Industry Associations Prepare Supreme Court Challenge to Brazil Betting Ban
Brazil.- 29 September 2026 | www.zonadeazar.com Brazilian betting industry associations are preparing to challenge Provisional Measure 1,394/2026 before the Federal Supreme Court, STF, after the regulation banned fixed-odds betting nationwide.
The legal initiative involves organisations including the Associação Nacional de Jogos e Loterias, ANJL, and the Instituto Brasileiro de Jogo Responsável, IBJR, alongside other representatives of the previously regulated market.
Rather than necessarily opening an entirely new case, the associations are considering filing submissions within direct constitutional actions already pending before the Court.
Provisional Measure 1,394
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva signed Provisional Measure 1,394 on 25 September 2026.
The measure prohibits:
- Fixed-odds betting operations.
- Betting offers.
- Intermediation.
- Advertising.
- Sports betting.
- Regulated online gaming.
The restriction also applies to foreign-based businesses offering such products to individuals located in Brazil.
Nationwide Scope
The measure extends beyond federal licences.
It also provides for the termination of state and Federal District concessions, permissions and authorisations involving fixed-odds betting.
Other lottery products separately authorised by law are not covered by the prohibition.
New Deposits Stopped
The transition began immediately upon publication.
No new betting deposits have been permitted since 25 September.
Customers can use the transition period to withdraw balances remaining on regulated platforms.
Websites to Close on 6 October
The Government’s timetable provides for betting websites and applications to cease operating from 6 October.
Customers have until 11:59 p.m. on 5 October to withdraw funds voluntarily.
A coordinated banking process will subsequently return balances that remain on customer accounts.
Advertising and Sponsorship
New gambling advertising, sponsorship and commercial promotion were prohibited immediately.
Previously contracted campaigns can remain only through the Government’s transition period.
This affects a sector that had built substantial visibility across Brazilian sport and media.
Supreme Court Strategy
Industry associations expect to approach the STF in the coming days.
The strategy under consideration involves making submissions in four direct constitutional actions already being considered by the Court.
These existing cases deal with different areas of Brazil’s gambling framework and federal structure.
Existing Proceedings
Using pending cases means the associations may not need to start a completely separate action initially.
Several relevant proceedings already have assigned rapporteurs and existing records.
The groups intend to connect the new prohibition with legal questions already before the Court.
Law 14,790
One existing constitutional debate concerns the legal framework governing betting.
Law 14,790/2023 provided a major part of the foundation for Brazil’s regulated federal market.
Industry organisations already participate in proceedings connected with that framework.
Municipal Lotteries
The STF is also considering disputes involving the authority of municipalities in lottery matters.
Questions over which level of government can authorise and operate particular lottery products were already active before the federal ban.
Provisional Measure 1,394 adds another dimension by extending its effects beyond federal permissions.
Loterj
Other proceedings concern platforms accredited by the Rio de Janeiro State Lottery, Loterj, and whether their activity can extend beyond state borders.
Federal-state authority in gaming was therefore already an active constitutional issue before the September prohibition.
Supreme Court Rapporteurs
The proceedings identified by industry groups involve different STF ministers.
Luiz Fux, Kassio Nunes Marques and André Mendonça are among the rapporteurs associated with the relevant cases.
The legal arguments will depend on the specific constitutional issues before each proceeding.
ANJL and IBJR
ANJL and IBJR are among the organisations leading the industry’s response.
Both had argued for preservation of the regulated market before the prohibition was formally enacted.
Following the measure’s publication, the dispute has shifted from lobbying and public statements towards constitutional litigation.
Earlier Industry Manifesto
Several trade bodies had already published the “Nós Apostamos no Brasil” manifesto before the ban.
The document defended continuation of the regulated framework and warned of consequences that the associations said could follow a total prohibition.
The statement demonstrated a coordinated position across several industry organisations.
Constitutional Questions
The associations intend to challenge whether a Provisional Measure can extinguish a market whose legal framework had previously been enacted by Congress.
Potential arguments include:
- Legal certainty.
- Protection of investment.
