STF freezes appeals against suspension of regulated betting in Brazil

The Supreme Federal Court (STF) froze on 8 November the appeals in lower courts challenging Provisional Measure (PM) 1.394/2026, which suspended the regulated online betting market in Brazil. Minister Luiz Fux granted a request from the Attorney General of the Republic, Paulo Gonet, and ordered that no appeals be admitted while the STF itself decides on the constitutionality of the measure imposed on 25 September. The suspension affects licensed activity and related authorisations pending the court's review of the PM and the legislative process in the [regulation](/regulation) sphere.

Decision of the STF and rationale

Fux’s order halts the judicial route in lower instances following Paulo Gonet’s argument that isolated rulings were causing legal uncertainty. Gonet said divergent decisions could allow some operators to maintain monopolies or quasi-monopolies in the market. Fux endorsed that reasoning and warned of “the risk of legal uncertainty due to the possibility of multiple decisions in divergent directions, as an aggravating factor in the face of the possible authorisation of activities that are clearly harmful and of high social risk.”

The measure centralises appeals: challenges to the suspension of the regulated activity must be resolved by the STF or through action by the National Congress on PM 1.394/2026.

Favorable rulings before the freeze

Before the STF decision, some operators had obtained permissions in lower courts to continue operating despite the suspension. The bookmaker Stake temporarily obtained the right to continue its activities last month. CDA Gaming received permission from the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region to keep the brands BetSul, Casa de Apostas and Jogo Online online in practice.

Those partial rulings were part of the reason the Attorney General requested STF intervention: to prevent disparate judgments from creating regulatory inequalities among competitors.

Public hearing and positions submitted

The STF held a public hearing that began on 3 November and received interventions from government representatives, media, sport and civil society. Industry organisations and trade associations submitted briefs opposing the suspension, alleging constitutional violations that would affect legal certainty, free competition and due process. The Minister of Health, Alexandre Padilha, presented the court with concerns about social harm, addiction and risks to household finances.

The Executive’s defence was presented by the Attorney General of the Republic Jorge Messias, who described the previous regulation of online gambling as “a failed experiment” that would have put public health and household finances at risk, creating “a crisis that no government can afford.”

“There is a risk of legal uncertainty due to the possibility of multiple decisions in divergent directions,” Luiz Fux said when justifying the measure, citing the argument of Attorney General Paulo Gonet.

The role of Congress and the legal timetable

The National Congress has already received 99 amendments to PM 1.394/2026, which must be analysed by parliamentary committees before advancing to votes in the Chamber of Deputies and the Federal Senate. The PM was imposed on 25 September and its initial 60-day term expires on 23 November. If Congress does not vote on the measure before that date, the PM is automatically extended for another 60 days.

With the STF decision, parties cannot obtain results in lower courts and must await a definitive resolution from the Supreme Court or legislative action. The court has also received briefs from industry associations and other stakeholders requesting that the suspension be reversed.

What remains pending

The STF must still decide on the constitutionality of the suspension decreed by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and whether Congress will accept, modify or reject PM 1.394/2026 within the legal deadlines. Meanwhile, the temporary permissions obtained by Stake and by CDA Gaming remain in abeyance due to the centralisation of appeals ordered by Fux.