Regulatory Radar | Fixed-Odds Betting – Ed. 20

Week of October 19 to 23, 2026

The week revolved around the ban and the wait for the Supreme Court’s decision after the runoff. In parallel, the AGU advanced in court, the SPA/MF came under the spotlight in an anti-money laundering case, and sport looked for loopholes in the advertising ban. Below are the points that deserve your attention.

The ban remains in force, and the Supreme Court is expected to rule right after the runoff

The provisional measure banning the operation, intermediation and advertising of fixed-odds betting remains in effect. Justice Luiz Fux, rapporteur of the three actions before the Supreme Court (STF), is expected to rule on the request for an injunction after the runoff election, according to the press. The Attorney General’s Office (AGU) defended keeping the ban in full. Football clubs are asking for a suspension or a transition period of up to one year. The measure itself provides for the extinction of federal authorizations on October 25.

What this means: Fux’s decision may uphold, suspend or modulate the ban. It is worth having a plan for each scenario, including the extinction of authorizations on October 25. The exact date of the decision is uncertain.

Government tells the Supreme Court the measure has emptied the challenge to Minas Gerais’ decree

In the case in which the ANJL challenges a Minas Gerais decree banning betting advertising on public property and at public events, the state government and the Ministry of Sport stated on Wednesday (21) that the provisional measure has made the case moot. The Ministry acknowledged that the measure still depends on Congress. The rapporteur is Justice Flávio Dino.

What this means: the question of who may regulate advertising (the Union or the states) may go unanswered if the Court treats the case as superseded. That keeps uncertainty over local advertising rules alive if the measure falls or is amended.

AGU opens a litigation front to force operators to report balances

According to the press, the AGU has filed 8 lawsuits against companies that failed to report bettors’ balances on time. The first favorable ruling came from the Federal Court in Rio de Janeiro against an operator with several brands, with a fine of R$ 50,000 per day. The banks’ deadline to return funds had already expired the week before.

What this means: more injunctions are likely. Anyone with pending data or refunds should regularize them soon, to avoid daily fines and friction with the AGU.

SPA/MF technical note points to anti-money laundering failures at a major operator

The press disclosed a technical note from the SPA/MF, dated October 1, pointing to anti-money laundering failures at Blaze (Foggo). The case centers on the transactions of a single bettor, estimated at around R$ 5 billion. The SPA reportedly opened an administrative proceeding. Folha mentions a possible fine of up to R$ 2 billion and a recommendation to consider suspension. The operator says it complies with the rules, and the bettor denies any wrongdoing. An inquiry related to the matter is pending before the Supreme Court, with repercussions for state licensing in Rio de Janeiro.

What this means: the episode shows the standard of scrutiny on AML controls and beneficial ownership identification, which is likely to weigh in any future scenario. It is worth reviewing customer risk classification, alerts and responses to COAF communications. The facts are still those reported by the press and are disputed by those named.

“Mirror” brands on jerseys: the next gray area of the advertising ban

Seven of the 14 Série A clubs were left without a main sponsor because of the ban. In the Libertadores semifinal, Brazilian teams displayed brands of results and statistics websites linked to betting companies. The measure has no explicit rule on companies in the same group, livescore sites or statistics providers. The report notes that the Ministry of Finance referred the matter to the Ministry of Justice, with no answer so far. There is also debate over a foreign club sponsored by a betting company in a match at the Maracanã.

What this means: sponsors, advertisers and data providers in sport should treat these structures as regulatory risk until there is official guidance. Assuming that a “different brand” is enough is risky.

Congress: the measure has no committee installed yet, and the Chamber moves ahead on parallel bills

The joint committee for the provisional measure is still waiting for its members to be appointed. The press mentions a 120-day period for conversion into law. In the Chamber of Deputies, the Sports Committee appointed a rapporteur for bills banning betting sponsorship on uniforms and in high-performance sport. A bill banning advertising on public transport and in sensitive places received a favorable opinion in another committee. A new bill was also filed on refunding amounts wagered with illegal operators, with liability for banks and payment providers. In the fiscal debate, estimates of the revenue lost with the end of betting differ between the market and the government.

What this means: the final text of the measure may change significantly in Congress. It is worth following the advertising and bank-liability bills, which may survive even if the ban does not.

Scam with fake government website promises to “release” betting balances

The press reported a fake page imitating the government that charges a Pix payment to release supposed betting balances, and also collects users’ CPF numbers.

What this means: operators, banks and fintechs involved in returning balances should warn customers through official channels and strengthen fraud and brand-misuse monitoring.

Looking ahead to next week

• Sunday (25): runoff election and the date set in the provisional measure for the extinction of federal authorizations.
• Fux’s decision on the injunction against the provisional measure, expected after the runoff.
• Meetings among Finance, Justice, Sport, the AGU, the Central Bank and other bodies scheduled for October 28 to 30, according to official agendas (agenda not disclosed).

For further reading (in Portuguese): Espaço Jurídico, Tiago Gomes: proibir não é proteger – a extinção das bets e o esporte (SBC Notícias)

Our team is available to discuss how any of these topics may affect your business.

This material is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The analyses reflect the team’s understanding as of the publication date and may be revised as regulation or case law evolves. For guidance on specific situations, please consult a lawyer on our team. © Souto, Correa Advogados – Gaming & Betting Practice.