disputed, including 2023 survey data used to estimate 28 million bettors for public health purposes.
On 3 November, appellate judge Adriana Pileggi of TRF3 granted temporary relief to CDA Gaming, the company behind Casino de Apostas, Betsul and Jogo Online. CDA paid BRL 30 million for its authorisation. Judge Pileggi called the extinguishing of the licence with no reimbursement or compensation a “veritable confiscation”. The ruling covered only CDA and remained open to review by the Third Panel.