Federal Judge Adriana Pileggi, presiding over the 3rd Panel of the Regional Federal Court of the 3rd Region (TRF3), granted an advance ruling on appeal to CDA Gaming Ltda. on Tuesday, November 3, 2026.
The operator, responsible for prominent brands Casa de Apostas, Betsul, and Jogo Online, secured a provisional reinstatement of its fixed-odds betting authorizations, which had been abruptly extinguished by Provisional Measure No. 1,394/2026. Issued in Appeal No. 5034200-15.2026.4.03.0000, the decision applies exclusively to the appellant, removing the extinguishing effects of Article 4 on Ordinance SPA/MF No. 255/2025 and nullifying restrictions imposed by Article 7 and National Secretariat of Digital Rights Official Letter No. 1256/2026/GAB-SEDIGI/SEDIGI/MJ.
Furthermore, the court mandated the immediate restoration of all electronic domains and essential operational, financial, and payment processing services.
The favorable appellate decision successfully reverses a prior ruling from the 26th Federal Civil Court of São Paulo, which had previously denied a preliminary injunction in Writ of Mandamus No. 5031432-52.2026.4.03.6100 on the grounds that public interest in public health protection superseded legal certainty. CDA Gaming had previously reported paying R$30 million for a license valid through December 31, 2029, arguing that the sudden regulatory revocation inflicted severe financial distress.
Judicial critique of “magical power” and confiscation
In her scathing assessment of the provisional measure, Judge Pileggi emphasized that obtaining the concession required substantial financial and technical investments from the company, noting that the government cannot invoke public interest as if those prior agreements never existed. She stated that terminating authorizations within an extreme timeframe violates the foundational principles of legal certainty, reasonableness, and proportionality, while questioning the constitutional requirements of relevance and urgency under Article 62.
The rapporteur remarked that the invocation of “public interest” does not grant the Administration “the magical power to suddenly alter what was agreed upon” with contractors. Because the provisional measure failed to provide for grant refunds or financial compensation under its sole paragraph of Article 4, the judge characterized the measure as “a true confiscation,” while also criticizing the imposition of daily fines under Article 8. Addressing government justifications regarding public health and child protection, she ironically noted:
“Well, the Provisional Measure would be a miracle, it would solve everything!” Invoking tax jurists Roque Carrazza and Heleno Taveira Torres, she defined legal certainty as “the principle of no surprise.”
Next steps and broader judicial context
The court summoned key federal authorities, including the National Secretary for Digital Rights, the National Secretary of Public Security, the Secretary of Prizes and Betting at the Ministry of Finance, and the President of the Central Bank—to respond under Article 1,019 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), with the Union listed as an interested party. While the Union traditionally seeks to overturn such injunctions, as seen in the Stake case, this appellate ruling originates directly from a second-instance judge with explicit constitutional scrutiny.
The decision coincides with the public hearing convened by Minister Luiz Fux of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) regarding ADI 8027, which similarly challenges Provisional Measure 1,394. With operator authorizations having been revoked 30 days after publication on October 25, and legislative floor obstruction scheduled to begin in Congress on November 9, the legal battle over Brazil’s online betting framework intensifies.
