Federal court guarantees Stake's operation until October 25th, but denies suspension of the betting law.
The Federal Court of São Paulo granted this Thursday (8) a partial injunction to Stake Brazil Ltda. to preserve, until October 25, 2026, the effectiveness of the company's authorization to operate fixed-odds betting. The decision is from Federal Judge Cristiane Farias Rodrigues dos Santos, of the 9th Federal Civil Court of São Paulo, in the writ of mandamus no. 5030862-66.2026.4.03.6100, filed against the Prizes and Betting Secretariat of the Ministry of Finance (SPA/MF), Anatel and the Central Bank.
The judge denied the operator's main request, which sought to fully suspend the effects of Provisional Measure No. 1.394/2026 and continue operating until December 31, 2029, the expiration date of the authorization granted by SPA/MF Ordinance No. 263 of February 2025. Only the subsidiary request was partially granted, limited to the date on which the Provisional Measure itself provides for the termination of the current authorizations.
What the injunction determines
Until October 25th, or until a new judicial decision, the authorities must refrain from considering Stake's authorization terminated and from applying sanctions solely because the company maintains operations within the limits of the decision. The effects of blocking, redirecting, or making unavailable the domain stake.bet.br and the operator's applications are also suspended when these measures are based exclusively on the anticipated termination of the authorization.
The redirection had been requested by the Ministry of Justice and Public Security, through Official Letter No. 1264/2026 from the National Secretariat for Digital Rights, with implementation starting at 0:01 on October 6th. The decision serves as official notification to SPA/MF, Anatel, the Central Bank, and the Ministry of Justice.
The argument of the 30-day deadline
The central basis for the decision is the internal coherence of the provisional measure itself. According to the judge, the provisional measure established two deadlines: removal of the platforms within ten days and termination of the authorizations within thirty days.
“If the Authorization were legally nonexistent from the moment the provisional measure was published, there would be no reason for the rule to establish a specific later date for its termination,” she wrote. According to the judge, the Administration cannot “fully anticipate the termination effects to a date prior to the time frame stipulated in the measure itself.”
The judge classified the injunction as a "conservative measure" and stressed that it does not represent a new right nor an acknowledgment of the invalidity of the provisional measure.
Authorization is not a mere expectation.
Although it dismissed the claim that Stake held a "concession contract," the decision acknowledges that the administrative authorization cannot be treated as legally irrelevant. The authorization was granted following an administrative procedure, with payment of a grant and compliance with regulatory requirements.
According to the judge, the authorization "does not necessarily guarantee the immutability of the legal regime until 2029, but it confers on the petitioner an individualized legal position, which cannot be suppressed without adequate consideration between the supervening public interest and the protection of the legitimately created trust."
The decision also notes that there is no administrative decision among the documents examined declaring the company irregular for failing to comply with its obligations.
Relevance and urgency will be re-examined.
Regarding the claim that the Provisional Measure does not meet the relevance and urgency requirements of Article 62 of the Constitution, the judge considered that the argument "has sufficient plausibility to be subject to adversarial proceedings." However, she noted that it is not possible to conclude, in a summary analysis, that the complete prohibition is manifestly unconstitutional.
The main request may be reconsidered after receiving information from the authorities. The judge listed the points she intends to examine:
⇒ the assumptions of relevance and urgency;
⇒ the statement of reasons and the studies that supported the Provisional Measure;
⇒ the estimate of budgetary and financial impact;
⇒ the competence of the bodies responsible for the acts of execution;
⇒ the proportionality of the prohibition;
⇒ the compatibility of terminating the authorization with protecting trust and investments made.
Conditions imposed on the operator
The judge acknowledged the existence of "reverse danger," linked to risks to consumers and vulnerable individuals, and therefore conditioned the injunction on 12 obligations. Among them:
⇒ full maintenance of mechanisms for identification, age verification, prevention of money laundering, responsible gaming, self-exclusion, and deposit, loss, and session limits;
⇒ Prohibition of betting by ineligible individuals and those using resources from social programs, in accordance with the precautionary measures of the Supreme Federal Court in ADIs 7.721 and 7.723;
⇒ Prohibition of advertising directed at children and adolescents;
⇒ Prohibition of new promotional campaigns, acquisition bonuses, or initiatives to expand the user base;
⇒ Guarantee of withdrawal and reimbursement of bettors' balances, with sufficient funds preserved for this payment;
⇒ maintaining the transmission of information to the Betting Management System (Sigap);
⇒ Prohibition from operating through domains, brands, or structures not covered by the authorization.
What was left out
The decision does not guarantee operations after October 25th, does not declare the Provisional Measure unconstitutional, and does not order the restitution of the concession fee or the payment of compensation. According to the judge, these claims may require the production of evidence incompatible with a writ of mandamus.
There is also no direct order against private institutions that are not part of the process. Stake had requested that the injunction serve as an official notification to the payment institutions that maintain its transactional accounts and to CGI.br/NIC.br. The magistrate only authorized that the decision be presented to them for their information, with mandatory effectiveness restricted to the respondent authorities and the public bodies responsible for its execution.
Stake's numbers
In the initial petition, signed by lawyers Bichara Abidão Neto and Thiago Peluso Rossi, the operator states that it paid R$ 30 million in concession fees and contributed R$ 87,8 million in share capital. Investments, operating expenses, and regulatory expenditures would total approximately R$ 128,2 million. The company declares 41 active employees. Lawyers Udo Seckelmann, Thiago Stüssi, Beatriz Braz, Pedro Heitor de Araújo, and Rodrigo Nakane acted in the case.
Stake reports that, in initial compliance with the Provisional Measure, it placed the platform in withdrawal mode, prevented the entry of new funds, ceased promotions, and suspended contracts with affiliates and sponsored parties. As of September 23, it maintained 508.084 betting wallets, of which 224.566 had a positive balance, and a balance available for withdrawal of R$ 3,68 million.
The operator argues that eliminating the regulated market displaces bettors to clandestine platforms. It has attached to the case files notifications to federal agencies regarding websites that allegedly misuse its CNPJ (Brazilian tax ID), brand, and the ".bet.br" domain, as well as a study by LCA Consultores indicating that net spending on legal betting corresponds to 0,46% of household consumption.
Value of the case and next steps
The judge pointed out an “apparent discrepancy” between the value attributed to the case, R$ 10, and the economic dimension of the request, and ordered Stake to justify or adjust it after the adversarial process. The confidentiality order was partially granted, restricted to bettors' personal data, non-aggregated financial information, third-party contractual data, and operational security information.
The authorities identified as the respondents have ten days to provide information. Following this, the case file will be sent to the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office for an opinion. The Federal Government may appeal the preliminary injunction to the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region.
This is the first favorable ruling for a fixed-odds betting operator in Brazil in the legal dispute regarding the effects of Provisional Measure No. 1.394/2026. The request to continue operations until the original expiration of the authorization remains subject to merit review.
Decision of the 9th Federal Civil Court of São Paulo in
