Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court (STF) held a public hearing on Tuesday, 3 November 2026 to examine the impacts of MP 1.394/2026, the provisional measure that prohibits the exploitation of fixed-odds betting in the country. The session was presided over by Justice Luiz Fux and heard representatives of the regulated sector contest the data being used against betting operators and warn that a ban would hand the market to illegal sites.
Among those addressing the court was economist Eric Brasil of LCA Consultoria Econômica, appearing on behalf of the Associação Brasileira de Liberdade Econômica (ABLE), who presented a study challenging figures deployed in the case against the industry.
According to the ABLE/LCA study, there are no elements that allow household indebtedness in Brazil to be attributed to betting. The research instead points to three structural factors behind household debt levels: excessively high interest rates, the wide supply and disorderly use of credit lines, and low financial literacy.
The study also estimated the sector’s tax burden in 2025 at around 32%, with the resources raised directed to areas including sport, tourism, public security, education, social security and health. On that basis, Brasil argued that betting does not represent a simple subtraction of national wealth, since much of operators’ gross revenue returns to society through taxes, operating costs and associated expenses.
The study further examined the relationship between the sector and food consumption using data from the Brazilian Supermarkets Association (ABRAS). It found no evidence of causality between restricting legal betting and an increase in supermarket purchases, noting that food retail was already growing year-on-year through much of 2026 — a period in which other measures affecting household income also took effect.
The Instituto Brasileiro de Jogo Responsável (IBJR) used an official note to complain that betting sector representatives had not been heard at the previous public hearing. The institute said that regulation under Law 14.790/2023, in force since 2025, had generated thousands of direct and indirect jobs, investments, budget revenue and consumer protection mechanisms, and that an abrupt interruption of activities affects contracts, workers and investor confidence.
The IBJR’s central argument before the court echoed the channelisation case made by operators elsewhere: prohibiting the regulated market does not stop betting, but pushes players into the illegal market, where there is no age verification, no deposit or spending limits and no self-exclusion, and where the risk of organised crime activity grows.
The institute said it remains at the STF’s disposal for dialogue and defends tougher rules and effective enforcement rather than prohibition, summarising its position with the phrase “proibir não é proteger” — to prohibit is not to protect. Industry bodies representing the regulated sector said they hope the hearing contributes to restoring legal certainty.
The hearing comes against a backdrop of contested economic readings. BNLData reported on 10 November 2026 that the first full month without regulated betting coincided with a 4% fall in retail, the 17th consecutive monthly decline in the ICVA index and the worst result in that sequence, with drops of 8.9% in durable goods and 8.5% in services.
A BNLData opinion piece published on 9 November 2026 stated that a decision by Justice Fux had halted the legal challenges against the so-called “MP das Bets”, underlining the extent to which the fate of Brazil’s licensed market now rests with the Supreme Court rather than with Congress or the regulator.
This article was produced with AI assistance and reviewed under the GamblingZine editorial verification process.
Sources
- Audiência no STF sobre proibição das bets: entidades contestam dados e alertam para avanço do mercado ilegal — Independent reporting (published 2026-11-04)
- bnldata.com.br — Authoritative secondary source
- bnldata.com.br — Authoritative secondary source
- bnldata.com.br — Authoritative secondary source
Reporting verified against the sources above; retrieval timestamps are preserved in the editorial record.