Brazil supreme court justice orders stay of all lower-court lawsuits challenging ban on betting in Brazil
Justice Luiz Fux has ordered the stay of all ongoing lawsuits in lower courts concerning Provisional Measure No. 1,394, which banned fixed-odds betting platforms in Brazil.
Serving as the Reporting Justice for the Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality (ADIs) before the Supreme Federal Court (STF), Fux granted a petition filed by Prosecutor General of the Republic Paulo Gonet, who argued that rulings issued by ordinary lower courts create “legal uncertainty and asymmetrical enforcement of the law”.
Gonet cited the preliminary injunctions granted to operators Stake and CDA Gaming, which were subsequently overturned by the chief judge of the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region (TRF-3).
The stay remains in effect until a final ruling is handed down on the four ADIs (8024, 8027, 8028, and 8035) that challenge the constitutionality of PM 1,394.
In his decision, Fux ordered the “suspension of ALL ongoing judicial proceedings in ordinary courts that address the constitutionality of PM 1,394/2026 until the final adjudication of the constitutional controversy by the Supreme Federal Court”.
The petition
On 6 November, the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Republic (PGR) filed a petition signed by Prosecutor General Paulo Gonet seeking preliminary injunctive relief to stay all lawsuits challenging PM 1,394 nationwide.
According to the Prosecutor General, lower-court measures favouring betting operators generate legal uncertainty in Brazil.
He pointed to the cases involving Stake and CDA Gaming (which operates Casa de Apostas, Betsul and Jogo Online), both of which secured preliminary injunctions from the Federal Court of São Paulo and the TRF-3.
Those injunctions were overturned by the chief judge of the TRF-3 within one or two days of being granted, following a motion by the Office of the Attorney General of the Union.
In its filing, the PGR also identified 13 additional lawsuits challenging the effects of PM 1,394. Specifically, the Prosecutor General’s Office petitioned the court to “grant incidental preliminary relief to stay, nationwide, the proceedings of all lawsuits concerning the constitutionality of Provisional Measure No. 1,394”.
‘Harmful activity’
Justice Luiz Fux granted the PGR’s request based on two federal statutes and the Internal Rules of Procedure of the STF.
One of those statutes explicitly requires Fux’s single-justice ruling to be ratified by the Full Court, stating: “The Supreme Federal Court, by a decision of the absolute majority of its members, may grant a request for a preliminary injunction in a declaratory action of constitutionality, consisting of an order requiring judges and courts to suspend the adjudication of cases involving the application of the law or normative act at issue until its final judgment.”
A second statute cited by Fux likewise addresses ratification by the plenary, detailing: “In cases of extreme urgency or risk of severe harm, or during a court recess, the reporting justice may grant a preliminary injunction, ad referendum of the full court.”
However, what troubles the industry most is the rationale behind the justice’s decision.
“There is a risk of legal uncertainty stemming from the possibility of multiple conflicting rulings, compounded by the fact that this involves the potential authorisation of an activity recognised as harmful and of high social risk – namely, the operation of fixed-odds betting – as I had the opportunity to state during the public hearing held on 3 November 2026, as well as in my opinion in Extraordinary Appeal (RE) 966,177/RS, during the plenary session of 6 August 2026,” the decision stated.
Unclear when the STF will rule on the betting ban
No date has been set for the Supreme Court to hear the challenges against the provisional measure against betting platforms. Chief Justice Edson Fachin has ordered the joint adjudication of all cases concerning fixed-odds betting, municipal lotteries and RE (Extraordinary Appeal) No. 966,177, which addresses the legality of games of chance in Brazil.
Meanwhile, the sector remains hostage to a Supreme Court that has yet to issue a ruling, and at the mercy of a National Congress that must debate the provisional measure but has so far failed to convene the required joint committee. Nearly 100 amendments have been submitted, and the measure’s initial validity period expires on 23 November. Starting on Monday, the congressional floor agenda is locked due to the failure to vote on the provisional measure.