Brazil’s licensed betting sector used a Supreme Federal Court (STF) public hearing to argue that Provisional Measure 1.394/2026 — the so-called “MP das Bets” — is built on a false assumption, telling the court that banning fixed-odds betting would not eliminate the activity but merely remove it from regulatory and tax oversight. The hearing was held on Tuesday, 3 November, before the measure’s rapporteur, Justice Luiz Fux, with the afternoon session reserved for gaming and betting sector entities and lawyers’ bodies, according to a report by BNLData.
MP 1.394/2026 prohibits fixed-odds betting while preserving the lotteries operated exclusively by Caixa. It also contains a provision stating that no compensation would be due to operators.
The common thesis advanced by the presenting entities was that the government assumes prohibition means the end of gambling, and that Brazilian history contradicts that assumption. Government representatives had spoken earlier in the day, including Attorney General Jorge Messias, who used the image of “taming the dragon”, and a government secretary who said the MP “dissipa a névoa” (“clears the fog”).
ANJL: ‘error of premise’
Pietro Lorenzoni, of the Associação Nacional de Jogos e Loterias (ANJL), was the first of the sector representatives to speak and identified an “erro de premissa” — an error of premise — in the statements of the government authorities who preceded him, saying they treat prohibition as synonymous with the absence of gambling.
Lorenzoni also questioned the data used to justify the measure, noting that Lenad 3 — which points to 11 million people with potential gambling disorder — dates from 2023, predates regulation and covers all forms of gambling rather than only the regulated bets, which did not yet exist at the time.
Picking up the Attorney General’s imagery, he told the court: “A regulamentação não foi para criar um mercado. Foi uma tentativa de domar o dragão, mas o dragão já existia” (“Regulation was not meant to create a market. It was an attempt to tame the dragon, but the dragon already existed”).
He further argued that the MP errs in providing that no compensation would be due to operators, saying: “Não pode uma medida provisória proteger o governo federal dos danos que ela mesma causa” (“A provisional measure cannot shield the federal government from the damage it itself causes”). Lorenzoni had intended to show a video demonstrating how easy it is to access a betting site, but Fux barred the exhibition, arguing that with the MP in force the demonstration could constitute an illegal act.
Criminal lawyers warn of a handover to organised crime
Milton Jordão spoke for the Associação Brasileira de Advogados Criminalistas (Abracrim) by delegation of the association’s president. Rebutting the government secretary’s claim that the MP “dissipa a névoa”, Jordão said Brazil is “entregando de mão beijada para o crime organizado” a market with technology, organisation and player data.
He said SPA Ordinances No. 615 and No. 143 had made it possible to trigger police investigations, and that this information is now “sendo rasgada” (“being torn up”), adding: “Vamos voltar ao tempo em que os servidores estavam em Curaçao, em Gibraltar, em Malta.”
Jordão also criticised Bill PL 5.477, filed shortly after the MP to criminalise the activity, asking: “Vamos mais uma vez fazer uma legislação penal a toque de caixa?” (“Are we once again going to pass criminal legislation in a rush?”). Abracrim did not request a specific outcome, instead asking Fux to consider modulation of effects and a transition with legal certainty.
Injunction requests and a ruling mid-hearing
The representative of Abracopel, the association of state lottery concessionaires and permit holders, said he had voted for Lula and that his vote “não foi por conta da medida provisória”, arguing that the issue under discussion is abuse of state power. Fux interrupted the speaker and asked that the subject be addressed “sem enfoque político” — without a political focus.
Ana Sofia Monteiro, of the Associação Nacional pela Segurança Jurídica dos Jogos e Apostas (ANSEJA) and author of ADI 8024, presented herself as a jurist and economist. “A proibição não faz a atividade desaparecer, faz a atividade deixar de ser tributada” (“Prohibition does not make the activity disappear, it makes the activity stop being taxed”), she said.
Monteiro informed the hearing that, while it was under way, the TRF3 federal appeals court had granted an injunction setting aside the effects of the MP for one appellant company. She closed by quoting Nobel economics laureate Douglass North: “o dono da banca não pode mudar as regras no meio da partida” (“the house cannot change the rules in the middle of the game”).
The Instituto Brasileiro do Jogo Responsável (IBJR), author of ADI 8027, restricted its presentation to a single request: an injunction suspending the effects of the MP until Congress rules on it or until the merits are judged. “Não ouvi ninguém aqui dizer que tem a receita mágica para acabar com o jogo clandestino” (“I have not heard anyone here say they have the magic recipe to end clandestine gambling”), its representative said.
The hearing was closed by the Procuradoria-Geral do Estado and by the Ministry of Sport, represented by the minister’s advisory staff.
This article was produced with AI assistance and reviewed under the GamblingZine editorial verification process.
Sources
- No STF, setor regulado aponta “erro de premissa” na MP das Bets: proibir não faz o jogo desaparecer — Independent reporting (published 2026-11-03)
- 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.