Brazil Seeks Up to Six Years for Running Betting Sites as Operators Ask the STF to Halt the Ban

The government wants operating a betting site to carry four to six years in prison and has asked Congress to treat the bill as urgent. At the same time, operators' associations have asked the Supreme Federal Tribunal to suspend the ban, arguing that it fails the Constitution's own test for a provisional measure.

• Bill PL 5477/2026, which reached Congress on Monday, would make operating fixed-odds betting a crime punishable by four to six years in prison, "even if authorised by a foreign authority", with a one-third increase for online casino
• Advertising, recruiting players, misusing personal data, processing payments and supplying betting apps would each carry two to four years, with the advertising penalty increased by half where the promoter is paid a commission or a share of players' losses
• The government has asked for constitutional urgency, which gives each house 45 days to vote before the bill locks its agenda
• The National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) and the Brazilian Institute for Responsible Gaming (IBJR) asked Justice Luiz Fux on Monday to suspend Provisional Measure 1.394, and the Attorney General's Office (AGU) asked for 72 hours to respond
• Lawyers consulted by the legal journal ConJur said the measure is unconstitutional because a ban on a market regulated since 2023 is not a matter of urgency

Five New Crimes, Sent the Same Day as the Ban

The executive presented the bill on the evening of Friday 25 September, the day President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva signed the measure banning fixed-odds betting in Brazil, and the news agencies of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate announced its arrival on Monday. The Constitution bars provisional measures on criminal law, which is why the prison terms sit in a separate bill. On Monday the executive also sent Message 785/2026 requesting the presidential urgency procedure under Article 64 of the Constitution: if the Chamber and then the Senate do not vote within 45 days each, other legislative business in that house is held up behind it.

The text adds a chapter to Law 13.756 of 2018, the law that created fixed-odds betting. Its central offence, Article 35-H, is to "explore or operate, by any means" fixed-odds betting, "even if authorised by a foreign authority", punishable by four to six years of reclusão, the more serious form of imprisonment, and a fine. The same penalty applies to anyone who offers, processes or intermediates bets, or maintains a website or app for them, and it rises by a third for online casino.

Four further offences each carry two to four years and a fine. Article 35-I covers advertising, recruiting or referring players, and sponsoring or monetising betting advertising, exempting journalistic, educational, academic, scientific or critical content; the penalty rises by half where the promoter is paid a commission or a share of stakes or of players' losses. Article 35-J covers trading or segmenting personal data to recruit players, rising by half for data on betting losses, gambling disorder or children. Article 35-K covers processing betting payments or prizes, including in virtual assets, knowing their purpose. Article 35-L covers supplying, hosting or distributing a betting app, "including an app store".

Bettors are not criminalised: the payments offence excludes a player's own bets and prizes. Conduct under a Ministry of Finance authorisation valid at the time is not a crime, and other lottery modalities, including Caixa Econômica Federal's football pools game Loteca, are outside the definitions. The Federal Police would investigate and the federal courts would try the offences. Justice Minister Wellington César Lima e Silva's explanatory statement refers to a 90-day period before the law takes effect, but the bill's final article says it enters into force on publication.

Operators Take the Measure to Fux

In the Supreme Federal Tribunal (STF), the ANJL and IBJR filed on Monday a statement on a new development in the three direct actions of unconstitutionality against the 2023 betting law already before Justice Luiz Fux, ADIs 7.721, 7.723 and 7.749, according to iGaming Business and Migalhas. Their main argument is that the measure fails the constitutional requirement of urgency: betting was legalised in 2018 and regulated in 2023, and they cite Secretariat of Prizes and Betting (SPA) data showing a 42% fall in the sector's financial volume between October 2025 and June 2026 as evidence that the problem was shrinking, not escalating. They also argue breach of legal certainty and legitimate expectation, with licences sold for R$30 million (approximately $5.8 million) each for five years, the absence of an estimate of the fiscal impact, and violation of the protection of perfect legal acts and of the ban on expropriation without compensation. They say the measure strays into areas the Constitution closes to provisional measures, including criminal matters and the seizure of assets.

They asked Fux to suspend the whole measure until Congress decides or the court rules; failing that, to suspend it for licensed operators only or to grant a transition of at least six months. The ANJL also filed a direct action of its own against the measure, iGaming Business reported, and the Associação Nacional pela Segurança Jurídica dos Jogos e Apostas (Anseja) filed another, asking for an injunction and a transition of at least 180 days, according to Correio Braziliense. The associations told the court they had found 833 new illegal betting sites since the ban took effect, according to Tribuna do Sertão.

The AGU asked Fux on Monday for 72 hours for the Presidency and itself to respond before any decision. The request, it said, is "strictly procedural" and does not anticipate its position on the merits, iGaming Business reported.

"No New Fact"

Lawyers consulted by ConJur agreed with the associations on urgency. Constitutional lawyer Vera Chemim said household debt from betting was already being debated when the sector was regulated, which removes the urgency, and that the measure has a formal defect of unconstitutionality that the STF plenary should examine. Henderson Fürst pointed to the criminal effect on people who were lawfully operating a regulated activity and became offenders overnight. Leonardo Garcia, a state attorney in Espírito Santo, said that although he agrees the bets should end, "there was no new fact that could justify a provisional measure to prohibit them".

The Criminal Bill Is What Makes the Ban Reach Offshore

The provisional measure can switch off licensed operators, because they are known and banked in Brazil. It cannot put anyone in prison. The phrase "even if authorised by a foreign authority" is aimed squarely at operators licensed in Curaçao, Malta or elsewhere, and the offences for payments, apps and paid promotion target the infrastructure that lets them reach Brazilian players, extending into criminal law the approach under which banks already freeze illegal operators' accounts. The explicit carve-out for conduct under a valid federal licence is the government's answer to the "overnight criminal" argument: past licensed operation stays lawful, but continuing after the licence ends would not be. The urgency request shows the government knows the ban is only half built until this bill passes, in a Congress that already has before it a deputy's bill to void every licence in 180 days.

Urgency Is the Measure's Weakest Point, but the Court Rarely Second-Guesses It

The associations' urgency argument is the strongest one available, because it attacks the instrument rather than the policy. It is also the one the STF has historically been most reluctant to accept, reviewing a president's judgment of relevance and urgency only in exceptional cases of evident abuse. The more promising ground may be the narrower one, the absence of any transition or refund for licences sold less than two years ago, which is why the associations' fallback requests ask for time rather than victory.

Fux Has Restricted the Sector Before

Fux is the natural rapporteur because he already holds the three cases on the 2023 law, and it was in those cases that the STF, on his decision, suspended betting advertising aimed at children and ordered measures against the use of Bolsa Família benefits for betting. That record does not suggest a judge inclined to protect the market from the government. The calendar is also tight: the AGU's 72 hours end days before the first round of the presidential election on 4 October, sites must go dark on 6 October and the licences end around 25 October.

The ban now rests on three separate processes: a provisional measure in force, a criminal bill racing an urgency deadline and a court case asking for time. For the operators, one favourable ruling would buy time. For the government, the ban works only if all three hold.