- Constitutional limits on provisional measures.
- Rights deriving from authorisations.
- Federal and state powers.
- Proportionality.
- Existing commercial agreements.
These questions remain for judicial determination, and the STF has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of Provisional Measure 1,394.
Previously Approved Framework
Industry bodies emphasise that the regulated market had been structured through legislation passed by Congress and sanctioned by the Executive.
Businesses say investment decisions were made on that basis.
The Government, however, justified the termination of licences on public-interest grounds.
R$30 Million Authorisations
One of the biggest disputes concerns the amounts businesses paid to secure federal authorisation.
Each licence cost R$30 million.
The permissions had been designed to cover five years of operation, from 2025 until the end of 2029.
R$2.55 Billion Paid
The Government said 85 authorisations had been granted.
At R$30 million each, this represented approximately R$2.55 billion paid by licensed businesses.
The Provisional Measure states that termination on public-interest grounds does not automatically create a right to full or partial repayment of these fees.
No Refund Under the Measure
The measure expressly states that licence termination does not create a right to compensation for:
- Lost profits.
- Investments made.
- Expectations of continued operation.
- Reimbursement of authorisation fees.
This is expected to become one of the central issues in litigation.
Potential Compensation Claims
ANJL has indicated that any compensation argument may go beyond repayment of the R$30 million fee.
It could also include investment undertaken while building regulated operations in Brazil.
These may include technology, staffing, compliance, advertising and commercial agreements.
Plínio Lemos Jorge
ANJL President Plínio Lemos Jorge said the authorisation fee represented consideration paid for the right to operate fixed-odds betting for five years.
He said a potential compensation claim could therefore cover both the R$30 million fee and wider material losses connected with industry investment.
These are arguments advanced by the association and remain subject to judicial assessment.
Legal Certainty
IBJR has also focused on regulatory predictability.
The organisation argues that domestic and international companies invested on the basis of government-issued authorisations.
The question of legal certainty could become a central part of the Supreme Court dispute.
Carlos Lima
IBJR President Carlos Lima criticised the mechanism used by the Government to terminate the regulated market.
He questioned what signal the decision could send to investors in other industries requiring public authorisation.
This reflects IBJR’s stated position and is not an independent legal conclusion about the measure.
IBJR Economic Estimates
IBJR also cited an LCA Consultores analysis estimating that a full prohibition could put between R$58 billion and R$73 billion in government revenue at risk between 2027 and 2030 under scenarios in which 80% to 100% of currently regulated demand moved to illegal operators.
Those figures are industry-backed projections based on assumptions about future customer behaviour and are not official Government forecasts.
Illegal Market Concerns
Channelisation is central to the industry’s argument.
Trade bodies maintain that consumer demand may continue even when licensed operators leave the market.
They argue that overseas unlicensed platforms could therefore capture customers previously using authorised sites.
Government Position
The federal Government takes a different view.
It presented the ban as a public-interest measure aimed at addressing harms associated with betting and introduced it alongside a broader package covering consumer protection and household debt.
Household Protection
The gambling prohibition was announced alongside additional measures.
These included a further version of Desenrola Brasil for indebted individuals.
The Executive presented the initiatives as part of a wider economic and social-protection package.
Public Health
Brazil’s Ministry of Health also supported the prohibition using public-health arguments.
The Government cited concerns involving harmful gambling, debt, mental health and exposure among minors.
These considerations form part of the official rationale for the ban.
New Enforcement Structure
The measure created the Interinstitutional Committee for the Inspection of Illegal Fixed-Odds Betting and Advertising.
The Casa Civil will coordinate the body.
Its purpose is to align different agencies in preventing and suppressing unauthorised betting following the prohibition.
Website Enforcement
The Government has already begun targeting services continuing to offer betting.
On 27 September, a joint Justice and Finance Ministry task force reported taking down 506 websites suspected of unauthorised betting activity following publication of the measure.
Anatel and Domain Blocking
SPA will continue identifying domains for blocking through Anatel.
Measures can include:
- App removal.
- Payment restrictions.
- Advertising monitoring.
