Brazil’s betting ban can expire in Congress or be paused by Fux at the Supreme Court

Brazil’s MP 1.394 of 2026, which banned fixed-odds betting, is now facing two separate pressure points: possible expiration in the National Congress and a court challenge before Justice Luiz Fux at the STF. For PSPs, advertisers, and merchants tied to sportsbooks, the practical issue is not the politics; it is whether the prohibition holds, gets softened, or runs into transition rules that were never written.

1. According to Paulo Ganime, executive director of the Associação pelo Livre Mercado, the most likely outcome is that Congress lets the MP lapse rather than approve it. He made the comment in an interview with Poder360, arguing that lawmakers opposed to bets were uncomfortable with the lack of transition rules for companies and sectors affected by the ban.
2. MP 1.394 of 2026 was signed by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) on 25 September (25/9) and took effect immediately. It bans the operation, offering, intermediation, and advertising of fixed-odds betting in Brazil, but it still needs congressional approval within 120 days or it will expire.
3. Ganime said the central concern in Congress is legal certainty for sectors that had contracts with betting houses, including football clubs and radio and television broadcasters. His point is straightforward: on paper the ban hits bookmakers, but in practice it also collides with sponsorship and media agreements already in place.
4. Justice Luiz Fux is the rapporteur at the STF for the actions challenging Brazil’s betting rules. ANJL (Associação Nacional de Jogos e Loterias) and IBJR (Instituto Brasileiro de Jogo Responsável) asked the court to suspend the MP, saying the ban was imposed abruptly. Abert (Associação Brasileira de Emissoras de Rádio e Televisão) filed a similar request, focusing on the effect on betting advertising carried by broadcasters.
5. The AGU (Advocacia Geral da União) asked Fux to keep the ban in force, wait for the PGR (Procuradoria Geral da República) to comment before ruling, and consider holding a new public hearing. The AGU backed its position with data saying SUS (Sistema Único de Saúde) treatments linked to pathological gambling and betting mania rose 140% between 2018 and 2025, and that the IEPS (Instituto de Estudos para Políticas de Saúde) estimated R$ 30,6 billion in social and health costs tied to problem gambling.

The AGU also said the official self-exclusion platform has more than 1,29 million registered users, with 36,41% citing loss of financial control as the reason for blocking access. For high-risk operators and their PSPs, that matters because Brazil’s betting framework is now being fought on two fronts at once: in the legislature, where the MP can still die on the calendar, and in the STF, where the current ban can be paused or kept alive while the case moves.