The National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) and the Brazilian Institute of Responsible Gaming (IBJR) have formally requested the suspension of Brazil's ban on online gambling. In a statement directed to Supreme Court judge, Minister Luiz Fux, they are seeking immediate action against Provisional Measure 1.394, which was enacted on Friday and imposes a nationwide moratorium on betting operations.
The organizations criticize the measure as an "opportunistic and extremely serious" act that contravenes constitutional principles and could severely damage the country's gaming sector. Acting in the capacity of amici curiae, or "friends of the court," they are supporting legal actions designated ADIs 7.721, 7.723, and 7.749.
A key aspect of their argument hinges on the assertion that there is no substantial evidence supporting any so-called "urgency" necessary for implementing such a provisional measure—a constitutional requirement. They assert that no new developments warranting immediate intervention have arisen. Official statistics from the Secretariat of Prizes and Bets (SPA) corroborate this, revealing that the betting market did not experience a surge nor any significant growth justifying an emergency response, with a reported 42% decline in financial volumes from October 2025 to June 2026.
ANJL and IBJR further point out that the government itself previously advocated for regulation during the legislative process pertaining to Law 14.790/2023, specifically advising against amendments that would restrict access for vulnerable populations. As they see it, the introduction of the Provisional Measure represents a notable shift in policy lacking a technical foundation.
They express concern that this measure could dismantle a structured and monitored market that had been operational since January 2025, where gambling companies paid BRL30 million (approximately $5.7 million) for licenses and invested significantly in technology, security, and responsible gaming infrastructure. The abrupt termination of these authorizations, they argue, violates the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectation.
According to them, "The Brazilian state invited private agents to enter the market […] and now, a short time later, it intends to empty the economic content of the authorisations that it itself granted."
The impact on public finances is another critical point raised. They note that the provisional measure lacks an estimate of its budgetary implications, contradicting Article 113 of the Transitional Constitutional Provisions Act. The gaming sector had contributed BRL9.95 billion in federal taxes and BRL2.5 billion in grants in 2025, along with BRL95.5 million in inspection fees. Implementing an immediate ban, they warn, would cut off future revenue streams and potentially lead to additional expenses related to severance pay as per article 486 of the Brazilian Labour Code.
Moreover, ANJL and IBJR caution that such a move could push bettors toward the unregulated black market, which already comprises an estimated 41% to 51% of the total market share. In these illegal platforms, consumers face diminished protections, lacking user identification requirements, deposit limits, and other responsible gaming tools. Inadequate measures against money laundering further exacerbate the risk.
The ANJL and IBJR are urging Minister Fux to entirely suspend Provisional Measure 1.394 pending Congressional or Supreme Court decisions regarding the relevant constitutionality. They also ask for at least a six-month extension on the deadlines set by the measure and request that no asset freezes, revocations of licenses, or fund forfeitures occur during this suspension.
In alignment with these actions, the National Association for the Legal Security of Games and Betting (Anseja) has filed an ADI against the provisional measure with the Supreme Federal Court, asserting that it violates the constitutional requirement for urgency and undermines a federally regulated market established since 2025. Anseja describes the shutdown of platforms and cancellation of active bets as the “first irreversible effect of the provisional measure.”
They also highlight deficiencies in the provisional measure related to urgency and fiscal impact assessments, noting that it cannot be used to detain or seize financial assets, nor can it categorize advertising as a criminal act. Anseja's stance argues that the measure neglects fiscal responsibility standards and that it should be retracted. They seek formal recognition of both procedural and substantive flaws in the measure and ask for the preservation of existing authorizations until a final ruling is reached.
