Supreme Court receives opposing requests regarding betting; amicus curiae brief and suspension of judgment.

The Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) received two opposing petitions on Friday (September 4th) in the cases questioning the constitutionality of the regulatory framework for fixed-odds betting: an entity specializing in the prevention of gambling addiction appealed the decision that barred its entry into the process, while an association in the broadcasting sector requested the suspension of the judgment to await Congress.

The two documents were filed in Direct Action of Unconstitutionality No. 7.749/DF, proposed by the Attorney General of the Republic, which questions provisions of Laws No. 13.756/2018 and No. 14.790/2023 for allegedly insufficient protection of the mental health of users of betting platforms, especially in view of the risks of addiction and pathological gambling disorder. The rapporteur is Minister Luiz Fux.

Resource from the Moderation Institute

The Moderation Institute filed an internal appeal against Minister Fux's decision of August 27, 2026, which denied its request to participate as amicus curiae. The decision was published in the Electronic Official Gazette on August 31; the deadline for the appeal was September 8, excluding the national holiday of the 7th from the count.

In the appealed decision, the rapporteur had admitted PDT, ABRASF, IBJR, the State of Paraná, LOTTOPAR, CNS, AIGAMING, DPU, Instituto Alana, ICCON-BRASIL, and ABERT, but collectively rejected the other applicants, including Instituto Moderação. The rationale was to avoid "serial repetition by bodies with identical interests and knowledge on the subject," in order to preserve procedural efficiency and speed.

The Institute maintains that its contribution does not overlap with those of the amici curiae already admitted. The entity argues that, unlike the Brazilian Institute for Responsible Gaming (IBJR), which qualified as a representative of companies in the sector and focused its submission on operational data and self-regulation initiatives, its work concentrates on the technical-operational dimension of preventing gambling addiction; early identification of risk patterns, behavioral monitoring, and evidence-based intervention. As concrete evidence, the application for admission mentioned the IMod System, its own tool for detecting risky behaviors.

The entity frames this expertise as directly relevant to the constitutional core debated in the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI); the sufficiency, or lack thereof, of existing regulatory mechanisms to protect bettors. Law No. 14.790/2023 has already incorporated responsible gambling obligations and systems for monitoring bettor activity; the question submitted to the Supreme Federal Court (STF) is precisely whether this design offers sufficient protection to fundamental rights. The Institute argues that it can provide the Court with technical elements regarding the viability and practical functioning of these mechanisms.

To support the admissibility of the appeal, the Institute invoked the judgment in ADI 3.396 AgR/DF, reported by Justice Celso de Mello, in which the Plenary, by majority vote, recognized the legitimacy of those whose entry was refused to appeal the rapporteur's decision in an abstract review of constitutionality. The judgment was concluded on August 6, 2020, when the Court acknowledged the appeal by majority vote and, unanimously, denied it. Justice Fux himself, while drafting the judgment in RE 602.584 AgR/DF, had stated that the reasons for that precedent, constructed in a subjective process, "are not necessarily applicable in the context of concentrated review."

The appeal primarily requests that Minister Fux reconsider the decision and admit the Institute as amicus curiae; subsidiarily, that the appeal be referred to the Plenary. Should admission be granted, the Institute requests that its role be limited to matters within its area of ​​expertise: responsible gambling, prevention and early identification of gambling addiction, behavioral monitoring, mental health, and technological mechanisms for protecting gamblers.

Request for suspension of ABERT

Already admitted as amicus curiae in ADIs No. 7.749, 7.721 and 7.723, the Brazilian Association of Radio and Television Broadcasters (ABERT) filed a petition requesting the suspension of the judgment of the three actions. The basis for this is that the National Congress is in an advanced stage of reviewing the same regulatory framework questioned in the actions.

The association points to two bills at a relevant stage. Bill No. 2.470/2026, authored by Senator Damares Alves (Republicanos/DF) and six other senators, proposes amendments to Law No. 14.790/2023 to strengthen the protection of mental health, consumers, and the family economy in the betting environment, with an emphasis on harm prevention, protection mechanisms for vulnerable individuals, and classification of gambling modalities by health risk. The bill has progressed rapidly; on September 1st, it was the subject of a public hearing in the Senate's Committee on Science, Technology, Innovation and Informatics (CCT); the following day, the Committee approved the report and also a request for urgent processing. The matter will proceed to the Committee on Social Affairs and, if the urgency is approved, it may go directly to the Senate Plenary without going through another committee.

The second bill, PL No. 2.985/2023, authored by Senator Styvenson Valentim (RN), deals with fixed-odds betting advertising, focusing on corporate social responsibility, consumer protection, and prohibiting advertising directed at minors. It was approved by the Senate Plenary on May 28, 2025, in the form of the substitute text from the rapporteur, Senator Carlos Portinho (PL/RJ), and sent to the Chamber of Deputies on June 11, 2025.

ABERT argues that, in areas of high regulatory complexity, the theory of institutional capabilities recommends deference to the Legislative Branch, especially when there is no inertia on the part of Congress. On the contrary, the entity maintains, there is active deliberation underway; it went from the absence of regulation to an incipient discipline in 2018 and, later, to Law No. 14.790/2023; now, the Legislative Branch is resuming the debate in light of accumulated experience.

To support the request with a precedent from this Court, the petition mentions ADI No. 4.530, in which the Court considered it necessary to take into account the existing body of regulations and the roles of the other branches of government in order not to impose an "unattainable perfectionism" on the legislature. It also cites ADI No. 7.633, in which the Supreme Court suspended the effects of a preliminary injunction to await an inter-institutional solution regarding the payroll tax exemption.

The association also points out that the precautionary measures granted by Minister Fux and ratified by the Plenary in ADIs No. 7.721 and 7.723 have already produced concrete effects, by triggering the immediate application of Ordinance SPA/MF No. 1.231/2024 regarding advertising aimed at children and adolescents and the prohibition of the use of resources from social programs for betting. For ABERT, this demonstrates that the Judiciary and the Legislature are simultaneously pursuing the protection of the same legal rights, each within the space reserved for it by the Constitution.

The request is for the suspension of the three actions until the conclusion of the legislative debates or, at least, for a period of three months.

What remains open is the rapporteur's position regarding the two petitions; admitting the Moderation Institute as amicus curiae would imply recognizing the technical specificity of its contribution compared to the entities already present in the process; granting the suspension requested by ABERT would mean awaiting a legislative outcome whose timeframe and scope are still uncertain.