After the STF hearing: what is clear and what is still unresolved

I followed, on Tuesday, November 3, the public hearing convened by Justice Luiz Fux on MP 1,394. It was about ten hours of presentations, from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m., with 36 entities. Ministries, football clubs, sports bodies, industry associations, commerce, and academia spoke. I am writing to record what was said and what it means for those following Brazil from inside and outside the country. What the government said Attorney General of the Union Jorge Messias defended the measure’s validity. According to him, advertising restrictions, oversight, and control mechanisms were not sufficient to protect the population. “There is no inconsistency in correcting a choice when its effects prove socially harmful,” he said. Justice Minister Wellington César Lima e Silva said regulation did not curb indebtedness, gambling disorder, or links to organized crime. Representing the Ministry of Finance, Rodrigo Toneto also defended the ban. He cited estimates of income being transferred from households to betting companies and said early Pix and retail data indicate a recovery. The Office of the Prosecutor General (PGR) did not take a position because it has not yet reviewed the case. Health Minister Alexandre Padilha presented data on bettors, SUS treatments, and self-exclusion and said the ban is “the only and best solution” for public health. Some of these figures were challenged the same day. BNLData showed, for example, that the survey used to claim 28 million bettors is from 2023, prior to regulation, and includes lottery players. What clubs and the sector said Flamengo vice-president Flávio Willeman said the club has more than 1,200 employees and around R$ 430 million a year in revenue at risk. Fluminense’s representative, Matheus Reis e Montenegro, cited Federal Revenue data according to which betting paid R$ 11 billion in taxes between January and September 2025. The CBF, represented by Igor Mauler Santiago, called for a transition through the 2030 World Cup so sponsorships can be replaced gradually. Speaking for ANJL, Pietro Cardia Lorenzoni said the government is making a faulty assumption by treating a ban as the absence of gambling and criticized the lack of compensation for authorized companies. “A provisional measure cannot protect the federal government from the damage it itself causes,” he said. Speaking for IBJR, Celso Cintra Mori requested an injunction to suspend the MP until Congress or the STF rules on the merits. Speaking for ABLE, with time ceded by AIGAMING, economist Erick Brasil, from LCA Consultoria, compared the gross revenue of licensed operators in 2025—R$ 37 billion, according to the Ministry of Finance—with household consumption of around R$ 8 trillion. That comes to less than 0.5%. He also said the only strong correlation he found after the MP was the growth of illegal sites. What the rapporteur said Justice Fux said he had formed “the perception that bets should be banned” and treated betting addiction as a public health problem. In the same hearing, he listed new issues he intends to take to his colleagues: legal certainty, non-retroactivity of rules, legitimate expectations, and the requirements of relevance and urgency for a provisional measure. He also said the Court will assess whether to modulate the effects of the decision. In closing, he said he will share the material with the other justices, urged caution regarding the consequences of decisions, and said the Judiciary should sometimes defer to the other branches. The case is expected to go straight to the full bench, with no date yet. What this means for investors For an investor, the rapporteur’s statement matters. The issues he listed matter as well, because they concern the situation of the 85 companies that paid R$ 2.55 billion in licensing fees and had their licences terminated on October 25. Whatever the outcome, how the STF deals with this liability will show the international market what a licence issued by the Brazilian state is worth. There is one point many foreign investors still have not considered. If the MP lapses without being voted on, Law 14,790 comes back into force. Under the Constitution, however, acts carried out while the MP was in force remain governed by it, unless Congress approves within 60 days a legislative decree to address those legal relationships. In practice, the termination of licences does not undo itself. The Constitution also prevents an MP that has been rejected or has lapsed from being reissued in the same legislative session. A decision that changes the conversation On the same day as the hearing, appellate judge Adriana Pileggi, of the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region (TRF3), granted CDA Gaming—owner of the Casa de Apostas, Betsul, and Jogo Online brands—a provisional decision suspending the MP’s effects on its authorization. The company paid R$ 30 million for a licence valid through December 2029. For the judge, terminating the authorization without refunding the licensing fee or paying compensation is a “true confiscation.” The next day, Casa de Apostas was already back online. The decision applies only to this company and still needs to be confirmed by the court’s 3rd Panel. In October, a similar injunction in favor of Stake was suspended by the president of the same TRF3, at the government’s request. The argument was that allowing one company to operate while the others remain banned creates a regulatory imbalance. This is now the government’s most urgent problem. With 85 companies that had authorization and individual decisions pointing in different directions, the country moves into legal arbitrage. Those who obtain an injunction operate; those who do not are shut out. I see four ways to resolve this. · The government asks the president of TRF3 to suspend the decision, as it did in the Stake case. It is the fastest route, but it resolves one case at a time. · The 3rd Panel rules on the appeal. If it upholds the decision, other companies will have a strong precedent in the Federal Courts. · The STF rules on the direct actions, with effect for everyone. It is the only way to end the arbitrage at once, in either direction. · Congress includes, in the conversion bill, a transition or compensation rule that treats the 85 companies the same way. For investors, this is the first concrete decision in which the legal certainty