Novo seeks annulment of Lula and Alckmin at TSE and uses betting ban as evidence of abuse of power

The Novo party filed an Electoral Judicial Investigation Action (AIJE) at the TSE seeking the annulment of the Lula–Alckmin ticket and the ineligibility of both for eight years, according to Correio Braziliense. The ban on fixed-odds betting under Provisional Measure No. 1.394/2026 is one of the measures cited by the party as evidence of political abuse of power on the eve of the election.

According to BNLData, the case was assigned on October 20 to the electoral inspector general, Justice Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva. The presidential election runoff is scheduled for October 25.

Measures challenged in the petition

According to Correio Braziliense, the petition challenges a set of measures that includes the 15.04% increase in Bolsa Família, fuel subsidies, the Desenrola 3.0 program, the end of the so-called blusinhas tax, and the betting ban. Novo argues that 35 regulatory acts issued by the government in 2026 were allegedly used to tilt the presidential race, according to BNLData. Of that total, 12 were issued during the electoral period, between August 16 and October 16, according to Correio Braziliense.

In addition to the AIJE, the party filed a complaint with the Federal Court of Auditors to request an analysis of the fiscal effects of these measures, according to Correio Braziliense.

Provisional Measure 1.394 and the electoral calendar argument

Provisional Measure No. 1.394 was published in the Diário Oficial da União on September 25, 2026, in a special edition — nine days before the first round. The text prohibits nationwide the operation, offering, intermediation, and advertising of fixed-odds betting, whether physical or virtual. Operators had ten days from publication to take down websites and apps, a deadline that expired on October 5, the day after the first round.

Novo argues that issuing the measure so close to the election constitutes electoral motivation.

The petition notes, according to BNLData, that the party «não defende as apostas on-line nem questiona a legitimidade de restringi-las». The central argument is against the timing of issuance, not against the merits of the ban.