Brazil trade bodies call for Supreme Court to suspend betting ban

The National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) and the Brazilian Institute of Responsible Gaming (IBJR) sent a statement to Supreme Court judge, Minister Luiz Fux requesting the immediate suspension of the ban on online betting in Brazil.

The trade bodies are calling for the suspension of Provisional Measure 1.394, introduced on Friday, which immediately prohibited the operation of betting sites.

According to the organisations, this is an “opportunistic and extremely serious” act that violates constitutional principles and threatens to cause irreversible damage to the sector.

The organisations are acting as amici curiae or “friends of the court”, by providing third party support in ADIs 7.721, 7.723, and 7.749.

One of their main arguments is there is no notable evidence of “urgency”, which is a constitutional requirement for the issuance of a Provisional Measure.

ANJL and IBJR assert that there has been no new fact that would justify the government’s immediate intervention.

According to the document, official data from the Secretariat of Prizes and Bets (SPA) shows that the market did not experience an explosion in bets, nor any abnormal growth that would justify emergency action. In fact, the financial volume fell by 42% between October 2025 and June 2026.

Furthermore, the government reportedly advocated for the regulation of betting during the legislative process of Law 14.790/2023 – even advising against amendments that had restricted access for vulnerable groups. The Provisional Measure, therefore, would represent a political shift without a technical basis.

Risk of regulatory collapse and legal uncertainty.

ANJL and IBJR claim that the provisional measure dismantles a market that the government itself had structured, authorised and monitored since January 2025. Gambling companies paid BRL30 million ($5.7 million) for licences, invested in technology, security, customer service and responsible gaming mechanisms.

The sudden termination of the authorisations, without transition and without compensation, would constitute a violation of legal certainty and the principle of legitimate expectation, according to the entities.

“The Brazilian state invited private agents to enter the market […] and now, a short time later, it intends to empty the economic content of the authorisations that it itself granted,” they pointed out.

Fiscal impact ignored

The statement pointed out that the provisional measure did not present an estimate of the budgetary impact, as required by Article 113 of the Transitional Constitutional Provisions Act.

In 2025, the sector generated BRL9.95 billion in federal taxes and BRL2.5 billion in grants. At the same time it also raised BRL95.5 million in inspection fees.

An immediate ban would eliminate future revenue and could subsequently generate additional expenses, such as severance payments as stipulated in article 486 of the CLT (Brazilian Labour Code).

Growth of illegal betting and risk to the consumer

The organisations warned that the provisional measure could push bettors towards the black market. These clandestine platforms already represent between 41% and 51% of the market, according to studies cited in the statement.

In the illegal environment, there are far fewer safeguards for bettors. There is no requirement for user identification or deposit limits or other responsible gaming tools. Indeed, self-exclusion mechanisms are also few and far between. Anti-money laundering preventions are slim while there are few restrictions on advertising too.

The provisional measure would therefore reduce consumer protection, especially for problem gamblers. This is the understanding of the sector and is substantiated in the statement to the Supreme Federal Court.

The ANJL and IBJR are requesting that Minister Fux suspend Provisional Measure 1,394 in its entirety until a decision is made by Congress, or the Supreme Court has ruled on the direct actions of unconstitutionality (ADIs).

As a last resort, they requested an extension of the deadlines defined in the provisional measure for at least six months. They also urged the minister to order federal agencies not to execute asset freezes, revocations of authorisations or forfeiture of funds while the suspension is in effect.

The purpose of the amici curiae brief is to expedite the proceedings in the Supreme Federal Court. The three ADIs discuss the constitutionality of Law 14.790.

Anseja reinforces the arguments of ANJL and IBJR

The National Association for the Legal Security of Games and Betting (Anseja) also went to the Supreme Federal Court. It filed an ADI against the provisional measure. Anseja requested an urgent precautionary measure to prevent the effects of Provisional Measure 1,394 from being implemented.

According to Anseja, the measure was enacted without proven urgency, violating several constitutional provisions and threatening to disrupt a market regulated and overseen by the federal government since 2025.

The organisation stated that the shutdown of the platforms and the cancellation of ongoing bets represented “the first irreversible effect of the provisional measure”.

It further pointed out some formal flaws in the provisional measure, such as lack of urgency, prohibited topics and lack of fiscal impact assessment. According to Anseja a provisional measure cannot be used for the detention and seizure of financial assets. It also specifically cannot classify advertising as an offence – something that would potentially lead to criminal repercussions.

Anseja claimed that the provisional measure ignores fiscal responsibility requirements, despite affecting public revenues, concession contracts, and billions of dollars in financial flows.

In addition to formal flaws, the organisation argues that the provisional measure violates the stipulation that it has to be a “perfect legal act” in the protection of legitimate expectations.

Within the definition of the structure of a provisional measure, it is noted that the use of such measure is the objective responsibility of the state to prohibit expropriation without compensation.

Lacking due process of law and the inalienability of jurisdiction, Anseja argues that the provisional measure is invalid and should be lifted. In addition to requesting its immediate suspension, the organisation is looking for recognition of the formal and substantive flaws and the preservation of the authorisations currently in effect until the final judgment.