argument prevails. It also shows that, without a solution that applies to everyone, the market may spend months split between companies operating under court orders and companies waiting. How this could evolve I see three possible paths in the coming months. I do not assign probabilities to any of them, and each requires different preparation. The STF suspends or limits the MP. The full bench may grant the injunction requested by IBJR or modulate the measure’s effects, as the rapporteur himself said he will assess. Law 14,790 would again guide the market, but difficult questions would remain. Would the terminated licences be reinstated? Would the fees paid count for the remaining term? The signal to watch is whether the cases are placed on the full bench agenda and Justice Fux’s vote. Congress converts the MP into law. For that, the joint committee must be installed and vote on a report before the matter goes to the Chamber and the Senate. The 99 amendments submitted leave room for changes, including a transition period like the one the CBF requested. In that case, the discussion shifts to compensation for authorized companies and to combating the illegal market. The signal to watch is the committee’s installation and the choice of rapporteur. The MP lapses without a vote. With the 60-day extension and the suspension of the deadline during the parliamentary recess, its validity could run until early March 2027. If nothing is voted on, the previous law comes back into force, but the termination of licences remains in place until Congress or the STF decides otherwise. This is the most uncertain scenario, because the country would have a law in force and no licensed companies to operate. The signal to watch is a lack of movement in the committee after November 23. And land-based gambling? PL 2,234/2022, which legalizes casinos, bingo, and jogo do bicho, has been ready for the Senate floor since July 2025. In December of that year, the Senate rejected the urgency request by 36 votes to 28. The rapporteur, Senator Irajá, leaves the Senate at the end of his term, and the new legislature, starting in February 2027, will need a new rapporteur. My reading is that any progress on this front depends on the same foundations that are missing today in online betting. Anyone investing billions in an integrated resort, with long-term returns, first needs to know how the country will resolve the liabilities from MP 1,394 and who will regulate the sector with stability. What each party can do now For investors, it makes sense to work with all three scenarios at the same time. Those whose licences were terminated should keep their compliance structure ready to be reactivated and document, from now on, the costs and losses caused by the MP. This record will be the basis for any compensation claim, whatever the path. For the sector, the hearing showed associations with closely aligned arguments. ANJL, IBJR, and AIGAMING gain strength if they take to the government and Congress a joint proposal, with verifiable data and a concrete transition rule. This helps those in government and Congress who will need to negotiate a way out. For professionals who lost their jobs, experience in regulation, payment methods, and integrity remains valuable, in Brazil and in other regulated markets in the region. The battle over the numbers Both sides arrived with data, and both had their data questioned. Here the country can move forward now, whatever the decision. In less than two years, the Secretariat of Prizes and Bets built a database on bettors, payments, and self-exclusion. Publishing these data regularly and in an auditable way would give the government, Congress, the STF, and the sector the same baseline for discussion. Next steps In Congress, the joint committee was still awaiting installation on November 3, according to the official system. The MP begins to block the agenda on November 9, and its initial validity ends on November 23, with a possible 60-day extension. At TRF3, the 3rd Panel will hear CDA Gaming’s appeal, and expectations are that the government will request suspension of the decision. At the STF, the case proceeds to the full bench. The AGU also requested a new hearing, with civil society entities, and the rapporteur did not say whether he will grant it. Pariente Advisory does not take sides on the path Brazil chooses for gambling. As I wrote last week, what I advocate is that the choice come with stable rules and fair treatment for those who invested in reliance on the law. ** Alex W. Pariente is the founder and principal of Pariente Advisory, an independent consultancy in regulation, gaming, hospitality, and integrated resort development in Latin America and the Caribbean, and Chair of the GAT Official Launch Brasil 2026. Sources 1. Agência Brasil: Fux rebuts criticism and says he has the perception that bets should be banned (Nov 3, 2026) 2. Agência Brasil: Fux grants AGU request and includes ministries and Abras in debate on bets (Nov 1, 2026) 3. STF: Public hearing discusses impacts of the MP that banned bets (Nov 3, 2026) 4. Migalhas: STF debates the ban on bets in a public hearing (Nov 3, 2026) 5. O Povo: AGU defends the provisional measure that banned bets in the country (Nov 3, 2026) 6. BNLData: The figures presented by Minister Padilha at the STF hearing 7. BNLData: USP economist at the STF (Erick Brasil, ABLE/AIGAMING) 8. next.io: Brazil betting ban, Fux hears new arguments at STF hearing (3 Nov 2026) 9. Focus GN: MP that bans bets nears urgency regime without committee installed (Oct 29, 2026) 10. National Congress: MPV 1394/2026 11. Federal Constitution, art. 62 (provisional measures, §§ 3, 4, 7, 10 and 11) 12. BNLData: TRF3 reinstates CDA Gaming’s authorization (Nov 3, 2026) 13. next.io: Casa de Apostas back online after court exemption (4 Nov 2026) 14. iGaming Brazil: Court reinstates betting company’s licence (Nov 4, 2026) 15. Exame: Court suspends injunction that allowed a bet to operate (Stake, Oct 9, 2026) 16. Federal Senate: PL 2234/2022, proceedings 17. Senado Notícias: Urgency rejected for vote on casino bill (Dec 17, 2025) 18. Yogonet: Rapporteur of the casino bill, Irajá, drops re-election bid (Aug 12, 2026) 19. Correio da Manhã: MP that bans bets may lapse in March 2027 20. STF / YouTube: recording of the public hearing Also published on parienteadvisory.com. O post After the STF hearing: what is clear and what is still unresolved apareceu primeiro em iGaming Brazil.