Rio Grande do Sul has asked Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court to dismiss ANJL’s challenge to the state’s 2026 law restricting sports-betting advertising. The state argues the association lacks standing; alternatively, it asks the court to uphold the law, which includes limits on advertising and sponsorship.
The case could determine whether the state’s restrictions on betting advertising remain in force.
The day’s most important stories, free. One email a day.
Rio Grande do Sul's Law 16.508 took effect on 25 August, restricting fixed-odds betting advertising. It requires risk warnings covering at least 15% of advertisements and limits broadcasts to 21:00–06:00. The STF has yet to decide an ANJL application to suspend the law on constitutional grounds.
The National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) welcomed the Prosecutor-General's Office opinion seeking suspension of Rio Grande do Sul's Law 16.508/2026, according to the association. The law sets state restrictions on advertising, promotion and sponsorship for fixed-odds betting platforms. ANJL said the opinion supports its challenge to the law, which it argues encroaches on federal powers.
Brazil's Prosecutor-General's Office (PGR) argued that Rio Grande do Sul's Law 16.508/2026 is unconstitutional and asked the Supreme Federal Court to suspend it, according to a filing submitted on 17 August. The law restricts advertising, promotion and sponsorship by fixed-odds betting platforms in the state. The case was brought by the National Association of Games and Lotteries, and the PGR said the rules intrude on powers reserved to the federal government.
It was reported that a Rio Grande do Sul bill would bar public payments to media carrying fixed-odds betting advertising. The proposed restriction covers advertising contracts, sponsorships and other state funding arrangements.
Rio Grande do Sul’s law restricting betting advertising is the focus of a constitutional dispute over whether states can regulate the issue. The federal Attorney General’s Office supported suspending the law, arguing that authority over commercial advertising and lotteries belongs to the Union; the state Attorney General’s Office defended its constitutionality. The state said it was preparing rules for enforcement.