Minister Luiz Fux, of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), is the rapporteur for the process that analyzes Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality (ADIs). These actions discuss the regulatory framework for fixed-odds betting. Thus, to discuss this scenario, he convened a conciliation hearing on Tuesday (16) to discuss the extent of the prohibition on Bolsa Família beneficiaries participating in fixed-odds betting.
As requested by Fux, the hearing will be held in person, in the magistrate’s office. The date set is March 17, 2026.
Among the participating entities, the presence of the National Confederation of Commerce of Goods, Services and Tourism (CNC), author of ADI 7721 on the subject, is very likely. In addition, the Brazilian Association for Economic Freedom (ABLE), the Union and the Ministry of Finance, and the Attorney General’s Office (PGR) are also expected.
According to Luiz Fux: “controversy arose in the proceedings regarding the manner of compliance with the precautionary measure.” The hearing takes place after ABLE requested a new court decision regarding restrictions on the use of bets.
In the petition, she suggests restricting resources originating from social programs, but not all beneficiaries of those programs. According to the organization, people may have other sources of income and therefore could use that money.
What did Fux decide on the subject in 2024, and what has changed?
In November 2024, the full Supreme Court accepted a preliminary injunction from Justice Fux that mandated measures to immediately prevent the use of bets with resources from social and welfare programs. This applies to projects such as Bolsa Família and the Continuous Benefit Payment (BPC).
However, in order to comply with the content of the decision, the government took action. Thus, it issued Ordinance SPA/MF 2.217/2025 and Normative Instructions SPA/MF 22/2025 and 24/2025.
Therefore, from that point on, ABLE filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Federal Court (STF) arguing that the regulations were “drastically” exceeding the Court’s decision. Furthermore, they were infringing on the economic freedom of the beneficiaries of the social programs.
According to the organization, a “paternalistic and stigmatizing regime” was established, according to which certain citizens would be presumed incapable of managing their own income and, therefore, should be prevented from exercising available rights, such as participating freely and at their own risk in legally permitted economic activities.
The Union, in turn, stated in the proceedings that the regulations issued by the government were limited to providing “technical, provisional and proportionate compliance” with the Supreme Court’s decision, without exceeding its scope.
“Therefore, this does not constitute any practice of 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 compliance with the decision-making framework,” the response states.
