Brazilian court temporarily allows three banned betting platforms to resume operations
A federal appeals court granted CDA Gaming a provisional injunction to restart Casa de Apostas, Betsul and Jogo Online after the government banned fixed-odds betting.

KEY POINTS
- The government charged 30 million reais for betting authorization valid until December 2029
- A September 2026 provisional measure banned fixed-odds betting and ordered closure within thirty days without refund
- Judge Adriana Pileggi de Soveral granted a provisional injunction on November 3 to restore authorization for CDA Gaming
- The ruling covers only Casa de Apostas, Betsul and Jogo Online, not the entire betting sector
- The judge said ending operations without compensation could amount to confiscation
The federal government charged a company 30 million reais in 2025 for authorization to operate fixed-odds betting until December 2029. In September 2026, the same government decided to prohibit the activity and extinguish the authorization within thirty days, stating it would not return a single cent of the amount received.
CDA Gaming, responsible for the brands Casa de Apostas, Betsul and Jogo Online, obtained authorization through Ordinance SPA/MF No. 255/2025 after paying the 30 million reais grant. A provisional measure signed by President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in September ordered the closure of betting house operations across the country.
“The invocation of public interest does not eliminate the need to respect commitments assumed by the administration.”
In the first instance, the injunction was denied based on the argument that the public interest in protecting the population from the negative effects of betting should prevail over the legal certainty invoked by the company. The Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region reached a different conclusion.
On November 3, federal appeals judge Adriana Pileggi de Soveral granted anticipatory tutelage to restore CDA Gaming's authorization. The decision was issued in Instrument Appeal No. 5034200-15.2026.4.03.0000 regarding Provisional Measure No. 1394/2026.
The judge considered that the company had made significant financial and technical investments legitimately under a legal regime established by the government itself. She stated that abruptly interrupting activities could cause significant losses to a company that had met requirements previously set by the public authority.
The magistrate also questioned the possibility of the government unilaterally changing the conditions of an authorization granted upon payment. She noted that ending operations without compensation for investments made could represent a form of confiscation.
The judicial authorization applies exclusively to the three platforms linked to the company that filed the request and does not represent a general release of the sector.
4 more sources below
COMMENTS (0)
No comments yet. Be the first.
RELATED STORIES

US Congress asks Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang to closed-door meeting over China ties
Republican lawmakers want Huang to discuss his interactions with a Singapore executive suspected of passing information to China.

Six dead, 15 wounded in Krakau shooting by right-wing extremist
A gunman fired from a moving car at Krakau's main market square on Saturday afternoon.

Pope Leo XIV begins South American tour in Uruguay
The pontiff visits Montevideo, Paysandú and Florida while Uruguayan and Brazilian leaders exchange messages of peace.
- Israeli President to Name Prime Minister-Designate After Coalition Talks End
- Prediction markets claimed accuracy after US midterms despite missing surprises
- Trump Offers UFC Chief Dana White Role as Next White House Press Secretary
- California's Great America to Close Permanently After 2027 Season
- Krakow Main Square shooting leaves at least five dead and around a dozen injured
This page was compiled with AI assistance from the outlets named above and passed an automated language check before publication. Montegre has no reporters of its own; the byline names the outlets the story was compiled from. Method and editorial standards