STF hears 34 institutions over betting ban
Brazil's Supreme Federal Court opened the public hearing on the ban on online betting this Tuesday at 10:00 a.m. in Brasília. Convened by Justice Luiz Fux, the session features 34 participating institutions, each allotted ten minutes, and is scheduled to run until 5:30 p.m.
The schedule is tighter than the timeline suggests. Thirty-four ten-minute presentations add up to 340 minutes, while the available seven-and-a-half-hour block leaves 450 minutes. The margin for opening remarks, speaker transitions, and delays is just 110 minutes, meaning the agenda is stretched thin and any overrun will inevitably force cuts elsewhere.
The procedural framework is Direct Action of Unconstitutionality 8.027, filed by the Asociación Nacional de Juegos y Loterías against Medida Provisoria 1.394/2026, the executive order championed by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. That measure outlawed the advertising, intermediation, offering, and operation of fixed-odds betting across the country, affecting both online casinos and sports betting.
A final ruling will not emerge from today's session. The hearing neither suspends the provisional measure nor decides on the merits of the case; rather, it gathers legal, economic, and technical material for Fux to weigh the challenges. The participation of the 34 entities does not require the court to issue a ruling at the close of the session.
A survey published by CNN Brasil places at least 22 of the participants against the ban—representing 64.7 percent of the speakers—while the remainder are set to defend the Executive's decision. That balance explains why the composition of the speaker roster was a matter of dispute before the hearing even began.
Expanding the roster failed to produce the intended effect. The AGU requested an expanded list to balance out perspectives, and Fux agreed, bringing in—among others—the Asociación Brasileña de Supermercados as well as the Ministries of Justice and Public Security, and of Health. However, sports entities now account for 15 out of the 34 spots—44.1 percent of the total, up from the 42.3 percent they represented prior to the expansion. Bringing in new voices increased the total number of participants without diminishing football's relative weight in the room.
Eleven football clubs have been summoned: Grêmio, Portuguesa, Guarani, Vitória, Ponte Preta, Corinthians, São Paulo, Cruzeiro, Botafogo, Fluminense, and Flamengo. Four other sporting bodies join them: the Confederación Brasileña de Fútbol, the Brazilian Olympic and Paralympic Committees, and the Federación Nacional de Atletas Profesionales de Fútbol. The opening stretch of the day is largely reserved for this contingent, followed by associations and public agencies.
What these participants will lay out is the budget deficit the ban has created. Operators holding sponsorship agreements with clubs and sports organizations were stripped of their commercial operations, and discussions on how to replace those revenue streams have already escalated to the Executive branch: in October, Guilherme Boulos, head of the General Secretariat of the Presidency, met with around 30 organized fan groups and announced a working group to explore alternative financing models. Any relief of that nature, however, runs on a completely separate track from the court proceedings.
On the plaintiffs' side, the ANJL is demanding that the court stay the effects of the measure until the lawsuit is resolved, or while Congress debates it. It questions whether the constitutional requirements of urgency were met and argues that the ban abruptly shut down a market that had already been operating under federal authorizations, undermining the legal certainty of licensed operators. The measure is also being contested by the Asociación Nacional por la Seguridad Jurídica de los Juegos y Apuestas and the Instituto Brasileño de Juego Responsable.
The Abogacía General de la Unión defends the constitutionality of the measure on jurisdictional grounds: the Executive branch is responsible for defining which lottery modalities may be operated and has the authority to revise public policy whenever it deems the public interest to be at risk. It was the AGU itself that called for this hearing, arguing that more information should be brought to the table before a decision is handed down.
The rest of the roster spans academia, economic freedom, criminal defense, and broadcasting: the Laboratorio de Regulación Económica de la Universidad del Estado de Río de Janeiro, the Asociación Internacional de Gaming, the Asociación Brasileña de Libertad Económica, the Asociación Brasileña de Abogados Penalistas, and the Asociación Brasileña de Emisoras de Radio y Televisión.
MP 1.394/2026 was published on September 25, banning fixed-odds betting and online gaming in Brazil two years after Law 14.790 of 2023 established the licensing system that ultimately brought together more than a hundred operators authorized by the Ministry of Finance. A provisional measure takes effect upon publication but must be enacted into law by Congress to remain permanent; concurrently, it can be reviewed by the Supremo Tribunal Federal, which is precisely the path the ANJL initiated with this action.
Tags: Brazil, STF, MP 1.394/2026, ADI 8.027