In the new appeal, Loterj reinforces that the notice questioned by the Attorney General's Office (AGU) followed the legal standards in force at the time it was published and, later, amended.
Loterj argues that the article that limited the 'Bets's operations to the territory arose with the advent of Law 14,790/2023 and was not created or inserted by Provisional Measure 1,182/2023. Therefore, in the view of the agency, it would be “chronologically and logically impossible” to state that the accreditation notice by Loterj was against the law, since the amendment was made 6 months before the law came into effect. For Loterj, there was no violation of a legal norm because it did not exist.
In the first decision in which he denied the embargoes, André Mendonça pointed out that the legislation is “express” in the sense that the sale of lotteries and bets by the States must be limited to people located or domiciled within their territorial limits. Mendonça also argues that the publication of the amendment to the accreditation notice occurred one day after the publication of Provisional Measure 1,182.
Source: GMB
