Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court (STF) concluded a public hearing on 3 November without ruling on the country’s betting ban. Justice Luiz Fux suggested that Congress and the executive branch might be better positioned to resolve some questions, leaving operators unclear about the future of the regulated market.
The STF heard arguments about the economic, legal and public health effects of Brazil’s betting prohibition.
Justice Luiz Fux raised the possibility of political institutions resolving some issues but announced no judicial decision.
Government representatives defended the ban, while betting associations and sports organisations highlighted its commercial consequences.
The restrictions under Provisional Measure 1.394/2026 remain in force as constitutional challenges continue.
The hearing examined Provisional Measure 1.394/2026, introduced on 25 September, which prohibits fixed-odds sports betting and online casino operations. Ace Alliance previously reported on the scheduled Supreme Court hearing.
According to the STF’s official summary of the 3 November hearing, Fux said the discussions had brought forward new evidence concerning illegal gambling, organised crime, athletes’ rights, economic damage and legal certainty.
He indicated that some issues could be settled outside the judiciary. However, he also stressed that any Supreme Court decision would require careful consideration. Fux separately reiterated his personal view that online betting should be banned because of its potential harm. That view is not a final ruling.
Brazil’s Attorney General, Jorge Messias, defended the prohibition, arguing that existing safeguards had failed to protect families and vulnerable consumers.
In remarks delivered in Portuguese, Messias said:
The state can and must act when protective measures prove insufficient.
Sports organisations disputed the speed of the shutdown. The Brazilian Olympic Committee warned that betting-related funding would have provided approximately R$130 million, or 20% of its planned 2027 budget.
Industry association ANJL argued that banning licensed operators could push bettors towards illegal platforms. It also questioned the cancellation of authorisations without compensation. These positions reflect submissions made at the hearing, not findings adopted by the court.
The hearing did not suspend the betting ban or restore expired licences. Operators must continue to comply with restrictions and outstanding obligations arising from the shutdown and player refund process.
Meanwhile, lawmakers are considering amendments to the provisional measure, including proposals to reinstate licences. Court proceedings and congressional debate therefore remain separate but closely connected routes to potential regulatory change.
For sportsbooks, casino suppliers, affiliates and sports partners, the immediate priorities are legal compliance, contractual exposure and monitoring further decisions. No timetable for a final Supreme Court ruling has been confirmed.
