The lawsuit, filed by the Solidariedade party, challenges municipal laws that authorized the creation of lotteries and systems for sports betting and online gaming.
In its petition (58.503/2025), the National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) argued that its institutional role qualifies it to participate in the case as amicus curiae, given that it has 24 members, 15 of which operate as operators, representing about one-third of the volume of bets in the regulated market.
The National Association of Municipal and State Lotteries (Analome) justified its petition to the STF (41.156/2025) on the grounds that it has high representativeness in the municipal and state lottery market, and therefore alignment between the subject of the case and its institutional purposes.
The National Confederation of Services (CNS), through petition/STF No. 47.890/2025, requested admission to the case as amicus curiae in view of its institutional purposes and the subject of the action. It reported representing more than 350,000 companies, especially in the information technology services sector, whose electronic platforms host online betting games.
The State of Paraná also had its petition (58.907/2025) accepted by Nunes Marques to be admitted as amicus curiae in the case. In its request, Paraná argued that the lottery is a public service under the Union’s exclusive legislative competence, but with concurrent material competence between the Union and the States. It maintains that it is the holder of the public lottery service within the limits of its territory, having accredited concessionaires to operate.
In all four decisions, Nunes Marques granted the petitions, justifying the “importance of pluralizing actors in constitutional jurisdiction, with a view to collaborating with justice.”
The Solidariedade party’s action requests that all municipal legislation be suspended by injunction until the Supreme Court rules on the unconstitutionality of municipal lotteries.
So far, municipal operations have not been suspended by the STF. The reporting minister acknowledged the importance of the matter but, to ensure legal certainty, decided to request more information from the authorities responsible for the acts in question, as well as from the Attorney General’s Office and the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Republic.
Source: GMB
