Brazil's gaming industry, on a war footing in the Supreme Court: "The prohibition does not make the activity disappear, it makes it stop paying taxes"

Ten hours of hearing went a long way. Brazil's Supreme Federal Court heard on Tuesday from 34 entities on Provisional Measure 1,394/2026, with which the government of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva banned fixed-odds betting and online gambling in the country on September 25 . The industry took the opportunity to close ranks against the measure, with a clear message: gambling does not disappear with prohibition, it goes illegal.

The session was convened by Minister Luiz Fux, rapporteur of the actions of unconstitutionality against the measure. Infoplay had already advanced the call for this hearing after Lula's re-election and had analyzed to what extent the president's veto of online gambling was credible.

The harshest voice was that of the National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL), the employers' association that filed the main action against the measure. Its representative, Pietro Cardia Lorenzoni, defended that the 2023 law did not invent anything: "The regulation was not made to create a market. It was an attempt to tame the dragon, but the dragon already existed." He also accused the government of closing the door to any compensation: "A provisional measure cannot protect the federal government from the damage it itself causes."

Lorenzoni backed up his intervention with figures. According to data from the Ministry of Finance that he cited, the volume of bets had fallen by 32% in 2026 and more than 60% of the market was already channeled to regulated operators. He also recalled that each company paid 30 million reais for its license, that the sector contributed about 3,000 million to the public coffers in addition to taxes and that it allocated more than 1,000 million a year to football.

In the same vein, Ana Sofia Monteiro Signorelli, a jurist and economist from the Anseja association, author of another of the actions against the measure, spoke out. Her phrase was one of the most repeated of the day: "The prohibition does not make the activity disappear, it makes the activity stop being taxed." Signorelli calculated that the loss of revenue could reach at least 12,700 million reais, not counting the possible refunds of licenses.

The Brazilian Institute of Responsible Gaming (IBJR), which brings together large international operators, asked through its lawyer Celso Cintra Mori for a precautionary measure that suspends the ban until Congress or the Supreme Court itself pronounces. Mori maintained that the measure "causes irreversible damage" because it breaks legal relations established in good faith.

On behalf of the artificial intelligence and gaming association AIGAMING, Ana Clara Marques de Barros Santos provided data from the Secretariat of Prizes and Betting: 70% of bettors played up to 50 reais a month, in sessions of about 12 minutes, and only 0.8% develop a gambling disorder.

Sectors that are not strictly gambling also spoke. Gustavo Binenbojm, on behalf of the association of radio and television stations Abert, criticized the total ban on advertising and the ten-day deadline to remove it, and said that daily complaints against illegal websites in the advertising self-regulatory body have gone from 2.3 to 8.5. Eric Brasil, of the Able association, put the spending of families on gambling at 37,000 million reais in 2025, less than 0.5% of consumption. And Milton Jordão, president of the Sports Criminal Law Commission of the criminal lawyers association Abracrim, warned that the ban will end up handing the market over to organized crime and called for a transition period.

Football, the main beneficiary of sponsorships, also stood up. The Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) expects to lose 420 million reais in 2027, recalled that 27 of the 40 clubs in Serie A and Serie B have a bookmaker as their main sponsor and called for a transition period. Flamengo estimates a loss of about 430 million a year, Fluminense recalled that betting sponsorships accounted for 34% of club revenues in 2025 and the Brazilian Olympic Committee would stop receiving about 130 million.

On the other hand, the government maintained its position. The Minister of Health, Alexandre Padilha, defended that "regulation is not enough to contain the damage", and the Ministry of Justice reported that between September 25 and October 29 it asked for the removal of 36,905 websites. The supermarket employers' association and the confederation of commerce also backed the ban.

Fux closed the session without a date for a decision. He pointed out that part of the conflict could be resolved outside the courts and that, if it is the turn of the Supreme Court, he will act "with rationality and prudence." The Attorney General's Office has not yet ruled on the actions, and Congress has until November 23, extendable 60 days, to turn the measure into law or let it lapse. The industry, for the moment, has already made it clear that it does not intend to give up.