ANJL and IBJR ask Fux to suspend Brazil’s betting MP until Congress decides

The National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) and the Brazilian Institute of Responsible Gaming (IBJR) want Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court to freeze the government’s provisional measure against betting until Congress finishes reviewing it. For PSPs, acquirers, and operators, the practical issue is simple: whether a decree-like intervention can override an existing licensing regime before the legislative process runs its course.

1. On 24 September at 17:33, Brazil’s Ministry of Finance replied “information inexistente” to an Access to Information request. The ministry said it had not identified studies, technical notes, legal opinions, or estimates on the economic, fiscal, regulatory, or social impact of a possible ban on fixed-odds betting, and it also said it had not found any administrative unit assigned to that assessment.
2. The next day, President Lula issued Provisional Measure No. 1.394/2026, which bans bets across Brazil. ANJL and IBJR filed their submission on Monday (28) as amicus curiae in ADIs 7.721, 7.723, and 7.749, which challenge Law 14.790/2023 and are being heard by Justice Luiz Fux. In the same filing, ANJL said it is bringing its own Direct Action of Unconstitutionality against the MP, together with a request for a declaration of constitutionality for Law 14.790/2023 and Chapter V of Law 13.756/2018.
3. In a 59-page brief, the associations argue that the provisional measure is unconstitutional because it does not show urgency. They also say it undermines legal certainty for operators that paid R$ 30 million for a five-year authorization and was issued without the budget-impact estimate required by article 113 of the ADCT. Their final point is the one compliance teams will recognize immediately: a ban tends to push bettors into the illegal market rather than make demand disappear.
4. Their main request is to suspend the MP in full until Congress completes its review, whether by turning it into law, rejecting it, or letting it expire. If that is not accepted, they want the suspension to apply at least to operators with active authorizations from the Secretariat of Prizes and Betting (SPA/MF). As a fallback, they ask for the MP deadlines to be extended to at least six months, with a discontinuation plan for each company.
5. During that period, the filing asks for the suspension of the ban on new deposits, the blockage of Pix payments, website blocking, sanctions, and forfeiture of funds. It also asks that the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Justice, Anatel, the Central Bank, Caixa, and the Internet Steering Committee refrain from enforcing the measure. Fux had already announced on 27 August that the three ADIs would be judged together.

For high-risk payment flows, the immediate takeaway is not the political noise around betting policy; it is the difference between a live authorization regime and a sudden enforcement switch. If the court grants any form of suspension, operators and their payment partners get breathing room on deposits, Pix, and site-access enforcement while Congress keeps doing what Congress does.