Brazil's Attorney General's Office (AGU) is basing its request to overturn the legal framework for betting on weak narratives in the Supreme Court.
The Attorney General's Office (AGU) asked the Supreme Federal Court (STF) to declare unconstitutional the normative core that instituted and regulated fixed-odds betting in Brazil. The statement was electronically signed at 16:22 pm this Friday (2) by the Attorney General of the Union, Jorge Messias, in response to a dispatch from Minister Luiz Fux, rapporteur of the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) 7749, proposed by the Attorney General's Office.
The Attorney General's Office (AGU) requests that the declaration cover articles 29 to 35 of Law No. 13.756/2018, which created the modality, and articles 1 to 21, 22 to 24, 25 to 40, 43 to 48, and 54 of Law No. 14.790/2023. In practice, the request covers almost the entire law that regulated the sector.
The central argument is that there is insufficient protection. According to the Attorney General's Office (AGU), the "regulatory laxity" of the two laws compromised the financial and health integrity of families "to an intolerable level." The document even states that "the 'dragon' was untamable."
Change of position
The document represents a reversal. In ADI 7721, which dealt with a similar subject, the Attorney General's Office (AGU) had argued that the rule was "still constitutional, subject to a process of progressive unconstitutionality." It stated then that the regulation was recent and needed to be monitored "for a reasonable period."
Now, the Attorney General's Office (AGU) states that this period "has passed" and that the indicators reveal "persistence and worsening of the damage." The text says that the regulated market has been in operation "since 2024." The authorized market, however, began operating on January 1, 2025, which gives approximately 21 months of observation.
The statement also fails to address the other argument used in 2024. At that time, the Attorney General's Office warned that invalidating the law could generate "an even more serious scenario than the one challenged in the initial petition." This time, the request includes the 2018 law, but the document does not describe what would happen to the demand for betting after the framework is overturned.
Another point is noteworthy. The Attorney General's Office (AGU) invokes Article 103, § 3, of the Constitution, which assigns to the Attorney General the defense of the challenged act, and argues in favor of the action. The Supreme Federal Court (STF) admits this flexibility, but the gesture has political weight: the Executive branch is asking for the overthrow of a regime that it itself regulated.
The entire piece is written in the past tense. The laws "made it possible," the regime "was extensively flawed," and the rule "prohibited it." The text does not mention Provisional Measure No. 1.394/2026.
Data with reservations from the Attorney General's Office itself.
In the health sector, the main figure is the 140% growth in SUS (Brazilian public healthcare system) services under codes F63.0 and Z72.6 between January 2018 and December 2025. Seven of the eight years in the series predate the regulated market.
The Attorney General's Office itself limits the scope of the data. It acknowledges that the records "do not necessarily correspond to the number of people served," "do not isolate cases arising from fixed-odds betting," and do not authorize "isolated quantitative imputation."
In the economic sphere, the statement notes that indebtedness has "multiple causes" and that betting should not be attributed solely as the cause. Nevertheless, it relies on a series of studies to support the claim that this activity drains family income.
Studies already disputed by BNLData's FactCheck.
Some of this empirical basis is not new to BNLData readers. Several of the studies cited by the Attorney General's Office have already been challenged by the portal or by entities in the sector.
The most evident case is that of economist Guilherme Klein (UFRJ/Made-USP). The Attorney General's Office (AGU) uses his study to claim that betting would have reduced economic activity by between R$ 120 billion and R$ 141 billion in 2025. The work was analyzed in the FactCheck study "Study on 'damage to GDP' from betting builds a tower on a base that BNLData has already knocked down" , dated August 25, and received the BNLData Narrative Seal.
The fact-checking showed that Klein uses the R$ 62,5 billion from Comsefaz as a net transfer from families to the platforms and applies a multiplier to that number that cannot be audited. On September 17, the portal returned to the topic in "The magic number of bets: how an indirect calculation of Pix became a 'loss of 1,1% of GDP' in a national headline ."
The Attorney General's Office (AGU) cites both works as independent sources. The Fiscal Bulletin of Comsefaz and the Celso Furtado International Center appears in paragraph 50 of the statement, and Klein's study in paragraph 88. In practice, the second is derived from the first. The Comsefaz bulletin had also already been challenged by BNLData through the text ' Comsefaz estimates 'loss' for families with bets at R$ 62,5 billion, but methodology is flawed and ignores official SPA data '. Official data from the Ministry of Finance record revenue of R$ 36,9 billion from legal bets in 2025, a value R$ 25,6 billion lower than the Comsefaz estimate.
