ABERT says Lula’s betting ad crackdown was election-driven and asks Brazil’s Supreme Court to suspend the ban

Brazil’s broadcaster lobby ABERT has asked the Supreme Federal Court (STF) to suspend Provisional Measure No. 1.394/2026, which bans the offering, intermediation, and advertising of fixed-odds betting across the country. For operators, PSPs, media buyers, and payment-adjacent businesses, the immediate issue is not just the ban itself, but whether a presidential MP can be used to shut down an entire commercial channel on this timeline.

1. ABERT, which says it represents about 2,500 radio and TV stations in all states and the Federal District, filed to join ADI No. 8.027 as amicus curiae (friend of the court) and also opposed the MP in ADI No. 7.749, where it had already been admitted as an amicus curiae. Both cases are before Justice Luiz Fux.
2. The petition, dated September 30 and signed by the law firm Binenbojm, Cyrino, Koatz e Voronoff, fully supports the requests made by the Associação Nacional de Jogos e Loterias (ANJL). ABERT wants Fux to grant an inaudita altera parte precautionary measure, meaning the court would act before hearing the government, and suspend the MP until Congress reviews it or until the merits are decided.
3. According to the filing, the ANJL challenge drew so much interest that four amicus requests were already on the table before the case was even assigned to the rapporteur. ABERT is also involved in ADIs No. 7.721 and 7.723, which discuss Law No. 14.790/2023 and are connected to the case against the MP.
4. ABERT argues that the measure hits broadcasters directly, not just betting operators. Article 16 bans all communication, advertising, marketing, and sponsorship related to betting in any medium, and gives media outlets 10 days to remove the material, under threat of sanctions under Article 56 of the Consumer Defense Code, including counteradvertising, plus civil and criminal liability.
5. The group says the harm to its members “is already underway”: since publication, broadcasters have been unable to air new spots, sign or renew contracts, or carry out deals already in place. The deadline to remove the material expires on October 5.

ABERT’s constitutional argument is straightforward: Article 220, paragraphs 3 and 4, of Brazil’s Constitution requires a formal law, not a provisional measure, to restrict commercial advertising, even for products considered harmful to health such as tobacco and alcohol. The filing cites ADI No. 4.717, where Justice Cármen Lúcia noted that the list of matters barred from MPs in Article 62 is illustrative, and ADI No. 3.311, where the STF recognized commercial advertising as a protected form of expression.

The other line of attack is timing. ABERT says the MP was issued with a “deviation of purpose” and points to the electoral calendar, arguing that it was designed to take effect between the first and second rounds. For high-risk businesses, that matters because Brazil is not only debating what can be advertised, but whether an executive decree-style instrument can be used to freeze distribution, sponsorship, and media inventory before Congress has had its say.