Brazil's Attorney General's Office (AGU) has urged the Supreme Federal Court (STF) to dismiss preliminary injunctions concerning the Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality (ADIs) under review by Justice Luiz Fux, thereby upholding the ban on betting.
This call for affirmation follows a provisional measure imposed by President Lula in late September, which the AGU was asked to address regarding the ban on betting. The AGU insisted that Brazil's prosecutor general should be consulted within 72 hours before Fux makes any decisions related to the industry's attempts to overturn the prohibition.
The AGU's response comes in light of a lawsuit presented by the National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) and the Brazilian Institute for Responsible Gaming (IBJR), which aim to challenge the ban. The agency criticized the existing betting legislation as "extensively flawed," highlighting its inadequacies in protecting minors and preventing money laundering and crime financing.
However, the AGU did not acknowledge the sector's ongoing efforts to combat such issues, instead attributing problems to illegal sites that disregard regulations.
In addition, the AGU proposed a new public hearing to refresh discussions from a November 2024 meeting, coinciding with criticisms that the timing of the betting ban was politically motivated, having been enacted shortly before Brazil's presidential election. This suggestion for another hearing is likely to intensify critiques of the government's hurried response to the sector.
Requesting that the attorney general's voice be heard and a hearing scheduled maintains a stalemate in the industry, preventing revenue generation and tax contributions for the government. More critically for President Lula, delaying a favorable ruling from Justice Fux regarding the betting industry until after the second round of elections, set for October 25, could significantly influence the electoral landscape. Lula and Liberal Party leader Flávio Bolsonaro are heading into this runoff.
The AGU also sought to reject efforts to suspend the provisional measure while preserving operations for authorized companies or extending the transition period by at least six months. Meanwhile, the ANJL and IBJR argue that the disruption contravenes legal stability and could adversely push bettors into the black market.
In its statement, the AGU rejected claims regarding the urgency of the provisional measure and that the government's economic considerations had been overlooked. The AGU emphasized that the ban arose from governmental experience and evaluations concerning household debt and health impacts.
Organizations have argued that the ban jeopardizes revenue collected and hampers resource allocation for public services. However, the AGU confirmed that the administration had considered the anticipated reduction in revenue resulting from the prohibition on betting.
Furthermore, the AGU disputed allegations that the ban would drive betting activities to clandestine sites, asserting that more than 10,400 illegal websites had been blocked within the week following the provisional measure's enactment. Additionally, actions were initiated to eliminate over 3,000 profiles, pages, channels, and groups related to illegal betting.
The AGU did not address the thousands of new websites that may have cropped up post-measure, stating only that the 18,195 sites identified by ANJL were not solely established in response to the provisional measure.
Concerning accusations of infringing free enterprise and creating legal uncertainty through the provisional measure, the AGU maintained that operations would proceed under authorities granted based on the discretion of the Ministry of Finance and could undergo review at any moment.
