Anyone checking whether a betting platform is authorized in Brazil goes looking for “the list”. As of this writing there are two of them, on the same government page, and the difference between them is rarely explained anywhere a bettor looks.
The Finance Ministry’s active-transparency section for fixed-odds authorization processes carries both. The main register, Empresas Autorizadas, lists 85 companies as of its latest update — a count that moves, and one to re-read rather than remember; the page records publication on 20 July 2026 and an update on 21 August 2026, and states that the authorizations run from 1 January 2025. Beside it sits a second page, Autorizadas por Determinação Judicial — authorized by judicial determination — last updated 19 August 2026.
What each entry actually publishes
Per the main register, every company appears with its corporate name, its CNPJ (the company tax number), the brands it trades under, the .bet.br domains those brands use, the SPA/MF ordinance that granted the authorization together with any later ordinance that amended or rectified it, the Sigap application number, and a redacted PDF of the authorization file itself. That is a fuller disclosure than most markets manage, and the amendment trail is the part worth noticing: an authorization is a document with a history, not a badge — the point our review of the register as a consumer tool kept running into.
The judicial page is shorter and differently shaped. As of this writing it names two companies, each identified with its CNPJ, brands and domains, and each described as operating in the national market by force of a decisão liminar — a preliminary injunction — in a named federal case, with the case number and the court given in full. The page does not leave the consequence to inference: a footnote states that for legal purposes such a company enjoys all the rights and duties of one authorized administratively.
Why the split matters at the cashier
Two operators can therefore sit inside the same official transparency section by materially different routes, and the register says so openly rather than blurring it. One practical detail follows from reading both pages together: the administrative register runs on .bet.br addresses throughout, while the judicial page lists one company’s brands on plain .bet domains. The address alone, in other words, is a weaker tell than it looks — check the name against both pages, not just the one that turns up first.
None of this makes a court-authorized entry lesser; per the ministry’s own footnote, it does not. It makes the record more honest than the shorthand. And whichever page a platform appears on, the deposit limit you set before your first stake is doing more protective work than any listing ever will.