Brazil’s Betting Ban in Court: The Rulings, Reversals and What’s Next

The latest Brazil betting ban court ruling has paused lower-court challenges, while earlier orders allowing CDA Gaming and Stake Brasil to operate remain suspended. Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court (STF) has not decided whether the ban is constitutional.

Can these operators operate now?

Neither CDA Gaming nor Stake Brasil can rely on the suspended injunctions described here as permission to operate. The ban remains in force at this article’s cutoff. However, a court order and a working website answer different questions.

NEXT.io reported that Casa de Apostas’ casino interface was live on November 4, while its sportsbook was not yet live during that check. iGaming Business also documented uneven availability across CDA’s brands. Those dated observations do not establish whether deposits, bets or withdrawals work now.

The grid separates court protection from evidence of operation. Dyutam has not conducted a current transactional test of these sites. Likewise, the broader campaign against illegal betting sites does not make website access a reliable test of legal permission.

The September–November court timeline

Three separate changes explain much of the confusion: the ban took effect, the transition timetable closed sites, and the measure extinguished existing authorizations. Company-specific court orders then interrupted that sequence for limited periods.

All dates above are in 2026, checked through November 9 at 10:05 UTC. The timeline separates signed orders from observations of website access. Fux’s November 8 stay concerns pending proceedings; it does not settle the constitutional merits.

What the September ban actually changed

Provisional Measure 1,394, issued on September 25, prohibited fixed-odds sports betting and online casino games. It covers physical and online offers, including offshore services offered to people in Brazil and operations under state or district permits. Other lawful lottery categories fall outside this prohibition.

The Finance Ministry’s implementation guidance set out distinct deadlines. The measure prohibited new deposits from September 25. The voluntary withdrawal window ended at 11:59 p.m. on October 5, and sites and apps had to become unavailable on October 6. Existing authorizations were then extinguished on October 25.

October 25 was therefore the measure’s authorization cutoff, rather than the original end date of every license. The earlier Brazil betting ban shutdown explainer covers the transition. This court dispute concerns attempts to obtain relief from those rules.

Why CDA Gaming obtained an injunction

On November 3, appeals judge Adriana Pileggi de Soveral granted CDA Gaming interim relief at the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region, known as TRF3. The order covered the company behind Casa de Apostas, Betsul and Jogo Online.

CDA told the court that it had paid R$30 million for authorization originally running through December 31, 2029. That payment and term are the company’s account recorded in the decision. The research did not independently verify a payment receipt.

The judge’s provisional reasoning focused on legal certainty and the abrupt loss of an authorization obtained under the previous system. CDA’s position was that the state had accepted investment under one set of rules before removing the ability to operate.

An injunction gives temporary protection while a case continues. It did not finally invalidate MP 1,394 for Brazil’s betting market. The signed CDA decision is dated November 3; later reports of reopening are separate events.

Why the TRF3 president suspended it

On November 6, TRF3 president Luís Antonio Johonsom di Salvo extended an existing suspension order to CDA Gaming’s injunction. That removed the temporary protection on which its return depended.

The suspension procedure addresses risks to public order and other protected public interests. In this case, the president emphasized consistent implementation of the federal measure and the risk of multiplying exceptions for individual companies.

This exceptional procedure does not decide the underlying constitutional claim. As a result, the two decisions can be read together: the appeals judge gave CDA temporary relief, and the court president suspended its effects on public-interest grounds. Neither resolved the national dispute over the ban.

Stake Brasil’s earlier court reversal

Stake Brasil had already followed a similar path. It obtained limited interim operating relief on October 8, allowing operation through October 25. The TRF3 president suspended that injunction on October 9.

The October 25 limit matters because Stake’s relief was tied to the transition period. CDA’s later case raised the loss of its longer authorization. The proceedings involved different operators and orders, although the same suspension case ultimately covered both.

They are also separate from the AGU lawsuit seeking betting-related public-health damages. A damages claim asks who should pay for alleged harm. These injunction proceedings concern whether operators can continue working despite the prohibition.

What Fux’s November 8 STF order changes

Justice Luiz Fux ordered a pause in pending lower-court cases challenging the measure’s constitutionality until the STF decides the related constitutional actions. Those cases are ADIs 8024, 8027, 8028 and 8035. An ADI is a direct action asking the Supreme Court to assess whether a law or measure violates the Constitution.

Fux issued the order ad referendum, meaning it remains subject to the full court’s consideration. Its immediate subject is the progress of pending lawsuits. It is not a final judgment upholding or overturning the ban.

The operative wording does not expressly cancel every existing injunction or expressly prohibit the filing of new cases. For CDA and Stake, the relevant operating injunctions had already been suspended by TRF3 before Fux acted. Describing the STF order as a new blanket shutdown would obscure that sequence.

Fux’s decision records that the STF held a public hearing on November 3. A hearing gathers evidence and arguments; it does not itself decide the constitutional challenge.

What could change next?

The next court developments to track are the full court’s treatment of Fux’s order and any decision on the constitutional challenges. A future order could change the ban’s reach or the treatment of existing authorizations. Its exact wording, scope and effective date would determine the practical result.

Congress is a separate part of the story. Its official register lists November 23 as the end of the measure’s initial deliberation period. That entry does not promise that betting sites can reopen on November 23. The legislative process and any resulting text must be checked separately from the court cases.

Dyutam’s coverage of proposed amendments to MP 1,394 explains that legislative dispute. Future reopening claims need both a legal basis and dated evidence of operation. Neither a legislative deadline nor an accessible home page supplies both.

FAQs

---

Sources

• Provisional Measure 1,394 of September 25, 2026: original text — Chamber of Deputies
• MP 1,394 implementation rules and transition deadlines — Ministry of Finance
• CDA Gaming injunction, signed November 3 (PDF) — TRF3 decision, copy hosted by BNLData
• Stake Brasil injunction suspension, October 9 (PDF) — TRF3 decision, hosted by AGU
• Extension of the suspension to CDA Gaming, November 6 (PDF) — TRF3 decision, copy hosted by iGaming Business
• Justice Luiz Fux’s procedural stay, November 8 (PDF) — STF decision, copy hosted by BNLData
• MP 1,394 legislative register and timetable — National Congress
• Casa de Apostas website observations, November 4 — NEXT.io
• CDA injunction and reported brand availability — iGaming Business