Brazil’s digital betting companies and trade groups spent the weekend preparing a coordinated court challenge to the federal provisional measure that barred betting sites from operating nationwide. The industry expected to file during the week of Sept. 28, while seeking to concentrate its response in a collective case rather than risk early, separate lawsuits.
The action follows the immediate federal betting ban detailed in our Sept. 25 report. Around 200 people from operators, game developers and other industry segments joined a virtual meeting shortly after the measure was issued on Sept. 25, and discussions continued through the weekend.
Industry associations and lawyers had begun coordinating before the decree was published, after learning that the government intended to change the rules. Carlos Lima confirmed the meeting and said the associations would pursue a judicial route, but said no legal instrument had been selected. “Everything is being evaluated,” he said. “No decision has been made regarding any of the paths to be followed.”
A Direct Action of Unconstitutionality before the Supreme Federal Court is among the options under consideration. Lawyers also began circulating a draft collective writ of mandamus on Sept. 26. More than one association could sign a collective filing, increasing its legal weight.
Operators agreed to hold off on individual claims until the collective case is submitted, concerned that an adverse ruling in an isolated case could influence the broader challenge. Individual lawsuits remain possible after a collective action is filed.
José Frederico Cimino Manssur has identified several possible constitutional arguments. He argued that Supreme Federal Court precedent does not give the Union exclusive authority over games, leaving room for states to legislate. He also said Law No. 14.790 of 2023, which regulates fixed-odds betting and online games, should not be revoked by a provisional measure and would instead require a new act of Congress.
The financial consequences are likely to form a separate part of the dispute. Each authorized operator paid R$30 million for a licence valid through 2029. Manssur argued that refusing to return licensing fees amounted to confiscation, while João Biazi said reimbursement was distinct from the question of whether the measure itself was lawful. Operators could seek proportional repayment for unused licence periods and compensation for projected profits.
Lima said operators paid R$170 million in supervisory fees between January 2025 and July 2026, questioning why those funds had not been used against illegal betting. The National Association of Games and Lotteries said the ban could push more than 30 million bettors towards thousands of illegal websites, while the Brazilian Association of International Gaming Operators and Providers said it disrupted the regulatory framework established by the state.
The provisional measure is already in force. Congress has 60 days from Sept. 25 to review it, with a possible further 60-day extension, while companies can bring legal action before it becomes permanent.
