IBJR asks to join Brazil’s ADI 8027 and brings data against the bets MP; São Paulo and Botafogo also seek amicus curiae status

The Instituto Brasileiro de Jogo Responsável (IBJR) has asked the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF) to admit it as amicus curiae in ADI 8027, the case filed by the Associação Nacional de Jogos e Loterias (ANJL) against Provisional Measure No. 1.394/2026, which banned fixed-odds betting in the country. For high-risk operators and their payment providers, the point is straightforward: the legal status of the regulated market is now being litigated with government data, and the outcome goes straight to licensing, processing, and banking risk.

1. The IBJR’s filing, submitted on Thursday (1), comes with “specific clarifications” and 13 supporting documents. The institute says its member companies, all authorized by SPA/MF, account for more than 70% of the betting volume in Brazil’s regulated market. It also notes that it has already been admitted as amicus curiae in ADIs 7.721, 7.723 and 7.749, took part in the public hearing in November 2024, and co-signed the original petition in ADI 8027 with ANJL under a technical-institutional cooperation arrangement.
2. According to the IBJR, the federal government is defending the MP with three arguments: that shutting down authorized operators would reduce the illegal market, that the regulated market has taken billions out of the economy, and that the sector overloads SUS, Brazil’s public health system. The institute says those claims “lack factual support” and reflect “a distorted and mistaken understanding of the structure of the regulated market.”
3. On the illegal-market question, the IBJR cites a September 29 press conference by the Justice and Finance ministries: of 5,209 domains targeted for takedown, Anatel had ordered blocking for 2,387, less than half. The filing also bundles three outside studies: Bet Legal says more than 700 illegal betting pages were created between the MP’s release and the night of September 29; H2 Gambling Capital estimates that about 60% of what was wagered in the regulated market, roughly R$ 25 billion per year, would move to unlicensed operators, taking the illegal market back to about R$ 42 billion annually, the 2024 level; and LCA Consultores, in a study commissioned by IBJR and ANJL, says the MP’s main effect tends to be the expansion of the illegal market, with roughly 1,086% growth in the number of new illegal sites identified between the first and last day of the period analyzed.
4. The petition argues that “the market the State promised to supervise was prohibited, while the market operating outside state reach was simultaneously strengthened.” It says the regulated operator, which represents 56% to 62% of sector revenue, is being punished, while the illegal side, with 38% to 44%, “will continue operating unimpeded.”
5. The IBJR also relies on TCU Plenary Decision No. 2.841/2025, which said SPA/MF did not have enough staff, technology, systems, or budget to supervise the market. The text in the source cuts off after “Taxa de Fis…”, so that part remains unresolved here. Separately, São Paulo and Botafogo have also asked to join the case, along with Instituto Livre Mercado and The Constitutional Centre of the UFMG Law School. The reporting says the case is being handled by Justice Luiz Fux.

For PSPs, acquirers, and partner banks, this is the sort of litigation that matters less for courtroom drama and more for whether Brazil’s regulated betting rails stay open, get narrowed, or become harder to defend in risk committees. If the legal market is squeezed while the illegal one keeps scaling, payments follow the usual script: more blocks, more scrutiny, and more room for banks to ask whether the customer base is actually the problem or just the easiest thing to turn off.