The National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) and the Brazilian Institute of Responsible Gaming (IBJR) have formally requested that Supreme Court Minister Luiz Fux suspend the recent ban on online betting in Brazil. This appeal addresses Provisional Measure 1.394, enacted last Friday, which immediately outlawed the operation of betting websites.
The trade associations characterize this move as "opportunistic and extremely serious," contending that it breaches constitutional principles and could inflict irreversible harm on the betting sector.
Acting as amici curiae, or "friends of the court," the organizations support three direct actions of unconstitutionality: ADIs 7.721, 7.723, and 7.749. They argue that there is a lack of compelling evidence to demonstrate any "urgency," which is necessary for the issuance of a Provisional Measure.
ANJL and IBJR assert that the government has not presented any new facts to justify its swift intervention. They cite data from the Secretariat of Prizes and Bets (SPA), indicating that the betting market did not experience a surge in activity; instead, the financial volume declined by 42% from October 2025 to June 2026.
Moreover, they point out that the government had previously supported the regulation of betting during the legislative discussions surrounding Law 14.790/2023, opposing amendments that would have restricted access for at-risk groups. As such, they contend that the Provisional Measure signifies a political shift lacking a technical foundation.
The organizations warn that this provisional measure threatens not only the market's stability but also introduces legal uncertainty. They highlight that the government had authorized and regulated this sector since January 2025, with gambling companies investing heavily in licenses, technology, and responsible gaming features. The abrupt removal of these licenses, without transition or compensation, would infringe upon legal certainty and disrupt expectations established under the law.
Additionally, they point out that the provisional measure fails to estimate its budgetary impact, violating Article 113 of the Transitional Constitutional Provisions Act. In 2025, the betting sector contributed BRL9.95 billion in federal taxes and generated BRL2.5 billion in grants, while also collecting BRL95.5 million in inspection fees. An immediate ban could wipe out future earnings and lead to additional expenses, such as severance payments as outlined in Article 486 of the Brazilian Labour Code.
Both organizations also express concern that the ban could inadvertently drive bettors towards illegal betting platforms, which already capture 41% to 51% of the market. These illicit platforms often operate without necessary protections for users, including measures for identification, deposit limits, and responsible gaming tools, which could expose consumers—especially those with gambling issues—to greater risks.
ANJL and IBJR urge Minister Fux to suspend Provisional Measure 1.394 until Congress or the Supreme Court has considered the pending ADIs. They request that the minister extend the deadlines of the provisional measure by at least six months and refrain from executing actions like asset freezes or revocations of licenses during this time.
The amici curiae submission aims to accelerate proceedings within the Supreme Federal Court concerning the constitutionality of Law 14.790.
In a concurrent effort, the National Association for the Legal Security of Games and Betting (Anseja) has also petitioned the Supreme Federal Court, filing an ADI against the provisional measure. Anseja seeks an urgent precautionary order to halt the measure’s implementation, arguing that it was enacted without demonstrable urgency and violates numerous constitutional provisions. They highlight that the measure's enforcement would lead to "the first irreversible effect" by shutting down platforms and canceling ongoing bets.
Anseja also identifies formal flaws in the provisional measure, citing the absence of urgency and the lack of a fiscal impact assessment. Furthermore, they claim that the measure's provisions concerning asset seizure and classification of advertising as an offense could have serious legal consequences. Anseja emphasizes that the provisional measure disregards fiscal responsibility, potentially jeopardizing public revenues and various financial agreements.
Through these legal actions, both ANJL, IBJR, and Anseja seek to address the flaws and implications of Provisional Measure 1.394, advocating for the preservation of existing authorizations until a definitive ruling is reached.
