Credit, Getty Images
The Minister of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) Luiz Fux suspended throughout the country the processes being processed in lower courts of Justice questioning the unconstitutionality of a provisional government measure that prohibits sports betting in Brazil.
With Fux's decision, the processes are suspended until the final judgment of the matter by the STF. Fux responded to a request presented by the Attorney General of the Republic, Paulo Gonet.
The ban on betting was determined by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva through MP 1,394/2026 signed on September 25, on the eve of the first round of the presidential elections.
Since then, several sports betting companies have gone to court against the government's provisional measure, alleging its unconstitutionality.
Last week, a judge in São Paulo had granted an injunction allowing a bet to resume activities. But days later the judge's decision was suspended by the president of the court.
In an order signed on Sunday (8/11), Fux suspended all these actions, claiming that "there is a risk of legal uncertainty due to the possibility of multiple decisions in divergent directions".
Fux also says that there is "the aggravating factor of potentially releasing an activity that is known to be harmful and poses a high social risk."
Bets back?
Last week, some sites, such as Casas de Apostas, returned to the air.
End of Most read
Watch news from Brazil and the world on the BBC World Service
Download here
End of app promotion
This is because, on Tuesday (3/11), judge Adriana Pileggi de Soveral, of the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region (TRF-3), in São Paulo, had granted an injunction, allowing the company to resume activities.
But the judge's decision was suspended on Friday by the president of the court, federal judge Luis Antonio Johonsom Di Salvo.
As a result, the Casa de Apostas, Betsul and Jogo Online platforms, all from the company CDA Gaming, are once again banned, as determined by the government MP.
Di Salvo responded to the Union's request. He determined the extension of a previous decision that had already suspended an injunction favorable to the Stake platform.
The Federal Attorney General's Office (AGU), responsible for representing the federal government in court, argued that the actions involving CDA Gaming and Stake were similar.
Therefore, he requested that the suspension of the injunction granted to Stake also be applied to the owner of Casa de Apostas, Betsul and Jogo Online.
The president of TRF-3 also stated that individual court decisions that free companies from complying with the ban could compromise the uniform application of national public policy.
Why the court had released CDA Gaming's bets
CDA Gaming went to court to try to suspend the effects of the provisional measure. The request was denied by two first instance judges, but the company obtained a favorable decision by appealing to the TRF-3.
The company argued that it received authorization from the federal government to explore sports betting and online games, in physical and virtual formats, upon payment of R$30 million. The license was valid until December 2029.
In the first instance, the request was denied because the judge understood that the public interest of protecting the population from the negative effects of betting should prevail over the company's legal security.
When analyzing the appeal, judge Adriana Pileggi stated that preventing the operation of companies authorized by the government itself, without providing for the return of the amounts paid or any compensation, would represent a "true confiscation".
The judge argued that the government established a very short deadline for closing activities, without considering the investments made by companies to obtain authorization and operate legally in the country.
"The authorization, as clear from the records, required the appellant to make huge financial and technical investments that cannot go unnoticed, under the argument of public interest", he states.
The judge also questioned the fact that the MP did not provide for the return of the amounts paid for the grant or compensation to the operators, in addition to establishing a daily fine of R$200,000 and other sanctions in case of non-compliance with the determinations.
The judge also stated that the expression "public interest" cannot be used as a "magic power" to change contracts signed with the public administration.
"The termination of authorizations in such a short period of time causes enormous harm to those authorized, disrespecting, on the other hand, the constitutional principles of legal certainty, reasonableness and proportionality", he states.
The judge also challenged the government's justification that the ban was necessary to protect the health of the population, consumers and families from the losses caused by betting.
"The MP would be a miracle, it would solve everything!", he stated, considering the arguments presented by the government to be insufficient.
Why the president of TRF-3 suspended the injunction
When analyzing the Union's request, the president of the TRF-3 stated that there was identity between the legal situations of CDA Gaming and Stake, which would justify extending the effects of a previous decision to the first company.
The judge also argued that the Presidency of the court had the competence to analyze the request, because the decision in favor of CDA Gaming had been taken individually by a judge and could still be submitted for analysis by a collegiate body.
In Di Salvo's assessment, maintaining individual decisions that remove the ban for specific companies could compromise the uniform application of public policy established by the government.
He stated that the release of certain platforms would create a scenario of "normative instability" and could cause a multiplier effect, with other companies going to court to obtain the same treatment.
The judge also considered that the ban aims to protect consumers and bettors and that its application needs to be uniform throughout the country.
In the decision, he stated that, given the conflict between private interests and collective values, the public interest must prevail when there is a risk of serious harm to public order.
Di Salvo also mentioned that the discussion on the provisional measure is being analyzed by the Federal Supreme Court (STF) and considered it "inconvenient" for lower courts to anticipate understandings on the topic.
Discussion in the STF
In addition to legal disputes involving specific platforms, the STF analyzes eight actions that question the ban on betting across the country and four others that challenge the law that regulated the sector. Minister Luiz Fux is the rapporteur of actions on the topic.
There is still no date for the trial. Congress, in turn, has until March 2027 to decide whether to maintain or overturn the government's provisional measure.
On Tuesday, the STF held a public hearing to discuss the MP that banned betting. Representatives of football clubs, civil society entities and members of the government participated, including the Ministers of Health and Sports.
During the hearing, Fux defended the banning of betting.
"We listened to the whole of society and I was convinced that gambling disorder is a public health problem, an economic problem and that it should be banned from the national sports scene," he stated.
The minister also said, however, that the government's measure raised issues that need to be discussed by the Court, such as the legal security of contracts and the economic impacts of the ban.
Representatives of football clubs criticized the ten-day deadline established by the MP for the closure of betting activities. They stated that the ban compromised anticipated revenues based on previous regulations.
Lawyer Igor Mauler, who represented the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) at the hearing, stated that the ban has a significant impact on the financing of Brazilian football.
"The prohibition by the Provisional Measure hampered the CBF and the federations in the midst of renegotiating the sponsorship cycle from 2027 to 2030. For the CBF, the loss of revenue for 2027 will correspond to R$420 million, with this number increasing over the years. The abrupt exit of bets creates a real debacle in the system", he said.
Credit, GUILHERME DIONIZIO / AFP via Getty Images
On the other hand, the president of the Brazilian Supermarket Association (Abras), João Carlos Galassi, stated that the ban already has positive impacts on food consumption by families.
He cited a survey monitoring consumption in Brazilian homes, carried out by the entity more than 20 years ago.
According to the survey, food purchases increased by 6.5% between October 5th and 11th and 6.3% between October 12th and 18th, compared to the same weeks in 2025. In the following week, growth was 5.4%.
Galassi related the data to the possibility that resources previously allocated to betting have been redirected to essential expenses.
"Food is returning to workers' tables and this transformation is what we need to preserve," he stated.
He acknowledged, however, that the indicators do not allow all growth in consumption to be attributed exclusively to the ban on betting.
The Minister of Health, Alexandre Padilha, defended the ban as a measure to protect public health, given the increase in cases of gaming addiction and its impacts on mental health and family income.
"The only and best solution to prevent suicides, avoid addicted people, and family violence is to maintain the ban on betting," he stated.
"There is no country that, by legalizing betting, reduced the number of people seeking health services due to gambling disorder, reduced health risks, reduced family violence."
* With information from Rute Pina
Discover more
Watch
End of Watch
