Brazil's Attorney General's Office (AGU) has urged the Supreme Federal Court (STF) to dismiss preliminary injunctions related to the Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality (ADIs) currently under consideration by Justice Luiz Fux. The AGU is advocating for the continuation of a ban on betting that was imposed by President Lula through a provisional measure in late September.
The AGU’s request came in response to a lawsuit from the National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) and the Brazilian Institute for Responsible Gaming (IBJR), both seeking to overturn this ban. The agency emphasized the urgent need for the prosecutor general of Brazil to be consulted within 72 hours prior to any ruling by Fux regarding the industry's appeals to lift the ban.
In its argument, the AGU described the legislation regulating betting as "extensively flawed," highlighting challenges in safeguarding children and adolescents and in curbing money laundering and criminal financing. However, the AGU did not acknowledge the protective measures that the betting sector has implemented against such illegal practices, which occur predominantly on unregulated websites.
Additionally, the AGU has called for a new public hearing to reassess the discussions that took place in November 2024, highlighting concerns that the timing of the ban—just before Brazil's presidential election—was politically motivated. This request for a hearing could intensify criticism surrounding the decision, as it raises questions about the appropriateness of the hastiness of President Lula's actions to shut down the industry.
The AGU’s request also aims to suspend the provisional measure while allowing authorized companies to continue their operations or extending a transition period by at least six months. The ANJL and IBJR contended that the disruption caused by the ban undermines legal certainty and drives bettors towards the black market.
In response to claims that the government failed to assess the economic implications of the ban and that there was no need for urgency in issuing the provisional measure, the AGU clarified that the change was informed by the government’s regulatory experience and its acknowledgment of subsequent impacts on household debt and public health concerns.
Several organizations maintain that the betting ban disrupts revenue streams vital for public policy funding. The AGU countered that the government was indeed aware of the potential decrease in revenue from ending betting activities.
The AGU further dismissed the assertion that the ban would push gamblers to illegal websites, stating that over 10,435 illegal sites were blocked within the first week of the measure’s enactment. Additionally, over 3,000 related pages, profiles, channels, and groups were requested for removal. While the AGU did not specifically address the new websites that appeared post-ban, it noted that the 18,195 sites identified by the ANJL were not directly linked to the legislation enacted at that time.
With regards to concerns about free enterprise and legal uncertainty posed by the provisional measure, the AGU pointed out that operations under the ban are subject to the Ministry of Finance's discretion and could be reassessed at any point.
