The National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) decided to take legal action to the Federal Supreme Court (STF) to question the new restrictions imposed in the state of Rio Grande do Sul.
In this sense, the entity filed Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) No. 7971 against State Law No. 16,508/2026.
The central argument maintains, above all, that the legislation in Rio Grande do Sul, which completely prohibits the advertising of lotteries, directly invades the exclusive competence of the Union to legislate on the subject.
Consequently, this interference generates immediate impacts on the broadcasting sector and on the media that operate under federal regulation.
What is the real impact of the ban on lottery advertising in the states
The discussion brought to the Supreme Court goes beyond the operational boundaries of the betting market.
By imposing a broad and unrestricted veto, the rule establishes highly complex practical barriers for radio stations, television channels and advertising agencies that already work in full compliance with federal government guidelines.
This overlap causes serious legal uncertainty for legitimate operators, who lose clarity about which campaigns can be broadcast on regional schedules without the risk of punishment.
The advancement of the illegal market and the vulnerability of bettors
The entity warns that silencing the regulated market has a reverse and harmful effect on society.
The ban affects companies authorized and duly supervised by the federal public authorities, leaving enormous free space for clandestine platforms to operate.
As illegal websites operate completely outside the reach of the law, they continue to freely use aggressive digital marketing strategies, which often end up being targeted at vulnerable audiences.
For ANJL, communication carried out in a responsible manner is the main practical instrument for the end consumer to be able to differentiate licensed brands from the countless virtual scams.
In this way, without official mass dissemination channels, the public loses reference to which platforms really offer protection tools and safe entertainment practices, making the state measure merely an ineffective restriction of institutional communication.