Key Points
- Brazil’s Congress has received 42 amendments to MP 1.394/2026; four were withdrawn, and the amendment window closes on 13 October.
- Justice Luiz Fux now oversees several constitutional actions, while the AGU has asked the STF to strike down Brazil’s betting laws.
- Operator authorisations expire on 25 October, the same day as the presidential runoff, and none of the R$30m licence fees will be refunded.
With the signing of Provisional Measure 1.394/2026 by President Lula on 25 September, it seemed like the decision was made final. Fixed odds betting and online casino gambling was banned immediately in Brazil. The licensed online casinos had to stop their operations by 6 October and there would be no refunding of the licence fees paid by these companies.
Forty-Two Amendments and Two Very Different Deadlines
Lawmakers have introduced 42 suggested changes to the legislation since the formation of the Joint Committee on 30 September. They all came during the period from 29 September until 2 October, which demonstrates how unstable the situation is in Brasília. Four of them were later withdrawn by the proposers, and only 38 of them are left under discussion.
The story of the withdrawn amendments is quite interesting as well. Senator Jorge Kajuru withdrew Amendments 18, 19, and 20 on 2 October. Amendment 20 was wrongly identified as the one suggesting to legalize slots or licences elsewhere. Actually, it proposed to include the popular “jogo do tigrinho” game to the list of prohibited goods. One more amendment was withdrawn, and the total number reached four.
That leaves only about every conceivable aspect covered within the bill. While some seek regulation as opposed to prohibition, others aim for changes in taxation, enforcement, and responsibility measures. Senator Alessandro Vieira presented eight amendments, the most of any member of Congress.
The key dates are what causes the greatest amount of confusion. On 1 October, Congress changed the deadline for the submission of amendments to 13 October, six days after the general election. The authorizations of operators expire on another day, 25 October, thirty days after the approval of the measure. Congress then has until 23 November to debate it before it expires.
A Ban That Expires on Election Day
The 25 October election holds additional significance, since the Brazilian people go back to the ballot box for their presidential second vote. The former race saw Flávio Bolsonaro garnering 47.03%, compared to Lula’s 45.16% on 4 October. This is because 85 licenses will be terminated when they elect their new president.
The Supreme Court Gets Crowded
The push for judicial scrutiny has followed the rate of amendments very closely. On 2 October, three more actions to challenge the ban were assigned to Justice Luiz Fux: ADIs 8024, 8027 and 8028. In a separate action that happened prior to this, ADI 7721, Fux set a deadline of 72 hours for the government. This was a separate proceeding, but grouping them together ignores how congested the agenda has become.
Next, the government itself did what few would have thought possible at first. In its stance announced on 5 October, the Office of the Attorney General requested the Supreme Federal Tribunal to declare Laws 13.756/2018 and 14.790/2023 unconstitutional. Those two laws formed the basis of Brazil’s regulated gambling market. The petition, presented in ADI 7749, does not refer to MP 1.394, but its intentions are obvious – the government wants the legal basis of regulated gambling abolished.
What the Ban Costs the Treasury?
Official figures put a price on that ambition. The government’s explanatory statement for the measure estimates a tax revenue reduction of roughly R5.150bn in 2027. The state collected R30m per licence from 85 operators, around R$2.55bn in total. Not a single real of those fees will be refunded under the measure. Losses on that scale explain why operators are fighting in court rather than quietly closing.
The Illegal Market Moves First
The unlicensed businesses did not have to wait for Congress or the court system. There was an increase of 74% on illegal domain names monitored by Bet Legal in a single day, from 331 to 575 illegal domain names. This is a reflection of how many were caught on the monitoring tools rather than a growth of 74% on the black market. Monitoring by Legitbet and the ANJL has shown 6,401 illegal betting sites.
On the enforcement side, 10,435 illegal betting sites have been blocked by authorities between 25 September to 1 October. The government has also planned to use dedicated Federal Police units against illegal online betting.
Expert Analysis: A Ban Built for the Ballot Box?
We believe the hardest question about this ban is not legal but practical: where does the demand go? Brazilians did not stop wanting to bet on 6 October because licensed apps disappeared. Jogo do bicho has run outside the law for over a century, which proves the point already.
Our view is that the government has made one large bet of its own. It assumes enforcement can block illegal sites faster than new ones appear. Ten thousand blocks in one week sounds impressive until monitoring shows thousands of new domains in the same days. We see no published plan showing how that race is won over months rather than days.
Timing, of course, also merits consideration, although we want to make it clear that this is our interpretation of events and not established motivation. It is hard not to be suspicious of politics determining timing when there is such a ban imposed weeks ahead of an election, due to expire the day of a run-off. Proponents would argue that public health required this fast action, and they are right to do so.
This case, however, brings with it another angle. The state that issued these licences is now claiming that the relevant law was unconstitutional. Should the STF accept this position, then those who did everything according to the law can become its greatest victims. It will be left for the reader to decide whether this is regulation or a reneging on governmental commitment.
Share
3 views
