Appellate judge calls Lula's decision "confiscation" and clears three betting companies

The appellate decision temporarily returned CDA Gaming to Brazil’s regulated betting market. Desembargadora Adriana Pileggi of the TRF3 issued the injunction on Tuesday, and it applies only to CDA Gaming. The decision reversed the first-instance ruling that had kept the company out of the market.

The three affected platforms are Casa de Apostas, Betsul and Jogo Online. They belong to CDA Gaming and had been offline since October 25, after the government’s measure ended their authorization. The judge also questioned a daily fine of R$ 200,000 and criticized the lack of repayment.

The companies may operate until the case receives a final ruling or another court order. The Advocacia-Geral da União said it will appeal. A broader challenge is also before the Supreme Court, where Minister Luiz Fux is handling a case concerning the ban on betting companies.

A betting license is an official authorization allowing a company to offer bets under government rules. It matters because the company relies on that permission to operate, invest and plan its business. In CDA Gaming’s case, the Ministry of Finance granted the authorization in February 2025.

CDA paid R$ 30 million for a license lasting until December 31, 2029. The later measure ended authorizations within 30 days and offered neither repayment nor compensation. Desembargadora Adriana Pileggi said canceling the license under those conditions was “um verdadeiro confisco,” or “a true confiscation.”

Her reasoning focused on the government’s duty to respect arrangements it makes. She wrote that invoking “public interest” does not give the administration magical power to suddenly change an agreement. The decision therefore protects CDA temporarily, while the government’s appeal and the final court ruling remain pending.

CDA Gaming’s authorization was a major financial commitment. In February 2025, the Ministry of Finance authorized the company to operate in Brazil’s betting market. The company paid R$ 30 million for that permission, showing that the authorization had a substantial economic value.

The license was not short-term. Its stated validity ran until December 31, 2029. That period gave CDA Gaming a defined window in which to operate under the government’s regulatory framework. The company’s business planning and investment could therefore be based on that expected duration.

The later MP 1.394 changed that expectation. Issued on September 25, 2026, it prohibited betting and gave companies 30 days to end their authorizations. It did not provide repayment or compensation. The court’s concern was that the state ended a paid, long-term authorization without returning the money.

The government’s measure changed the legal status of authorized betting companies. MP 1.394, issued on September 25, 2026, prohibited betting and required authorizations to end within 30 days. It also did not promise to return the fees companies had paid or compensate them for the early termination.

CDA Gaming provides the clearest example. The Ministry of Finance had authorized it in February 2025, and the company paid R$ 30 million for a license lasting until December 31, 2029. The measure ended that expected operating period much earlier, prompting CDA to seek judicial protection.

For the company, the result is a loss of access to the regulated market while the payment remains unrecovered. Desembargadora Adriana Pileggi called that outcome a possible “confiscation” and said it damaged trust in government agreements. The AGU will appeal, and the authorization remains restored only until a final ruling or new order.

The Planalto defended the betting ban as a public-protection measure. Its stated concern was that betting could harm people who participate, especially through dependence. The government presented the issue as more than a business dispute involving licenses and fees.

The harms cited were addiction, debt and health problems. These concerns also shaped the first court ruling. The 26th Federal Civil Court in São Paulo decided that protecting the population from betting outweighed legal certainty in the dispute involving CDA Gaming.

The appellate court reached the opposite result in CDA’s case. Desembargadora Adriana Pileggi questioned the urgency of the measure and criticized ending a paid authorization without repayment. The government’s health and financial concerns remain the basis for the ban, while the AGU plans to appeal and the Supreme Court will consider the wider challenge.

The government ended the legal betting authorizations to address harms linked to betting. However, the measure did not remove demand from the market. Instead, the article reports that unauthorized operators quickly appeared after the legal companies were shut down.

A Bet Legal platform survey, cited by Revista Oeste, counted 543 irregular betting houses during the first three days after MP 1.394. This is the article’s concrete measure of the market’s immediate response. The new sites were not the authorized companies returning through the court decision; they were described as irregular operators.

That development complicates enforcement. Legal companies faced closure, while many unauthorized sites emerged rapidly. The article does not provide further figures about their revenue or users. CDA Gaming’s three platforms were later allowed to operate again by a temporary court order, but only until a final ruling or another judicial decision.

Legal certainty means that government decisions and agreements provide a dependable basis for people and companies to plan. In public administration, it matters because the state grants permissions, receives payments and expects regulated businesses to follow its rules. Sudden changes can make those commitments difficult to trust.

CDA Gaming paid R$ 30 million for authorization valid until December 31, 2029. MP 1.394 later ended authorizations within 30 days, without repayment or compensation. Desembargadora Adriana Pileggi said this broke the confidence of those who had made agreements with the state and could amount to “a true confiscation.”

The issue is now balanced against the government’s stated public-health concerns. The first-instance court prioritized protecting people from betting, while the appellate ruling prioritized the stability of the government’s agreement with CDA. The AGU will appeal, and the Supreme Court is considering whether the broader ban should stand.