{"id":125189,"date":"2026-11-04T13:05:22","date_gmt":"2026-11-04T12:05:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ceadigilaw.org\/?p=125189"},"modified":"2026-11-04T13:05:28","modified_gmt":"2026-11-04T12:05:28","slug":"brazil-stf-debates-illegal-betting-adverts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ceadigilaw.org\/ar\/blog\/brazil-stf-debates-illegal-betting-adverts\/","title":{"rendered":"Brazil&#8217;s STF debates illegal betting adverts after Provisional Measure 1,394\/2026"},"content":{"rendered":"<div lang=\"en\" dir=\"ltr\">\n<div class=\"cea-blog-resumen\">\n<p><strong>In brief<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>On 3 November 2026 the Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) held its second public hearing on online betting, within seven direct actions of unconstitutionality against Medida Provis\u00f3ria 1.394\/2026.<\/li>\n<li>Government and the communications sector disagree: the former cites social harm; the latter fears more clandestine advertising on social media and messaging apps.<\/li>\n<li>The hearing does not decide the validity of the measure; it feeds the court&#039;s later analysis.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<p>On 3 November 2026 Brazil&#8217;s Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) held its second public hearing on online betting, led by Justice Luiz Fux, to examine the constitutionality of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.congressonacional.leg.br\/materias\/medidas-provisorias\/-\/mpv\/175871\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Medida Provis\u00f3ria 1.394\/2026<\/a>, which banned the activity. As <a href=\"https:\/\/telesintese.com.br\/proibicao-das-bets-amplia-debate-sobre-publicidade-ilegal-na-internet-no-stf\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">TeleS\u00edntese<\/a> reports, a central question was what happens to online advertising once the ban applies.<\/p>\n<h2>The procedural setting<\/h2>\n<p>The hearing forms part of direct actions of unconstitutionality 7721, 7723, 7749, 8024, 8027, 8028 and 8035. The first three already challenged the regulation of betting; the other four followed the provisional measure. Participants included the federal government, economic bodies, media organisations and football clubs. The first hearing, in November 2024, heard more than 50 experts and public and civil society representatives. The submissions will inform the court&#8217;s analysis, but the hearing itself is not a ruling on the measure&#8217;s validity.<\/p>\n<h2>Advertising: two readings<\/h2>\n<p>The Associa\u00e7\u00e3o Brasileira de Emissoras de R\u00e1dio e Televis\u00e3o (Abert) challenged article 16 of the measure, which bans advertising, marketing and sponsorship linked to betting. It argued that the ten-day adjustment period was too short and that removing adverts from authorised operators does not stop clandestine ones, which could keep promoting through social media, messaging groups and influencers. It cited figures attributed to the Conselho Nacional de Autorregulamenta\u00e7\u00e3o Publicit\u00e1ria (Conar): complaints about advertising by illegal sites rose from 2.3 to 8.5 a day, roughly 270%. That measures complaints, not bettors or money wagered.<\/p>\n<p>Economist Erick Brasil (LCA Consultoria Econ\u00f4mica) saw a correlation between the measure and more unauthorised sites, but stressed that this does not show higher demand.<\/p>\n<h2>The case for the ban<\/h2>\n<p>The Minister of Justice and Public Security, Wellington C\u00e9sar Lima e Silva, and the Attorney General, Jorge Messias, defended the measure, arguing that the regime under Laws 13.756\/2018 and 14.790\/2023 did not effectively protect health, dignity and the family. The Ministry of Finance estimated household transfers to the sector at R$62 billion and cited a rise of almost 40% in the likelihood of default, especially among those aged 18 to 24. Brasil answered that authorised gross revenue in 2025 (R$37 billion) was under 0.5% of household consumption. Several clubs, including Fluminense, which put the impact at R$200 million, asked for a longer transition and legal certainty.<\/p>\n<h2>Our view at CEA Digital Law<\/h2>\n<p>At the Euro-American Committee of Digital Law &#8211; CEA Digital Law we take no side on constitutionality, but the debate offers useful lessons. First, a ban does not remove the need to supervise advertising; it pushes it towards channels that are harder to monitor. Complaints, supply, real demand and harm are different indicators and should not be conflated, as the economist himself cautioned.<\/p>\n<p>Second, the responsibility of platforms and ad intermediaries will be decisive. In Europe, the Digital Services Act offers notice mechanisms, ad transparency and risk assessment that could serve as a reference, and some countries in Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa are exploring licensing models with advertising limits rather than total bans. Comparing outcomes would be valuable.<\/p>\n<p>Third, transition periods and prior impact assessment reduce litigation and protect legal certainty. We suggest that any regulation here rely on public, verifiable data, cooperation with telecoms authorities and stronger protection for minors and vulnerable people.<\/p>\n<h2>Sources<\/h2>\n<ul class=\"cea-blog-fuentes\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/telesintese.com.br\/proibicao-das-bets-amplia-debate-sobre-publicidade-ilegal-na-internet-no-stf\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">TeleS\u00edntese<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.congressonacional.leg.br\/materias\/medidas-provisorias\/-\/mpv\/175871\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Congresso Nacional: Medida Provis\u00f3ria 1.394\/2026<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"cea-blog-firma\"><em>CEA Digital Law<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Brazil&#8217;s Supreme Court held a second public hearing on online betting. Does the ban make clandestine advertising on digital platforms harder to police?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":125190,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"wds_primary_category":0,"wds_primary_cea_women":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1123],"tags":[],"cea_women":[],"class_list":["post-125189","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-derechos-digitales-ar"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceadigilaw.org\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/125189","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceadigilaw.org\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceadigilaw.org\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceadigilaw.org\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceadigilaw.org\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=125189"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ceadigilaw.org\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/125189\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":125204,"href":"https:\/\/ceadigilaw.org\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/125189\/revisions\/125204"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceadigilaw.org\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/125190"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceadigilaw.org\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=125189"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceadigilaw.org\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=125189"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceadigilaw.org\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=125189"},{"taxonomy":"cea_women","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceadigilaw.org\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/cea_women?post=125189"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}