Brazil Labor Court Rejects Challenge Against Creation of Betting Industry Union in São Paulo

A Brazilian Labor Court has ruled against a lawsuit filed by the Union of Commissioners and Consignees of the State of São Paulo (SINCOESP) seeking to suspend the creation of the Union of Sports Betting and Online Gaming Operators (SINDIBETS). The ruling is seen as a landmark decision concerning the structuring of trade unions in the growing betting sector of the country.

Read more Broncos barrel almost dry as 19-year-old tipped for NRL debut

The lawsuit was filed in September 2025 at the 20th Labor Court of São Paulo, wherein SINCOESP argued that the union formation had violated the principle of union unity by overlapping with its representation.

The court did not recognize the claims and found the new union legitimate.

Discussion of Jurisdiction and Preliminary Objections

Among other issues raised by the parties, SINDIBETS questioned the court’s jurisdiction and the procedural law that was applicable to this case. In particular, the defendants challenged that since they had not registered the union yet, the case must have been brought administratively before the Ministry of Labor.

However, this objection was denied since “this is not a case of conditioning the exercise of the right of action on the prior exhaustion of administrative proceedings, in light of the principles of access to justice and the independence of jurisdictions.”

The case was adjudicated according to the constitutional mandate of the Labor Court laid down in Article 114.

The Debate Concerning the Scope of Union Representation

One of the major points of discussion in this case was whether SINDIBETS represented a distinct economic category or simply duplicated SINCOESP.

To prove their argument, SINCOESP mentioned that the union already represented the interests of businesses engaged in lotteries, authorized gaming, and other activities of this sort in the state of São Paulo. According to the plaintiff, the new union was created unlawfully as it infringed on the principle of unicity, i.e., the prohibition of forming multiple unions within one category in the given territory.

On its side, SINDIBETS stated that fixed-odds betting represented a unique economic activity, which necessitated the establishment of specialized unions. For instance, the recent amendments made by the Brazilian government included Law No. 13,756/2018 and Law No. 14,790/2023 and subsequent ministerial regulations of the Ministry of Finance.

It is specified that fixed-odds betting consists of “bets placed on predicting the results of a determined event, either real or virtual.”

The Ruling Based on Principle of Specificity

Applying the principle of specificity as the key criterion of representation of unions in such disputes, the judge ruled that labor law requires unions to correspond to the prevailing economic activities of employers.

Read more Is Anthony Edwards playing vs. Spurs? Latest injury updates on Timberwolves star’s status for Game 1

Therefore, the establishment of a more specific union within the same territorial base is not only allowed but recommended, as it will provide better attention to the specifics of the sector.

SINDIBETS Background and Structure

The organization in question was formed in September 2025 during an assembly attended by 16 companies from the betting business. The creation of the union allegedly happened because the members of the Women in Gaming Industry Association (AMIG) realized that the betting sector lacked employer unions.

The statutes were registered a few days after SINDIBETS became a legal entity, whereas a request for recognizing the union was submitted to the National Registry of Trade Unions in November 2025.

The court also noticed that SINCOESP had attempted earlier to extend its scope of activity to gaming-related businesses, but this initiative had been declined due to “lack of similarity or connection between the activities.”

Cost and Procedure Orders of the Court

The lawsuit has been dismissed as unfounded. Thus, SINCOESP was ordered to pay legal costs in R$200 (as 2% of the cost of litigation) and R$50 as a percentage fee for legal representation in the amount of 15% of the claims denied by the court.

As for the request for classification of this lawsuit as a malicious proceeding, the judge refused to apply such sanctions due to the lack of evidence for such an intention.

Furthermore, the court confirmed its refusal to grant an urgent injunctive measure that aimed to prevent the effects of the founding assembly from taking effect.

This ruling demonstrates that the Brazilian government recognizes fixed-odds betting as a regulated economic sector of the country, having specific labor relations and institutions. Therefore, as this industry develops under a strict regulatory framework, trade unions may play an important role in setting the terms of employment for this sector.

Read more Hyderabad Police Remove 184 Profiles in Crackdown on Illegal Betting Ads

Source: BNL Data