Brazil: TRF-3 suspends injunction that had reopened three betting sites

On 6 November 2026 the President of the Tribunal Regional Federal da 3ª Região (TRF-3), desembargador federal Johonsom Di Salvo, suspended a decision that had allowed three online betting platforms to resume operating in Brazil. As reported by Consultor Jurídico, the case shows how Brazil’s general ban on fixed-odds betting coexists with individual claims by operators.

What was decided

The suspension targets the injunction granted on 5 November by desembargadora federal Adriana Pileggi. It had set aside, for the company CDA Gaming Ltda., the effects of Medida Provisória 1.394/2026, which bans the operation, offering, intermediation and advertising of bets nationwide and provides for the termination of existing authorisations within 30 days. The brands affected are Casa de Apostas, Betsul and Jogo Online.

The Advocacia-Geral da União (AGU) appealed to the Presidency of the TRF-3 and obtained the suspension (SLS 5032238-54.2026.4.03.0000). According to the report, it stays in force until the original case is finally decided (trânsito em julgado) or the Presidency rules again.

The arguments on each side

The company says it held an authorisation from the Ministério da Fazenda to operate until December 2029 and paid R$ 30 million for it. The judge found that halting activity without refund or compensation could breach constitutional guarantees.

The President of the court stressed a different point: keeping the exception would create regulatory instability in a national public policy and could have a multiplier effect. He also noted that the validity of the new rules is before the Supremo Tribunal Federal through ADIs 8.024, 8.027 and 8.028, and that individual exceptions may undermine the uniformity of the measure.

Our view at CEA Digital Law

The Euro-American Committee of Digital Law - CEA Digital Law sees a classic tension between two legitimate values: the uniformity of a consumer-protection policy and the trust of those who invested relying on an administrative licence. Suspending an injunction is a tool meant to prevent harm to the public interest, but it does not answer the underlying question of compensation for licences.

We suggest three lines of reflection. First, any sudden ban on an authorised sector should come with a transitional regime and clear rules on refunds or compensation, as is often expected in Europe when licences are withdrawn. Second, rulings by the higher courts on the rule itself, here the STF, should arrive swiftly to reduce scattered injunctions. Third, other countries in Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa regulating online gambling should take note: licence stability is part of regulatory quality, and dialogue with the sector and user-protection groups should precede any change of model.

What will happen to the authorisations and the sums paid once the Supremo Tribunal Federal rules remains an open question.

Sources

• Consultor Jurídico (Conjur): TRF-3 derruba liminar que havia liberado três plataformas de apostas
• Planalto: Medida Provisória 1.394/2026

CEA Digital Law