Brazil’s solicitor general asks STF to pause lawsuits challenging the betting ban

Brazil’s solicitor general, Paulo Gonet, has asked the Supreme Federal Court (STF) to suspend lower-court cases questioning the federal ban on fixed-odds betting, online games, and virtual casinos. For PSPs and acquiring teams, the point is simple: as long as different courts are issuing different orders, the market stays split between operators that can still run and operators that are blocked.

1. In his filing, Gonet argued that the spread of lawsuits over the constitutionality of Provisional Measure No. 1.394/2026 creates “insegurança jurídica e aplicação assimétrica da norma” — legal uncertainty and uneven application of the rule. He said lower courts have issued decisions that allowed certain platforms to keep operating despite the ban.
2. If Justice Luiz Fux accepts the request, the cases moving through other levels of the judiciary would be put on hold while the STF reviews the validity of the prohibition. That would centralize the fight over the ban in the Supreme Federal Court instead of leaving operators to shop for relief case by case.
3. The dispute started after the provisional measure banned the operation, offering, intermediation, and advertising of fixed-odds betting across Brazil. The ban also covers online games and virtual casinos, which is the part that matters to payment providers because it affects the underlying merchant category, not just a branding issue.
4. In São Paulo, one of the three platforms that benefited from lower-court decisions was A Casa de Apostas, whose site was already back online on Friday morning. The company had been prevented from operating in the country after the federal betting ban.
5. The AGU said the situation created an uneven market because it allowed one company to keep operating while the rest remained under the prohibition. Gonet also pointed to “regulatory asymmetry” in asking for the suspension of the lower-court ruling.

The STF is already hearing four direct actions of unconstitutionality against the measure. Those petitions were filed by entities representing the gaming and lottery sector and by an association of mayors and deputy mayors. Among the arguments: the lack of urgency for issuing a provisional measure, harm to legal certainty and free enterprise, and interference with previously granted authorizations. Sector groups also told the STF that companies had already invested to meet government requirements for legal operation in Brazil, including the payment of R$ 30 million for a license.