STF may delay ruling on Brazil’s bet ban until after elections

Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court (STF) is expected to deal with any legal challenge to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s ban on bets only after the election period, according to Gustavo Sampaio, a constitutional law professor at the Federal Fluminense University (UFF). For high-risk operators and their PSPs, the key point is not just the ban itself, but the timing: a court fight could land in a window where emergency relief is possible, yet a full ruling is unlikely.

1. According to reporting by Globo Online, betting companies are already preparing a legal offensive focused on the STF while also lobbying Congress to overturn the provisional measure (MP) signed by Lula on Friday, 25/9. Their expected arguments include a constitutional challenge, objections to the data used by the government to justify the measure, and a claim that the rule lacks proper legal basis.
2. Sampaio said the institutional crisis inside the court could slow the procedure or push justices away from single-judge decisions. “There is no time for a trial on the matter, because by the time the merits are judged, which is reserved for the full bench, there would not be enough time until the end of the elections,” he said. He added that the STF could still issue an injunction suspending the MP, but he does not expect that to happen in the current climate.
3. A 2020 plenary decision by the STF may give betting companies room to keep operating, Sampaio said. In that case, the court ruled that the federal government does not have exclusive authority over lotteries and recognized that states could set rules for fixed-odds betting. At the time, Rio de Janeiro, Paraná, and Paraíba issued their own rules to license betting companies.
4. That earlier ruling matters because, in the view of the betting sector, it could make unconstitutional the MP article banning the “exploitation of fixed-odds betting lotteries in the states and the Federal District.” Sampaio noted that the STF usually tends to preserve federal authority over state authority, but said the 2020 precedent could still weigh in favor of the operators.

In practice, this is the kind of Brazilian regulatory fight high-risk providers watch closely: a federal ban, a constitutional challenge, state-level licensing arguments, and a court that may not move quickly. For betting operators and PSPs, the immediate question is less “what does the law say?” and more “which rule survives long enough to be enforced?”