Representatives from the National Confederation of Commerce in Goods, Services and Tourism (CNC), which filed Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) 7721 on the matter, as well as the Brazilian Association for Economic Freedom (ABLE), the Federal Government, the Ministry of Finance, and the Office of the Prosecutor General (PGR), are expected to attend.
According to Fux, “a controversy has arisen in the case records regarding how the preliminary injunction should be implemented.” The hearing was scheduled following a request by ABLE, which asked the Court for a new ruling to ensure that restrictions on the use of betting apply only to funds originating from social programs, rather than to all beneficiaries of such programs. The argument is that beneficiaries may have other declared sources of income and use those funds.
In November 2024, the STF’s full bench upheld an injunction issued by Fux ordering measures to prevent the use of betting platforms with funds derived from social and welfare programs, such as Bolsa Família and the Continuous Cash Benefit.
To regulate the content of that decision, the government issued Ordinance SPA/MF No. 2,217/2025 and Normative Instructions SPA/MF No. 22/2025 and No. 24/2025.
ABLE then petitioned the STF, arguing that the rules go “drastically beyond” the Court’s decision, violating the economic freedom of beneficiaries of social programs.
According to the association, a “paternalistic and stigmatizing regime” has been established, under which certain citizens are presumed incapable of managing their own income and are therefore prevented from exercising available rights, such as freely participating, at their own risk, in legally permitted economic activities.
In the case filings, the Federal Government stated that the rules issued were limited to providing “technical, provisional and proportionate compliance” with the Supreme Court’s decision, without exceeding it.
“Thus, there is no socioeconomic segregation or violation of the principle of equality, but rather the adoption of objectively justified and instrumentally necessary measures to prevent the use of resources from social and welfare programs in fixed-odds betting, in strict observance of the decision framework” established in the action.
Source: Jota
