The National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) and the Brazilian Institute of Responsible Gaming (IBJR) have appealed to Supreme Court Justice Luiz Fux, urging him to immediately suspend the recent ban on online betting in Brazil. This request pertains specifically to Provisional Measure 1.394, which was enacted on Friday and instituted an instantaneous prohibition on the operation of betting websites.
The trade organizations in their statement decried the measure as an "opportunistic and extremely serious" move that infringes upon constitutional principles and poses a risk of irreversible harm to the industry. Acting as amici curiae, or "friends of the court," they are providing third-party support in three direct actions of unconstitutionality (ADIs) with the numbers 7.721, 7.723, and 7.749.
A central point in their argument is the absence of substantive evidence demonstrating the "urgency" required for issuing a Provisional Measure. According to ANJL and IBJR, there have been no recent developments that would warrant the Brazilian government's prompt intervention.
Data from the Secretariat of Prizes and Bets (SPA) indicates that the online betting market did not see a surge in betting activity, with financial volume declining by 42% between October 2025 and June 2026. Additionally, during the legislative discussions surrounding Law 14.790/2023, the government had actually pushed for regulations that would not restrict access for vulnerable populations. Therefore, the new Provisional Measure appears to reflect a political shift lacking a technical foundation.
ANJL and IBJR warn that this measure dismantles a market that had been established, sanctioned, and supervised by the government since January 2025. They highlight that gambling companies have invested BRL30 million ($5.7 million) in licenses and have improved technology, security, customer service, and responsible gaming practices. The abrupt cancellation of these authorizations, without a transition period or compensation, could violate legal certainty and the principle of legitimate expectation, they contend.
Furthermore, the provisional measure lacks an estimate of its budgetary impact, which is a requirement under Article 113 of the Transitional Constitutional Provisions Act. In 2025 alone, the gambling sector generated BRL9.95 billion in federal taxes, BRL2.5 billion in grants, and BRL95.5 million in inspection fees. An immediate ban would lead to significant revenue loss and potential additional costs tied to severance payments mandated by Brazilian labor laws.
Both organizations highlighted a risk that the ban could steer bettors toward illegal platforms, which already represent between 41% and 51% of the market. These unregulated sites provide inadequate protections for consumers, lacking crucial safeguards like user identification and responsible gaming measures, heightening the risks for players, especially those with gambling issues.
To the Supreme Court, ANJL and IBJR are requesting that Minister Fux fully suspend Provisional Measure 1.394 until Congress or the Supreme Court makes a ruling on the pending ADIs. If immediate suspension isn't granted, they request an extension of at least six months for the deadlines defined in the measure. They also seek orders to prevent federal agencies from executing asset freezes or revoking licenses during any suspension period.
These efforts aim to hasten proceedings in the Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of Law 14.790.
Additionally, the National Association for the Legal Security of Games and Betting (Anseja) has also taken action, filing an ADI against Provisional Measure 1.394. Anseja’s claim emphasizes that the measure was introduced without demonstrated urgency, violating various constitutional provisions, and that it endangers a market that has been regulated by the federal government since 2025. They assert that the ban on platforms and cancellation of ongoing bets could cause irreversible disruptions.
Anseja pointed out formal inadequacies in the provisional measure, including violations of urgency requirements and fiscal responsibility guidelines, critical when public revenues and concession contracts are involved. The organization also labeled the measure as invalid due to its noncompliance with legal standards for such measures to be deemed "perfect legal acts," which protect legitimate expectations from expropriation without compensation. They seek the immediate withdrawal of the measure and recognition of its formal and substantive flaws, wanting existing authorizations to remain valid until a final ruling is issued.