The study by Ibevar with FIA Business School, which points to betting as the main driver of indebtedness, was also questioned. The National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) pointed out methodological errors and identified the participation of CNI and CNC in the research, as reported by BNLData in " Betting sector contests research on indebtedness and accuses CNI and CNC of trying to influence the Supreme Court".
Surveys by the National Confederation of Commerce (CNC) attribute the withdrawal of R$ 143 billion from retail and the inflow of 268 families to gambling.
as in severe default. The methodology was criticized in an article published by the portal “ Methodological weaknesses in the CNC study on betting and default ”. The CNC represents commerce, a sector that competes with betting for consumer income.
The study by the Institute for Health Policy Studies (IEPS) is another example contested through the text ' How did the IEPS study transform an assumption into R$ 38,8 billion in “losses” for the bets? '. The R$ 30,6 billion cited by the Attorney General's Office (AGU) is the health portion of a total social cost estimated at R$ 38,8 billion, calculated from a comparison with the experience of the United Kingdom. The statement itself admits that the value “does not correspond to expenses actually incurred by the SUS (Brazilian Public Health System)”.
The Attorney General's Office (AGU) does not mention the methodological challenges to these studies, nor does it present its own primary data on the economic impact of the activity.
Self-exclusion: progress or proof of failure?
The statement uses the same data in opposite senses. In one passage, it claims that the sub-legal mechanisms “have had important effects” and cites more than 1,3 million requests on the Centralized Self-Exclusion Platform. In another, the 1.294.328 self-excluded individuals serve to “demonstrate that the protection mechanism only operates after the loss of control has already taken hold.”
According to the report itself, 36,41% of the records indicated loss of control as the reason. The other 63,59% indicated different reasons.
The Attorney General's Office (AGU) also praises the regulations issued by the Secretariat of Prizes and Betting, stating that their validity "is not in question." According to the agency, the flaw lies in the law, which should contain loss limits, limits per bet, maximum session duration, and rules regarding the frequency of advertising.
Money laundering: evidence points to the illegal market.
In the area of public safety, the cases cited involve clandestine platforms. Operation Primma Migratio, by the Federal Police, dates from April 2024, before the authorized market. The survey on R$ 7 billion moved by criminal factions, published by Veja magazine, refers to "clandestine platforms." Of the 937 influencer profiles removed, 803 promoted illegal websites.
The Attorney General's Office (AGU) acknowledges that the duties of preventing money laundering bind authorized operators, "those who do not constitute the vector of the illicit activity." And it estimates the clandestine share "between 41% and 51% of the total."
The data exposes the main flaw in the document. The statement calls for the repeal of regulations that create the authorized, regulated, and taxed market, but it does not explain how this would reduce a clandestine market that, according to it, already accounts for up to half of the activity. It also states that setting up an illegal platform costs around R$ 10 and that operators migrate domains after each block.
Law No. 15.358, of March 2026, which imposed duties on banks and payment institutions, is cited as evidence of the inadequacy of the original regulation. The law has been in effect for just over six months.
What remains of the legal argument
Two points of the demonstration have a more consistent basis. The first is the legal reserve regarding advertising. Article 220, § 3, item II, of the Constitution assigns to federal law the means of defense against the advertising of harmful products. Limits on frequency, time, sponsorship, and influencers are currently established in regulations, and the Supreme Federal Court has already applied sub-legal rules through precautionary decisions in ADIs 7721 and 7723.
The second is what the Attorney General's Office calls the paradox of the model. The protection was built on the gambler's self-determination, to be exercised, the document says, "when the loss of control has already taken hold."
These arguments point to loopholes in the law. The statement does not explain why these loopholes would require the complete invalidation of the regime, rather than a conforming interpretation or an appeal to the legislature.
Formal oversights
The document contains proofreading errors. The summary mentions "physical odds" betting. One passage cites "2.5000 vacancies." Paragraphs 22 and 23 are numbered twice, and two paragraphs about money laundering repeat almost the same text. A study by Ibevar/FIA is attributed to CNC in the following paragraph.
Also signing are the Secretary-General for Litigation, Isadora Maria Belem Rocha Cartaxo de Arruda, and the Union Attorney Carolina Sausmikat Bruno de Vasconcelos.
Petition from the Attorney General's Office
