The Suspension
Supreme Federal Court Justice Flavio Dino has requested a review of the case records, thereby suspending the trial regarding the constitutionality of criminalising games of chance in Brazil. The suspension means that the discussion on decriminalisation of gambling is unlikely to resume until early 2027, leaving one of the most significant legal questions in Brazilian gambling law unresolved for the foreseeable future.
The case before the Supreme Federal Court (STF) addresses whether the criminalisation of games of chance — which has been part of Brazilian law for decades — is constitutional. A ruling in favour of decriminalisation would have far-reaching implications for the Brazilian gambling industry, potentially opening the door to forms of gambling that are currently prohibited.
- Court — Supreme Federal Court of Brazil (STF)
- Justice requesting review — Flavio Dino
- Rapporteur — Justice Luiz Fux
- Case — RE 966177
- Next hearing — unlikely before early 2027
The Procedural Background
Justice Dino had previously aligned himself with the vote of the rapporteur, Justice Luiz Fux. Although he voted with Fux, Dino sought to include the issue of sports betting platforms in the discussions regarding the case's "general repercussion" status — a legal mechanism that allows the STF to establish binding precedents on issues of national significance.
Since such an inclusion was not procedurally feasible during the session, Dino opted to request a review of the records. This procedural step has the effect of postponing the discussion, as the court cannot proceed until the review is completed and the case is rescheduled.
Dino's Position on Sports Betting
Dino would like to make it clear that, in maintaining the criminalisation of games of chance, lotteries, sports betting, and other forms of gambling constitute exceptions to the rules. He also proposed that the issue of sports betting be included in the discussion of RE 966177.
He stated that in Luiz Fux's own opinion, fixed-odds betting dominated his report. This observation is significant because it suggests that the rapporteur's analysis focused primarily on sports betting — which is now regulated under Brazil's federal licensing framework — rather than on the broader question of games of chance.
For Dino, the ideal scenario would be for all cases currently pending before the STF to be analysed jointly to avoid contradictory rulings. This concern about consistency reflects the complexity of Brazil's gambling legal landscape, where multiple cases address overlapping but not identical questions.
Fux's Opinion and Its Criticisms
In his opinion, Fux cited various studies on online betting platforms and what he characterised as unsubstantiated arguments claiming that gambling addiction has led to increased instances of domestic violence, suicide, and food insecurity. He further noted that these betting services are accessible to minors and alleged that the activity is linked to criminal organisations involved in illicit operations.
However, Fux's opinion has drawn criticism for its methodology:
- Conflation of in-person and online gambling — when presenting his opinion, Fux conflated in-person gambling with data regarding player behaviour on online betting platforms, despite the significant differences between these formats
- Unsubstantiated claims — some of the social harms cited were not supported by rigorous evidence, drawing accusations of relying on unsubstantiated arguments
- Overreach — critics argue that the opinion goes beyond the legal question of constitutionality into broader social policy territory
The rapporteur stated that "gambling derives profit from the individual's cognitive inability to assess the risks involved in their decision. There is a seductive structure designed to ensure that, even when losing, the gambler continues to play." While this observation captures a real aspect of gambling psychology, its inclusion in a legal opinion about constitutionality has been questioned by legal scholars who argue that such assessments should be based on legal rather than psychological reasoning.
The Broader Brazilian Gambling Landscape
The STF case exists alongside Brazil's evolving regulatory framework for sports betting and online gaming. The federal licensing system that took effect in January 2025 regulates fixed-odds sports betting, but other forms of gambling — including casino games — remain in a legal grey area.
The current situation creates a paradoxical landscape:
- Regulated — fixed-odds sports betting under the SPA licensing framework
- Legal but restricted — lotteries operated by Caixa Economica Federal
- Criminalised — most forms of casino-style gambling and games of chance
- Grey area — some forms of online gambling that are not explicitly addressed by existing legislation
The STF's eventual ruling on decriminalisation could resolve this inconsistency — but with the discussion suspended until at least early 2027, the ambiguity will persist for the foreseeable future.
Implications for Operators and Players
The suspension creates continued uncertainty for operators considering entering the Brazilian market with products beyond sports betting. While the SPA licensing framework provides a clear pathway for sports betting operators, the legal status of other gambling products remains unclear.
For players, the ambiguity means that some forms of online gambling exist in a legal limbo — accessible through offshore operators but not clearly legal or illegal under Brazilian law. This situation drives players to unlicensed platforms that operate outside the regulatory framework, exposing them to the risks of fraud, unfair games, and lack of consumer protection.
Platforms like https://spinpanda.co.uk/ operate within clear regulatory frameworks, offering players the protections that come with licensing — verified games, fair gaming guarantees, and dispute resolution mechanisms. The Brazilian experience illustrates the importance of regulatory clarity: when the legal status of gambling products is ambiguous, both operators and players suffer.
What Comes Next
When the STF eventually resumes the discussion, likely in early 2027, several outcomes are possible:
- Maintaining criminalisation — the court could uphold the current legal framework, keeping most forms of gambling criminalised while preserving exceptions for lotteries and licensed sports betting
- Decriminalisation — the court could rule that criminalising games of chance is unconstitutional, potentially opening the door to broader gambling legalisation
- Referral to legislature — the court could determine that the question is best addressed by Congress rather than the judiciary
Until then, Brazil's gambling industry will continue to operate in a landscape of regulated sports betting alongside criminalised games of chance — a duality that creates both opportunities and challenges for everyone involved in the market.
Source: iGaming Business
