Brazil’s Supreme Court Keeps Minas Gerais Ban on Betting Ads in Public Spaces

Supreme Court Justice Flávio Dino rejected an injunction on Monday, leaving in place a Minas Gerais decree that bans advertising by sports betting companies in state public spaces. For high-risk operators and PSPs, the key point is not the headline politics but the mechanism: a state government is claiming room to restrict how betting brands, adult-content platforms, and sex services can use public assets and public money.

1. Decree No. 49.279, signed on 20 August 2026, bars publicity, advertising, commercial promotion, and sponsorship by fixed-odds betting operators, adult-content platforms, and sex services on state public property and at events promoted or supported by the Minas Gerais executive branch. It also prohibits the use of state public funds to pay for those activities.
2. The challenge was filed by the Associação Nacional de Jogos e Loterias (ANJL), which argued that the decree is unconstitutional because it deals with matters reserved to the federal government. ANJL also said the state went beyond its regulatory powers by imposing restrictions through a decree rather than a law.
3. In his decision, Dino said there is no “acquired right” for companies or event organizers to receive sponsorship financed with state public resources. His view was that the administration is free to decide how to use its own funds and that the decree falls within the state’s autonomy over the management of public assets and property.
4. Dino also said the state’s action against gambling is not limited to “good morals” and instead relates to constitutional values such as public health, consumer protection, and public security. To support that line, he cited the final report of the CPI das Bets, closed in 2025, which pointed to “exploitation by transnational criminal organizations,” “money laundering,” and related risks.
5. ANJL said it respects the single-judge decision but considers Dino’s reasoning mistaken, especially where it relies on issues tied to the illegal betting market. The association said it will appeal through an agravo regimental so the case can be decided by the full Supreme Federal Court (STF).

For operators, the practical takeaway is that the dispute is not only about ad inventory. It is about whether states can use control over public spaces, events, and public budgets to narrow the commercial footprint of betting brands, even before the STF rules on the merits.