It is expected that the Supreme Federal Court will present its conclusions in April.
Brazil.- The Supreme Federal Court (STF) will discuss the constitutionality of betting operations in Brazil in the first half of 2025. The expectation is that the court will analyze the matter in April.
The Attorney General's Office (PGR) questioned the constitutionality of the legislation. For the agency, the laws defined in the country do not provide sufficient mechanisms to protect the rights, goods, and fundamental values envisaged in the Constitution.
For this reason, in private conversations, members of the Government and market agents have said that the legal gaps in betting matters could have been avoided if, from the beginning, the legislation had been drafted by the Civil House in collaboration with the Ministries of Health and Social Development and not only by the Ministry of Finance, which focused its efforts solely on fiscal issues.
Throughout 2024, different sectors of society highlighted potential problems with the regulation of betting. Criticisms range from the permission to use the Bolsa Familia benefit to spend on betting to the lack of a national program to help gambling addicts.
The legalization of betting was approved during the government of Michel Temer and should have been completed during the administration of Jair Bolsonaro, something that ultimately did not happen. It was under the management of Lula da Silva that the federal government began the process of regulating the sector from January 1, 2025.
The initiative was announced at the beginning of the government as an essential measure to increase public treasury revenues. When attacks on the regulation began to proliferate, even the government base parliamentarians who voted in favor of the project began to criticize the initiative.
See also: Sports betting in Brazil: creation of «Intersecretariat Working Group» to monitor the sector
The crisis took on a new dimension after the publication of a study by the Central Bank on the expenses of Bolsa Família beneficiaries. The data was questioned even more when the BC did not present the methodology of the study and acknowledged that the results could be null and void.
Now, it is up to the judicial sector to have the last word on the constitutionality of the rules that were defined by the political class.