- Cooperation with digital platforms.
The new framework is intended to reduce continued access to unauthorised operators.
Fines of Up to R$2 Billion
The new enforcement regime provides for substantial sanctions.
Administrative fines can reach R$2 billion, alongside other measures against businesses or individuals that fail to comply.
Separate Criminal Bill
Alongside the Provisional Measure, the Government sent a bill to Congress proposing new offences related to fixed-odds betting.
The bill covers activities including operation, advertising, financial facilitation and provision of betting applications.
Unlike the Provisional Measure, the creation of new criminal offences requires congressional approval of the separate bill.
End of the Authorised Market
The ban represents a structural reversal from the system introduced in January 2025.
Businesses previously authorised federally will no longer be permitted to provide fixed-odds betting products.
This applies to both sportsbook and regulated online games.
Five-Year Licences Cut Short
Authorisations had been designed to last five years.
Their early termination comes less than two years after the fully regulated federal market began.
This contrast is central to industry’s legal-certainty arguments.
Sports Sponsorship
The decision also directly affects commercial agreements with clubs and competitions.
New sponsorship and advertising contracts are prohibited and existing materials must be withdrawn under the transition timetable.
Sports organisations are therefore required to reassess betting-related commercial assets.
Wider Commercial Impact
The effects extend beyond operators.
Potentially affected businesses include:
- Sports clubs.
- Media companies.
- Advertising agencies.
- Affiliates.
- Influencers.
- Technology providers.
- Platforms.
- Payment businesses.
The short transition increases the importance of clarity around each party’s obligations.
STF as the Next Major Arena
The Supreme Court now becomes one of the principal forums in which the immediate future of the measure may be determined.
Industry bodies will ask the Court to examine the ban and its treatment of existing authorisations.
The STF has not yet issued a final ruling on Provisional Measure 1,394.
Minas Gerais Precedent
The sector enters this dispute shortly after Justice Flávio Dino rejected a challenge against a Minas Gerais decree restricting betting advertising on state property and state-supported events.
That case had a narrower subject matter and did not decide the constitutionality of a nationwide gambling prohibition.
Existing ANJL Participation
ANJL already participates in constitutional litigation concerning Brazil’s betting framework.
In August 2026, the STF admitted the organisation as amicus curiae in an important case involving sector regulation.
This gives the association existing institutional involvement in gambling-related constitutional proceedings.
Provisional Measure Debate
The legal instrument selected by the Executive will itself form part of the discussion.
A Provisional Measure has immediate force of law but must later be considered by Congress if it is to remain in effect.
At the same time, the Supreme Court can consider constitutional challenges to the measure.
National Congress
The dispute will therefore proceed on more than one track.
Deputies and senators will debate the Provisional Measure politically.
The STF may separately examine constitutional questions raised by interested parties.
Regulatory Policy Reversal
The controversy represents a substantial policy change.
Brazil moved from implementing a nationwide regulated federal betting market in 2025 to prohibiting the vertical by Provisional Measure in September 2026.
Operators, regulators and investors are therefore reassessing strategies developed under the previous framework.
Industry Context
Brazil’s gambling sector has entered a period of significant legal uncertainty.
The prohibition is in force and the closure timetable has begun, while trade bodies prepare constitutional challenges and Congress must still consider the measure.
Administrative, legislative and judicial processes will therefore develop simultaneously.
Next Steps or Impact
The next major step will be the formal filing of submissions by ANJL, IBJR and other organisations before the STF.
The associations intend to use existing proceedings to challenge the constitutionality of the prohibition, licence termination and treatment of authorisation fees.
Until another legislative or judicial decision changes the position, Provisional Measure 1,394 remains in force.
Operators can no longer accept new deposits and are required to prepare for their websites and applications to cease operation on 6 October.
The dispute over the R$30 million paid for each authorisation may also become one of the largest financial issues arising from the ban.
The coming days will show whether the Supreme Court accepts the industry’s challenges, whether any interim relief is granted and how Congress approaches the Provisional Measure in parallel.
Editó: @fonta
