The Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region (TRF-3) has once again halted Stake's operations in Brazil, reversing an earlier decision that had allowed the betting company to continue functioning until October 25.
This ruling, issued on Friday by Judge Luis Antonio Johonsom di Salvo, responded to a request from Brazil's Attorney General's Office (AGU) and countered a preliminary injunction that Federal Judge Cristiane Farias Rodrigues dos Santos had granted just a day earlier to permit Stake's operations.
Consequently, Stake faces a renewed blockade within the country, after the AGU claimed that the earlier injunction unfairly favored Stake over its competitors, thereby creating an unequal playing field. Judge Johonsom di Salvo agreed, arguing that permitting Stake to operate could lead other betting firms to seek similar exemptions, undermining regulatory fairness.
"In this case, I consider the evidence of serious harm to administrative public order to be sufficiently established," the judge noted in the ruling.
Although Stake opposed the AGU's request at the TRF-3, their arguments did not persuade the court. The initial injunction granted to Stake only permitted partial continuation of operations, having denied the company's request to extend its operating license until December 31, 2029.
The suspension of Stake's operations will remain effective until the court issues a final ruling on the matter or provides a new directive.
As a result of this latest judgment from the TRF-3, Stake is unable to operate for an additional 16 days. This ruling also allows federal agencies to take necessary actions to restrict Stake, in accordance with measures introduced by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva last month.
Judge Johonsom di Salvo emphasized that allowing Stake's operations would create a regulatory imbalance that could endanger the consistent application of public policy, also expressing concerns regarding the protection of bettors amid perceived unclarity surrounding online gambling practices.
The latest decision does not address the fundamental issues at hand, nor does it assess the constitutionality of the provisional measure, which has been challenged by two prominent gambling trade organizations before the Supreme Federal Court.
