Brazil’s online gambling ban faces STF review after Lula’s re-election

Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court (STF) now sits at the centre of the online gambling fight after Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was re-elected with almost 52 per cent of the vote. For operators and payment providers, the immediate issue is whether the suspension of operations holds, gets narrowed, or is undone by the court or Congress.

1. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva won re-election with almost 52 per cent of the vote against just over 48 per cent for Flávio Bolsonaro, according to the Superior Electoral Court. The narrow margin of just over 4.3 million votes keeps the political pressure on the online gambling sector exactly where Lula wants it.
2. During the campaign, Lula’s team framed the election as a referendum on betting platforms. Lula has said the temporary suspension he imposed on September 25 is irreversible and that Brazil must “put an end to this plague,” arguing that he is protecting indebted families.
3. The first legal challenge now sits with the STF, which must review direct actions of unconstitutionality filed against Provisional Measure 1,394/2026 by industry bodies including the National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) and the Brazilian Institute of Responsible Gaming (IBJR), as well as football clubs. Justice Luiz Fux, the rapporteur, said he would rule once the electoral process concluded.
4. The sector’s argument is straightforward: the measure breaches legal certainty, disrupts contracts, risks mass layoffs and pushes players into the illegal market. Operators had paid R$30m (US$6m) for each five-year authorisation and set aside additional reserves, so the interruption is not a theoretical problem for them.
5. Industry estimates put the cost of the more than 20-day interruption at R$1,200m (US$240m) in revenue and more than R$400m (US$80m) in direct and indirect taxes. Meanwhile, Congress is studying around 100 amendments, including proposals to keep sports betting and protect existing sponsorship contracts.

For PSPs and acquirers, the practical point is that Brazil is not facing a clean yes-or-no outcome. Congress may modify, reject or let the measure lapse, and the STF could suspend its effects through an injunction. That leaves operators, sponsors and payment providers planning around a moving target, which is usually where the real cost starts.