Brazil Betting Ban: Fux May Delay Ruling Until After Vote

Key Points

• Justice Fux is reportedly mulling whether to put off his decision on banning betting until after the 25th of October.
• Under Provisional Measure 1,394 licenses to bet will expire on that same date, which is also the day of Brazil’s presidential runoff.
• In a twist, a São Paulo judge has allowed Stake to carry on operating until the 25th of October, but only under some pretty tough conditions.

Hold On to Your Hats, Fux May Delay Brazil Betting Ban Ruling Till After Runoff

The Brazilian betting industry is holding its breath waiting for word from one judge, and that judge is now considering whether to wait and see who wins the vote. Supreme Court Justice Luiz Fux is said to be thinking about whether to put his decision on hold until after the October 25th presidential runoff. This is according to a UOL column which first mentioned the possibility, and has since been picked up by BNL Data in their report on the delay. Apparently, Fux let fellow justices know that he’s planning to wait until after the election so as not to get accused of showing bias to either candidate. As of October 9th, no formal statement on timing had been made and no ruling issued.

Why October 25th Is Important… Twice

It just so happens that on the same day as the runoff election, all the betting licenses issued under the 2023 betting law will come to an end. A bit confusingly, Provisional Measure 1,394 actually has two different clocks running inside it. Article 7 required operators to take their sites and apps offline within 10 days, which they all did on October 6th. However, Article 4 has a 30-day countdown and says that after that point the licenses will automatically expire, and the state will owe the operators neither a refund nor compensation for all that time they were taken offline. And that’s all sorted out now because the industry is fighting hard against this, saying they can’t just cancel paid-for licenses like this.

Oddsgate boss, Tiago Almeida, is warning that licences that have expired in this way will be invalid unless the government or the regulator does something to reinstate them. And if they do decide to come back, they’ll need to go through all the checks again with the Secretariat of Prizes & Betting (SPA).

The Stake Ruling Tests the Two Clocks

As the Supreme Court decides whether its decision is timely, a lower court has made its ruling on the difference between those two deadlines. On 8 October, Federal Judge Cristiane Farias Rodrigues dos Santos handed Stake a partial injunction and allowed the company to continue operating until 25 October. The ruling allowing Stake to operate was accompanied by Judge Dos Santos’ argument that if the licence expired immediately after the announcement of the new rules, there was no point in setting a subsequent deadline.

Despite Stake’s appeal to extend the operation until December 2029, when the licence expires, the judge has not agreed yet. But the decision is accompanied by 12 conditions, such as no promotion, no bonuses, and constant access to withdrawal. The order applies only to Stake, and does not annul the measure. In its motion, Stake reported that it paid R30 million for the licence and invested R128.2 million more.

Who Pays for Terminating the Licence Early?

That amount raises the question of who bears the costs of terminating the five-year licence in one month. Attorney General Jorge Messias told Fux that there were no obligations from the state. Each licence is a discretionary and precarious act that has an obvious regulatory risk. According to a note prepared by LCA Consultoria Econômica and sponsored by IBJR, there are currently 85 licences active. At R30 million each, that makes at least R2.55 billion in licence fees.

ANJL and IBJR propose the extension of the deadlines by at least six months and a winding-down plan for each operator. In their joint motion, they state that such a sharp turnaround needed “a concrete demonstration of the reasons” behind it. There is another party to the conflict: the Attorney General’s Office has filed lawsuits against 17 operators in Pernambuco worth at least R$1 billion. They hold 80% of the fixed-odds betting market and could help pay for public health expenses.

Fux is presiding over six challenges regarding the issue: three concerning the betting legislation and three challenging the ban. In November 2024, Messias informed the court that Brazil had its dragon to be tamed. The latest answer of Messias reported in O Tempo and quoted in the Rio Times’ coverage of the filing states: “The ‘dragon’ was untameable.”

Football Clubs Are Stuck in Limbo

Loads of sectors feel the heat but for Brazilian football it’s just about the waiting game. Série A clubs raked it in with R$1 billion in direct betting advertising in 2025, according to a Reuters article that came to light. That’s a pretty penny when you think about it, almost 10% of their regular income. Flamengo boss Luiz Eduardo Baptista reckons his club alone could lose a whopping 400 million reais.

Rather than yank up the contracts, most of the clubs have put them on ice, hoping the court will eventually sort things out and have the sponsors come back on board. Journalist Mauro Cezar Pereira had this to say on a UOL News Esporte chat, Fux is unlikely to make a decision on betting sites until after the runoff.

Then the operators went and plastered their advertising slogans all over the stadiums for the 29th round of the Brasileirão on October 7 and 8. You saw the slogan “Proibir não é proteger”, that’s “prohibiting is not protecting” for those who don’t speak Portuguese, on the boards at nine of the matches. The government will be keeping a close eye on those games to make sure none of the advertising ban gets breached.

It’s a Long Way to the Final Vote in Congress

Whether Fux ever does make a decision, the measure still needs a green light in Congress or it just lapses. Members of Parliament have 120 days or so, but the count pauses during recess, which might just see the ban hang in the balance until March 2027. The Senate is clearly divided on the issue, Senator Damares Alves is dead against betting but thinks it’s better to phase it out gradually rather than just stopping it overnight. Meanwhile, Senator Jaques Wagner reckons Congress should just go ahead and approve the measure if Fux rejects the challenges. And then there’s Lula who seems pretty confident, said in a Flow Podcast interview on October 1: “I reckon Congress lacks the guts to see it through.”

Before the vote, UK consultancy Regulus Partners were saying a permanent ban had only a 5% chance of happening. They did, however, think a blackout lasting at least a week, and possibly months, had an 85% chance of occurring. The first round had a bit of an impact on the political landscape, Flávio Bolsonaro got 47.03% of valid votes compared to Lula’s 45.16%.

The Debt Crisis That’s Spurred Lula’s Decision

Lula’s case rests on the huge amount of household debt in Brazil, and official numbers back him up on that one. In July 2026, a whopping 82% of Brazilian families were shouldering debt, according to the CNC survey. That’s a pretty scary thought when you see 29.5% of their income going to paying off loans. And you know it’s getting worse because The New York Times reported that at the gambling clinic of São Paulo’s biggest public hospital now 67% of patients are online gambling addicts. That was only 1% in 2020.

The industry’s got a few numbers to throw into the mix. LegitBet, a monitoring system run by ANJL, reckons there were 30,282 active illegal betting links in the country. ANJL president Plínio Lemos Jorge has been arguing that the ban just pushes problem gamblers from 180 legal sites to 30,000 dodgy ones.

Expert Analysis: Waiting Does Not Equate to Neutrality

We see a waiting period until after the runoff as being far less neutral than it seems. This is due to the calendar: As per Article 4, all authorisations expire on 25 October and therefore the silent court would allow the process to reach its conclusion. A judgment handed down after the vote would come at the time when the 30-day countdown expires.

This timing concerns us no less from the opposite side. Lula himself said in the Flow Podcast, “It’s precisely because we have an election that I ended it.” From our perspective, a public health policy enacted nine days prior to a vote leaves much to be desired, even in the case of genuine harm. The debt numbers are significant, but the gambling issue in Brazil requires a permanent solution. However, a state issuing licences worth R$30 million and cancelling them within a few weeks loses credibility.

What we predict is that the compensation suits will continue beyond this election and regardless of the outcome on 25 October. It is yet more difficult to ensure that gamblers will be protected, without teaching investors about the temporary nature of their licences.