Fux condemns gambling addiction and opens the door to modulating the effects
Luiz Fux stated this Tuesday at the Supremo Tribunal Federal public hearing that gambling addiction should be banned from the national sports landscape and, during the same address, noted that the court has the authority to modulate the effects of its rulings to establish transition periods. Both statements came from the reporting Justice overseeing the case.
This combination is what turns his opening remarks into a clear signal rather than a mere opinion. The Justice handling the proceedings put on record a personal stance against the activity while simultaneously bringing to the table the procedural mechanism that would prevent any eventual overturning of the ban from being instantaneous or retroactive. For an operator that lost its license in September, the latter carries far more weight than the former.
Fux summarized its purpose: the modulation of effects aims to "avoid surprises, unforeseen consequences," thereby safeguarding legal certainty itself. In practice, modulating effects allows the court to determine when and how the consequences of a ruling will apply, rather than having the decision operate retroactively across everything that has already taken place.
The underlying argument he used to justify this mechanism points directly to who created the situation. In addressing the ban enacted by the Executive branch, Fux underscored that the activity had previously been authorized and regulated by the public authorities themselves, concluding with a remark worth quoting in full: every government act must carry the protection of legitimate expectations, and we trust in public authority.
From there arose the technical question the court will have to answer. He explained that when reviewing declarations of unconstitutionality, the full court assesses whether the abolition of an activity can or cannot be dismantled overnight, and he provided the rationale: because Brazil guarantees legal certainty as an entrenched clause, meaning a constitutional guarantee that cannot be altered by amendment.
This debate has direct implications for the timeline. The provisional measure was published on September 25, and the Ministry of Finance set October 6 as the blackout date for websites and apps, leaving an effective transition period of just eleven days. This is precisely the kind of timeframe that a modulation of effects is meant to correct.
He expressed his personal position bluntly, and it should not be conflated with that of the court. He said he became convinced that gambling addiction is both a public health and an economic issue, and that it should be banned from the national sports scene. He immediately clarified, however, that his individual view remains subject to the analysis of the other STF Justices, who cast the votes.
The other part of his address was a direct response to questions regarding the invitee list. The claim that I only summoned companies and football clubs is unfounded, he declared, recalling that in November 2024 he presided over two days of public hearings on the impacts of betting, featuring organizations focused on healthcare, consumer protection, and vulnerable groups.
The organizations he cited from that initial round are verifiable and provide the counterweight he maintains exists. Among those heard were the Associação Brasileira de Psiquiatria, Instituto Alana, Instituto Brasileiro de Defesa do Consumidor, and Confederação Nacional do Comércio de Bens, Serviços e Turismo. According to Fux, those sessions yielded valuable data on problem gambling, personal debt, mental health issues, and the impact of betting on household budgets.
This argument warrants serious consideration because it shifts how the balance of participants is assessed. Looking solely at today's hearing, the sports sector accounts for 15 of the 34 invited organizations—44.1 percent—a proportion that served as the basis for criticism. Viewed across both hearings, the broader group also includes the 2024 sessions dedicated to health, consumer protection, and vulnerable groups; thus, the overall breakdown depends on whether one evaluates this session in isolation or the full case docket. Fux urges the latter.
His closing remarks define what information will carry weight in the final ruling. He announced his intention to gather data on the aftermath of the provisional measure—including the surge in illegal platforms and the economic fallout of the ban—and emphasized that these elements must be delivered to the other Justices before final deliberations. This request aligns with what industry bodies themselves have been tracking: monitoring data released by the IBJR and the ANJL has logged more than 60,000 suspicious domains since the rule took effect.
Provisional Measure 1,394/2026 was published on September 25 and banned the operation, offering, intermediation, and advertising of fixed-odds betting in Brazil, two years after Law 14,790 of 2023 established the federal licensing framework. The modulation of effects is the legal mechanism through which the Supremo Tribunal Federal defines the temporal scope of a ruling of unconstitutionality, and legitimate expectations is the principle protecting those who acted in compliance with a valid law when that law changes. Tuesday's hearing does not constitute a ruling by the court, nor does it suspend the provisional measure.
Tags: Brasil, STF, modulation of effects, legal certainty