ANJL files complaint with the Supreme Court against governor for prohibiting betting advertising in Minas Gerais.
The National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) filed a direct action of unconstitutionality (ADI) in the Supreme Federal Court on Thursday (September 3rd) against Decree No. 49.279, issued by the governor of Minas Gerais, Mateus Simões, on August 20th. The decree prohibits advertising, sponsorship, and commercial promotion by fixed-odds betting operators — the so-called bets — on state public property and at events promoted or supported by the Minas Gerais Executive Branch. According to the association, the regulation encroaches on the exclusive powers of the Union and violates the Federal Constitution in at least five distinct ways. The case was assigned to Justice Flávio Dino.
The decree was published in the State Official Gazette on August 21st and went into effect immediately. In addition to betting, the regulation also prohibits advertising for adult content platforms and sexually explicit services in the same spaces. ANJL represents 23 companies with federal licenses to operate fixed-odds betting—companies that, together, account for more than 50% of the national market and are headquartered in seven of the eight states where there are federally authorized operators.
Three fronts of formal unconstitutionality
In the petition sent to the Supreme Federal Court (STF), ANJL argues that the Minas Gerais decree suffers from incurable formal flaws. The first of these is the usurpation of the Union's exclusive legislative competence to regulate consortium and lottery systems, as provided for in article 22, item XX, of the Constitution. According to the association, fixed-odds betting is a lottery modality, and only the National Congress can establish primary rules on the subject.
The second flaw points to the exclusive federal jurisdiction over commercial advertising, guaranteed by article 22, item XXIX. The entity cites four precedents from the Supreme Federal Court itself that declared unconstitutional state laws that restricted advertising with similar protective grounds; ADIs No. 5.424 and 5.432 (both against a Santa Catarina law that prohibited advertising of medicines), ADI No. 4.761 (Paraná law on cell phone advertising) and ADI No. 2.815 (Santa Catarina law that prohibited advertisements with erotic content). In all of them, the Court reaffirmed that legitimate protective purposes do not expand the normative competence of the states.
The third formal argument is the violation of the principle of legality. ANJL argues that the decree does not merely regulate a pre-existing law; it creates, on its own initiative, an obligation not to act applicable to private individuals—which would require, at a minimum, a law emanating from the competent federative entity. Since the Union holds legislative competence over the matter, a state decree could not, under any circumstances, serve as the original source of this restriction.
Competitive imbalance as a material defect
The ANJL argues that the material unconstitutionality lies in a revealing detail of the decree's text itself; Article 1, § 3 defines "betting operator" exclusively as a legal entity authorized by the Ministry of Finance. State lottery operators, therefore, are outside the scope of the prohibition—even though they exploit the same economic activity.
According to the association, this differentiation criterion based on the federal origin of the authorization lacks constitutional support. Both categories of operators exploit fixed-odds betting, are subject to oversight requirements, and are obligated to responsible advertising practices. The distinction between them does not stem from the nature of the activity, but only from who signed the license. The result is an unjustified competitive asymmetry; federal companies lose access to spaces and sponsorships that remain available to their state competitors.
The petition also invokes ADI No. 7.640, judged by the STF itself, which declared unconstitutional a provision of Federal Law No. 13.756 that prevented state operators from adopting extraterritorial advertising strategies. In that judgment, the Court established that federal and state operators have an equal right to broadcast advertising — an understanding that the Minas Gerais decree, according to ANJL, directly contradicts.
The association adds an argument of proportionality. The federal regime already regulates betting advertising in detail; Law No. 14.790/2023 dedicated a specific section to the topic, and Ordinance SPA/MF No. 1.231/2024, from the Secretariat of Prizes and Betting, establishes national parameters for communication, marketing, and sponsorship in the sector. Therefore, less burdensome instruments are available—such as warning requirements, content restrictions, and a ban on advertising directed at minors—which would make the absolute prohibition of the decree disproportionate to the stated purpose.
Request for immediate suspension
Given that the decree took effect from the date of its publication, ANJL requested the Supreme Federal Court (STF) to grant a precautionary measure to fully suspend its effectiveness until the final judgment of the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI). The central argument is the irreversible damage; canceled campaigns, interrupted brand activations, and rescinded sponsorships would be difficult to recover even with a possible subsequent declaration of unconstitutionality.
The petition was signed by lawyers Pietro Cardia Lorenzoni (OAB/DF nº 66.099), Bernardo Cavalcanti Freire (OAB/SP nº 291.471) and Plínio Lemos Jorge (OAB/SP nº 124.182).
ANJL has a history of involvement in concentrated control actions before the STF (Supreme Federal Court). In June 2024, it requested to participate as amicus curiae in ADI No. 7.640. In November of the same year, it acted as a speaker in a public hearing convened by Minister Luiz Fux within the scope of ADIs No. 7.721 and 7.723. In December 2025, it obtained a precautionary measure related to two ordinances of the Secretariat of Prizes and Bets. Minister Nunes Marques, rapporteur of the Precautionary Measure in ADPF No. 1.212, even formally recognized the entity as the only private entity responsible for enforcing a certain precautionary measure regarding the fight against illegal betting.
