The National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) and the Brazilian Institute of Responsible Gaming (IBJR) have formally requested Supreme Court Justice Minister Luiz Fux to suspend the ban on online betting in Brazil. The call comes after the introduction of Provisional Measure 1.394 on Friday, which prohibits the operation of betting platforms with immediate effect.
In their statement, the trade organizations described the ban as "opportunistic and extremely serious," claiming it violates constitutional principles and poses a risk of irreversible damage to the gaming sector. The groups are acting as amici curiae, or friends of the court, offering third-party support in three direct actions of unconstitutionality (ADIs 7.721, 7.723, and 7.749).
A key point raised by ANJL and IBJR is the lack of evidence supporting the perceived urgency for such a measure, which is required under the constitution for a Provisional Measure to be issued. They argue that no new facts justify the government's sudden intervention. Official data from the Secretariat of Prizes and Bets (SPA) indicates that the betting market did not experience significant growth or increased betting activity, noting a 42% drop in financial volume from October 2025 to June 2026.
Additionally, the government had previously advocated for the regulation of betting during the legislative process of Law 14.790/2023, expressing concerns over amendments that would restrict access for vulnerable groups. The issuance of the Provisional Measure appears to reflect a political change lacking technical justification.
ANJL and IBJR assert that the new regulation dismantles a structured market that had been authorized and monitored by the government since January 2025. They highlight that gambling companies invested BRL30 million ($5.7 million) for licenses and made significant commitments to technology and responsible gaming measures. The abrupt cancellation of these authorizations, without any compensation or transition period, violates the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.
The statement raised concerns about the unaddressed fiscal implications of the Provisional Measure, which did not provide a budgetary impact estimate, as mandated by Article 113 of the Transitional Constitutional Provisions Act. In 2025, the regulated gaming sector contributed BRL9.95 billion in federal taxes and BRL2.5 billion in grants, while also generating BRL95.5 million in inspection fees. An immediate ban could curb revenue and lead to additional liabilities, such as severance payments under article 486 of the Brazilian Labour Code (CLT).
The organizations warned that this ban might push bettors toward the black market, where illegal platforms already account for 41% to 51% of the gaming market. In these risqué environments, there are far fewer protections for consumers, including a lack of user identification mandates, deposit limits, responsible gaming tools, and anti-money laundering measures.
ANJL and IBJR urge Minister Fux to entirely suspend Provisional Measure 1.394 until Congress reaches a decision or the Supreme Court rules on the pending direct actions. They have also requested a minimum six-month extension of the deadlines set in the provisional measure. The organizations want the minister to direct federal agencies not to execute asset freezes or revoke licenses while the suspension is in place.
In a similar move, the National Association for the Legal Security of Games and Betting (Anseja) has filed an ADI against the provisional measure, asserting the need for urgent measures to halt its effects. Anseja claims that the measure lacks proven urgency and violates several constitutional provisions, jeopardizing a market that has been regulated since 2025. They argue that the shutdown of platforms and cancellation of ongoing wagers signify "the first irreversible effect of the provisional measure."
The organization further points out formal deficiencies in the Provisional Measure, including the absence of urgency and fiscal impact assessment, and contends that it unlawfully allows for the detention and seizure of financial assets, along with the criminalizing of advertising.
Anseja emphasizes that the measure neglects fiscal responsibility requirements, adversely affecting public revenue and concession contracts as well as financial transactions worth billions. They argue for the recognition of these formal and substantive flaws and seek the preservation of existing authorizations until a final judgment is rendered.
