Brazil’s two leading betting trade associations have filed a direct legal challenge at the Supreme Court against the government’s recently enacted betting ban.
The National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) and the Brazilian Institute for Responsible Gaming (IBJR) submitted their challenge, designated ADI 8027, on 28 September 2026.
The action targets President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s Provisional Measure 1.394/2026, which effectively shut down Brazil’s licensed betting market last week.
The filing also asks the court to confirm that two foundational laws underpinning the regulated market, Law 13.756/2018 and Law 14.790/2023, remain constitutional.
“We have, let’s say, the first action of hope against the provisional measure,” said Leonardo Benites, ANJL’s deputy head of communications.
The government is not moving quietly, with the Attorney General’s Office, led by Jorge Messias, requesting 72 hours to respond before any injunction can be granted.
The case now sits with Justice Luiz Fux, a former president of the Supreme Court, who already voted in August to keep gambling classified as a crime in a separate proceeding.
Fux receives these cases under the court’s related-case rule, as he serves as rapporteur for RE 966.177 and every other major gambling case currently before the court.
The associations make four central arguments: the ban fails the constitutional urgency threshold, no prior impact study was conducted, it undermines legal certainty for licensed operators, and it will accelerate illegal market growth.
Their filing points to significant fiscal contributions from the regulated sector, with licensed operators paying R$9.95 billion in federal taxes and R$2.5 billion in licence fees throughout 2025.
Each licence carried a price tag of R$30 million and was issued with validity through 2029, giving operators reasonable expectations of a stable regulatory environment.
Studies cited in the filing estimate that illegal betting sites already controlled between 41% and 51% of the market even before the ban came into force.
Following the ban’s announcement, hundreds or even thousands of unlicensed betting sites reportedly surfaced, further eroding any gains the regulated framework had achieved.
For any final judgment at the Supreme Court, at least eight justices must be present and six must vote in agreement, meaning the outcome is far from guaranteed.
Any single justice may also pause proceedings for up to 90 days to review the case, adding further uncertainty to an already complex legal timeline.
Should an injunction be granted, the 2023 regulated-market rules would automatically apply again for all operators from that point forward.
