On Friday night, Federal Judge Luis Antonio Johonsom di Salvo, the president of the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region (TRF3), took the significant step of suspending the earlier decision that had allowed CDA Gaming Ltd to run fixed-odds betting operations in Brazil.

This ruling came in response to a request from the Union and was officially signed at 18:37. This latest decision also extends the impact of an earlier ruling from October 9, which had suspended the injunction that Stake obtained from the 9th Federal Civil Court of São Paulo.

CDA Gaming, known for its Casa de Apostas brand, had previously secured a preliminary injunction through Appeal No. 5034200-15.2026.4.03.0000, granted by Federal Judge Adriana Pileggi of the 3rd Panel. This injunction was specific to CDA and had effectively negated certain provisions in Article 4 of Provisional Measure No. 1.394/2026 and restrictions outlined in Article 7, as well as the implications of Official Letter No. 1256/2026 from the Ministry of Justice’s Digital Rights Secretariat (Sedigi).

As it stood, only Casa de Apostas was operating among the three brands owned by CDA. The injunction had positioned casadeapostas.bet.br as the sole regulated betting platform in Brazil following the revocation of licenses on October 25. However, with this new ruling, that status is now nullified. A significant portion of this ruling revolves around a procedural matter—specifically, whether the court presidency has the authority to suspend a decision made by a fellow judge within the same court, referred to as “horizontal jurisdiction.”

The ruling acknowledges that established practices from the Superior Court of Justice typically contradict this notion. Nevertheless, Di Salvo upheld the jurisdiction, arguing that it was a singular decision still open to internal appeal, and the substantive matter had not been reviewed by the entire 3rd Chamber. Di Salvo clarified that it is not his role at this point to reassess the legal merits of the prior judge’s decision regarding the CDA injunction.

He emphasised that while he’s not casting doubt on that injunction, he is suspending it based on three key reasons: a clear public interest, potential serious harm to public order, and the priority of public interest over private interests.