Brazil AGU urges Supreme Federal Court to keep betting ban in place and hold public hearing

Brazil’s Attorney General’s Office (AGU) has asked the Supreme Federal Court (STF) to reject industry requests to suspend the betting ban introduced by Lula in late September, while also pushing for a public hearing on the measure. For PSPs and operators, the practical point is simple: the ban is still being litigated, and the timetable for any relief remains tied to the STF.

1. The AGU filed its position in response to Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality (ADIs) under review by Justice Luiz Fux. The office asked the court to reject the preliminary injunctions sought by the National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) and the Brazilian Institute for Responsible Gaming (IBJR), both of which are trying to overturn the prohibition.
2. According to the AGU, Brazil’s betting legislation is “extensively flawed,” particularly on child and adolescent protection, money laundering, and the financing of crime. The office also said the prosecutor general of Brazil should be heard within 72 hours before Fux decides on the sector’s requests.
3. The AGU separately requested a new public hearing to update the debate that was held in November 2024. In the source text, the industry argues that this pushes any decision further out and keeps the sector paralysed, with revenue and tax income not being generated while the case remains unresolved.
4. The ban was implemented just over a week before the first round of Brazil’s presidential election, which drew criticism as an electioneering move. The source says the call for another hearing is likely to fuel that criticism further, because any ruling that could favor the betting industry may be delayed until after the second round on 25 October.
5. ANJL and IBJR say the disruption violates legal certainty and could push bettors into the black market. The AGU, meanwhile, argues that harmful conduct is being carried out by illegal websites that fail to comply with the regulations, rather than by authorised companies.

For high-risk payments teams, the relevant read-through is not just the policy fight itself but the operational shape of it: authorised activity, transition periods of at least six months, and the status of court relief all remain in play while the STF process runs its course.