AGU Defends Brazil Betting Ban and Seeks Broader Supreme Court Debate
Brazil.- 9 October 2026 | www.zonadeazar.com Brazil’s Attorney General’s Office, AGU, has reinforced its defence of the regulated gambling ban before the Federal Supreme Court and asked the Court to broaden the debate before ruling on requests to suspend the measure.
Attorney General Jorge Messias asked Justice Luiz Fux to consider discussions involving the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office, researchers, consumer protection organisations and economically affected stakeholders.
AGU Defends Lula’s Measure
The AGU maintains that there are insufficient grounds to temporarily suspend the Provisional Measure banning regulated sports betting and online gaming.
According to the institution, the urgency of the intervention is justified by concerns including:
- Household debt.
- Pressure on family budgets.
- Public health.
- Social risks associated with gambling.
Broader Debate Requested
Messias asked the Supreme Court not to limit the discussion to legal arguments from the Government and the licensed industry.
The proposal would introduce additional technical evidence and perspectives before any preliminary ruling is issued.
PGR Also Supports the Ban
The Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office has aligned itself with the AGU’s position against an immediate suspension.
Both institutions currently defend the measure as a legitimate public-interest intervention.
ANJL and IBJR Seek Suspension
On the other side, the National Association of Games and Lotteries, ANJL, and the Brazilian Institute of Responsible Gambling, IBJR, have asked Justice Luiz Fux to temporarily suspend the ban.
The groups argue that the immediate shutdown creates economic and legal harm for companies that had previously received government authorisation.
Six-Month Transition Requested
As an alternative, the associations have proposed a transition period of at least six months for operators previously licensed by the Secretariat of Prizes and Betting, SPA.
That would allow for an orderly wind-down while Congress and the Supreme Court consider the new framework.
Market Has Already Shut Down
Operators stopped accepting new bets and removed websites and apps from 6 October.
Between 6 and 8 October, companies were also required to provide banks and payment providers with details of outstanding customer balances.
Bank-led refunds are scheduled between 9 and 14 October.
Legal Certainty Under Debate
ANJL and IBJR argue that the prohibition undermines the predictability of the regulated framework.
Licensed companies had paid approximately R$30 million for each authorisation, with licences intended to remain valid for several years.
The associations maintain that early termination damages investments made under rules established by the Brazilian state itself.
Government Cites Public Interest
The AGU responds that the regulatory framework already allowed authorisations to be terminated where overriding public-interest considerations existed.
That argument has become a central element of the Government’s constitutional defence.
Market Data Cited
The trade associations have also used figures from the Betting Management System, Sigap, to demonstrate the economic scale of the regulated sector.
According to data referenced in their submissions, the market recorded around R$101 billion in the first half of 2025 and R$88 billion during the same period in 2026.
Congress Will Also Be Important
Industry bodies have asked the Supreme Court to take Congress’ position into account.
The legislature will fully resume its work after the 25 October presidential runoff.
The Provisional Measure must eventually be considered by Congress if its effects are to remain in place.
Luiz Fux Handles Key Cases
Justice Luiz Fux is responsible for several actions linked to the new framework.
Possible next steps include an interim ruling, referral to the full Supreme Court or an attempt to establish a conciliation process between the parties.
Next Steps or Impact
The dispute is now moving into a broader institutional phase.
The Supreme Court must decide whether to leave the ban fully in force during litigation, introduce transitional relief or convene further dialogue before ruling.
For now, the prohibition remains effective and the regulated industry continues its shutdown and customer-refund process.
Editó: @fonta
