The National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) and the Brazilian Institute of Responsible Gaming (IBJR) submitted a statement to Supreme Court judge, Minister Luiz Fux, requesting the immediate suspension of Brazil's online betting ban. This ban was enacted through Provisional Measure 1.394 on Friday, which prohibits the operation of betting sites throughout the country.
ANJL and IBJR referred to the ban as an "opportunistic and extremely serious" action that infringes on constitutional principles and poses a risk of irreversible harm to the betting sector. In this legal context, the organizations are acting as amici curiae, providing third-party support in the cases ADIs 7.721, 7.723, and 7.749.
Their central argument highlights the lack of substantial evidence demonstrating "urgency," a constitutional prerequisite for issuing Provisional Measures. They contend that there has been no significant new evidence to justify the government’s sudden intervention.
Official data from the Secretariat of Prizes and Bets (SPA) indicates that the market did not experience remarkable growth or a surge in betting that would warrant such emergency measures. In fact, financial activity in the sector reportedly declined by 42% between October 2025 and June 2026.
In addition, the federal government had previously supported the regulation of betting during the legislative discussions of Law 14.790/2023, even advising against amendments that aimed to restrict access for vulnerable populations. The organizations argue that this Provisional Measure signifies an unjustified political shift with no technical rationale.
The potential for regulatory collapse and legal ambiguity is another concern raised by ANJL and IBJR. They assert that this measure dismantles a market structure that the government itself had developed, licensed, and overseen since January 2025. Gambling companies have invested in technology, security, customer service, and responsible gaming initiatives, paying BRL30 million ($5.7 million) for licenses.
The abrupt cancellation of these licenses, without any transition period or compensation, infringes upon legal certainty and the principle of legitimate expectations. "The Brazilian state invited private agents into the market […] and now, shortly after, intends to nullify the economic value of the very licenses it issued," the organizations stated.
The statement also criticized the lack of budgetary impact estimates for the Provisional Measure, which is required by Article 113 of the Transitional Constitutional Provisions Act. In 2025, the sector generated BRL9.95 billion in federal taxes and BRL2.5 billion in grants, along with BRL95.5 million in inspection fees. An immediate ban would not only eliminate future revenues but could lead to additional expenses, including severance payments dictated by the Brazilian Labour Code.
ANJL and IBJR cautioned that the measure could drive bettors toward illegal alternatives. Studies cited suggest that clandestine platforms currently account for 41% to 51% of the market, where the lack of oversight leads to fewer protections for bettors, limited user identification requirements, and inadequate responsible gaming tools.
In light of these concerns, ANJL and IBJR are asking Minister Fux to suspend Provisional Measure 1.394 in its entirety until Congress or the Supreme Court addresses the constitutionality of the actions involved. As an alternative, they requested an extension of the deadlines specified in the provisional measure by at least six months. They also urged a moratorium on asset freezes, revocations of licenses, or forfeiture of funds while this suspension is in effect.
The goal of their amici curiae brief is to expedite proceedings in the Supreme Federal Court, addressing the constitutionality of Law 14.790.
Similarly, the National Association for the Legal Security of Games and Betting (Anseja) has approached the Supreme Federal Court, filing an ADI to contest Provisional Measure 1.394. Anseja called for urgent protective measures to halt the effects of the ban, asserting that the measure was enacted without any proven urgency and violates several constitutional provisions.
The organization stated that the shutdown of platforms and cancellation of ongoing bets represents "the first irreversible effect of the provisional measure." It highlighted additional formal flaws in the measure, including the lack of proven urgency and an absence of fiscal impact assessment.
Anseja criticized the measure for improperly using a provisional measure to enable the detention and seizure of financial assets, alongside the potential criminalization of advertising – actions that could provoke severe repercussions.
The organization contends that the measure overlooks fiscal responsibility requisites despite its implications for public revenues, concession contracts, and significant financial flows. Anseja maintains that the measure also contradicts the stipulation that it must be a "perfect legal act" safeguarding legitimate expectations, as it obliges the state to prohibit expropriation without compensation.
Challenging the legal validity of the provisional measure, Anseja called for its immediate suspension and recognition of both formal and substantive deficiencies, while advocating for the preservation of existing licenses until a final ruling is reached.
