Brazil Supreme Court Sets Nov 3 Hearing on Betting Ban

What Is Happening with Brazil's Betting Ban?

Brazil is taking a major step in deciding the future of its online gambling industry. Supreme Court Justice Luiz Fux scheduled a public hearing for November 3, 2026, to address the national ban on sports betting.

This decision comes right after incumbent President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva won his reelection runoff on October 25. On that very same day, 85 active betting licenses officially expired across the country.

The court session will start at 10 a.m. in the Second Panel chamber. It aims to review a provisional government measure that shut down fixed-odds sports betting and online casinos.

Industry Groups Push Back Against the Sudden Shutdown

Two main industry groups brought this challenge to court: the National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) and the Brazilian Institute for Responsible Gaming (IBJR).

Following the election results, ANJL congratulated President Lula. The group publicly expressed hope that democratic dialogue would be restored between lawmakers and legitimate businesses.

ANJL offered to work alongside Congress to fight unregulated black-market gambling. They noted that illegal sites quickly dominated the market once legal operators were forced to turn off their platforms.

Trade outlet BNLData pointed out that this hearing gives industry leaders their first official chance to present real data on how a month-long ban has affected their businesses.

Why Justice Fux Called for an Urgent Hearing

According to local outlet Correio Braziliense, the November 3 hearing will focus heavily on the financial fallout from the ban.

Industry associations argue that the sudden ban undermines legal certainty. They estimate financial losses running into billions of reais across the sector.

Justice Fux explained that he intentionally delayed setting the date during the election campaign. He wanted to make sure the judiciary did not look like it was interfering in political elections.

However, Fux emphasized that a public hearing is now urgent. The decision affects tight legislative deadlines, economic stability, and legal certainty. His ruling will also feed into six other related challenges to Brazil's gambling laws.

Who Is Invited to Testify (and Who Isn't)

The Supreme Court has invited 26 key participants to testify at the hearing. However, the attendee list includes some surprising omissions.

• Plaintiffs from six related court cases, including ANJL and IBJR.
• Government representatives from the Attorney General’s Office (AGU) and the Ministry of Finance.
• The Prosecutor General and a national mayors’ association.
• State lottery concessionaires and the National Confederation of Industry.
• Broadcasters’ association Abert, a university regulation lab, and the International Gaming Association.

Brazilian sports institutions will also have a massive presence at the session. The court invited the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) along with 10 top-tier football clubs.

Many of these football clubs rely heavily on betting companies for major sponsorship deals. In early October, several clubs asked the court for a one-year transition period to adapt their contracts.

Interestingly, no individual betting operator was invited to speak. The court also excluded both the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Justice from the participant list.

Government Position and Congressional Deadlines

The government’s legal team, led by the AGU, takes a firm stance against the gambling industry. The AGU asked Justice Fux to keep the betting ban active.

The AGU argued that the original laws creating the licensed betting market were unconstitutional. Justice Fux previously held a public hearing focused on gambling addiction, where he highlighted the harms of online betting.

Now, the clock is ticking for Brazilian lawmakers. Congress faces an initial deadline of November 23 to vote on the provisional betting ban.

Congress can extend this voting deadline once by 60 days. However, Senate records show that the joint congressional committee needed to review the measure has not even been established yet.