FactCheck BNLData: the report Janja handed to Fux does not support the ban the government is defending

The study presented at Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court hearing on betting was financed by Open Society Foundations, was closed before MP 1.394/2026, and is based in part on a two-day online panel from July 2026. Its own recommendation is a gradual restriction, not the total ban decreed by Lula on 25 September.

1. First, the timeline matters. Janja Lula da Silva took part on Tuesday, 3 November 2026, in the public hearing convened by Justice Luiz Fux of the Supreme Federal Court on the fixed-odds betting market and MP 1.394/2026. That provisional measure, signed by Lula on 25 September, bans the exploitation, offering, intermediation and advertising of bets in Brazil.
2. At the opening of the hearing, Fux said he had received from Janja “a quite voluminous and detailed report on the new panorama, on bets.” BNLData obtained the document and checked it. The report is titled “Mulheres & Bets: o custo das apostas online para as brasileiras e suas famílias”, is signed by Estúdio CLARICE, and is dated August 2026. It runs 120 pages in presentation format.
3. The methodology is not a snapshot of the market after the decree. According to the technical sheet, the qualitative research was done by Estratégia Latina with 20 triads, or 60 people, across seven states in Brazil’s Southeast and Northeast regions in June and July 2026. The quantitative research was done by Instituto IDEIA with 2,008 interviews via mobile panel on 8 and 9 July 2026. The file metadata shows it was closed on 14 August 2026, more than a month before the MP.
4. That creates a basic problem for the government’s argument: the report does not measure what happened after the measure was issued, and it does not describe the current scenario. In the fact-check’s words, the fieldwork ended on 9 July 2026, eleven weeks before MP 1.394.
5. The document’s own conclusion also cuts against the ban defended by the government. The report recommends a gradual restriction, not the total prohibition announced by Lula. The financing and acknowledgments are explicit as well: Open Society Foundations financed the study, and the acknowledgments name APAJ, 342 Artes, IEPS, Bonde and Quid.

The hearing itself also had some operational theater. The AGU asked for the hearing and went to the STF to present its position, as did Justice Minister Wellington César Lima e Silva, but both left right after speaking, without hearing the other side. Janja left too. For PSPs, acquirers and banks watching Brazil’s betting market, the useful part is simple: if a government wants to justify a ban, it needs evidence that actually matches the regulatory moment it is regulating. This report does not.