Key Takeaways
- Justice Fux set a Nov. 3 public hearing on Brazil’s betting ban without yet ruling on requests to suspend it.
- Lula won reelection on Oct. 25, and betting group ANJL called for dialogue to be restored with his government.
- The order came a day after 85 licenses lapsed; Congress faces an initial Nov. 23 deadline to vote on the ban.
Football Clubs Called to Testify But Individual Betting Operators Are Absent
Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Luiz Fux on Monday scheduled a public hearing for Nov. 3 on the provisional measure banning fixed-odds sports betting and online casino games in Brazil. The two-page order, signed Oct. 26 in a case brought by the National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) and the Brazilian Institute for Responsible Gaming (IBJR), sets the session for 10 a.m. in the court’s Second Panel chamber. Poder360 had reported that Fux was expected to decide after the Oct. 25 runoff whether to keep or suspend the ban.
The order came a day after the measure extinguished all 85 betting licenses on Oct. 25, the same day President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva won reelection. The ANJL congratulated Lula on his victory on Monday, saying it “hopes that dialogue will be restored and the democratic rule of law will prevail.” The association offered to work with Congress and the government to “combat the illegal bets that, unfortunately, dominated the country during the ban on legalized companies.”
Fux’s order does not set out an agenda, but the session will center on the economic impact of the ban, according to Correio Braziliense. In their challenges, the industry associations argue that the sudden shutdown of licensed operators undermines legal certainty and causes losses running into billions of reais, and they question the government’s use of a provisional measure on a subject Congress was already legislating. For the industry, the hearing will be the first chance to present the court with official data on the effects of a month of the ban, trade outlet BNLData noted.
Fux said he was responding to requests from the Attorney General’s Office (AGU), the plaintiffs, and the groups admitted to the case as amici curiae. He held off during the election campaign, according to Poder360, so the move would not be read as interference in the political process. However, he considered the hearing urgent because of the measure’s deadlines and its economic impact on Brazilian football and other sectors, particularly on legal certainty. A copy of the order goes into six other challenges to Brazil’s gambling rules that Fux oversees, so the hearing will feed into those cases as well.
The 26 participants include the plaintiffs in six of the seven related cases, among them the ANJL, the IBJR, the Prosecutor General, a national mayors’ association, and state lottery concessionaires. The government will be represented by the AGU and the Ministry of Finance. Broadcasters’ association Abert, the National Confederation of Industry, a university regulation lab, and the International Gaming Association are also on the list.
Invitations were also extended to 10 well-known football clubs, bulwarks of an industry that had been leaning heavily on betting sponsorship for revenues. The Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) also got a spot. However, no individual betting operator was called, and neither were the health or justice ministries.
Several of the football clubs went to court in early October, asking for a transition period of up to a year to adapt their sponsorship contracts, and backing the industry’s request to suspend the measure until Congress votes on it.
The AGU has asked Fux to keep the ban in force and to hold a new public hearing before deciding, after it called the laws behind the licensed market unconstitutional. Fux previously held a public hearing on betting that covered issues such as gambling addiction, and cited what he gathered there in a vote on gambling that stressed the harms of online betting.
Congress has an initial deadline of Nov. 23 to vote on the measure, extendable once by 60 days. The joint committee that must review it has yet to be installed, according to the Senate’s records.


Leave feedback about this