Decision was 8-3 and considered unconstitutional Article 19 of the Civil Mark of the Internet; Now platforms like Google, Meta, X and Tiktok will have a duty not to disclose illegal content
The Supreme Court (STF) decided on Thursday (26.Jun.2025) to expand the civil liability of social networks for the content published by users and not withdrawn from the air. By 8 votes to 3, the ministers have decided on cases where a court order is required to exclude content, occasions when a private notification and cases in which platforms must act on their own to prevent the contents from reaching public space.
The winning thesis recognized Article 19 of the Civil Marco of the Internet), which is the subject of the judgment in question, as partially unconstitutional. The device was the general rule and defined the need for a court order to exclude content. Now it will be the exception and restricted only for crimes against honor. The general rule becomes article 21, which establishes that a private notification is sufficient in some cases. Understand below.
Here’s the final score of the trial:
- maintain the court order requirement to remove any content – 3 votes (André Mendonça, Edson Fachin and Nunes Marques);
- maintain the court order requirement only for crimes against honor – 8 votes (Dias Toffoli, Luiz Fux, Alexandre de Moraes, Roberto Barroso, Flávio Dino, Cristiano Zanin, Gilmar Mendes and Cármen Lúcia).
In plenary session, President Roberto Barroso stated that the Supreme Court does not invade Congress’s legislative competence by establishing the criteria for civil liability of social networks. But defines the criteria to decide on concrete cases that presented themselves to the Court.
“To make it clear, the Supreme Court is not legislating, but deciding 2 concrete cases that have been before it and defining criteria that will prevail until the Legislative Power understands that it should provide about this matter.”he declared.
According to Barroso, the decision was based on how they relate to freedom of expression on these platforms and other fundamental rights at stake such as the honor, privacy and intimacy of people.
Networking accountability
By majority, the Supreme Court has ruled that Article 19 of the Internet Civil Marco is partially unconstitutional. The norm was considered insufficient to protect fundamental rights and democracy.
Ministers have defined that, while Congress does not approve of a new legislation, social networks may be liable civilly by illicit content, especially in cases of crimes or publications made by false accounts.
A court order is required to remove content involving crimes against honor, such as slander, defamation and injury.
Social networks must act on their own to prevent the massive circulation of serious illicit contents that are replicated in a systemic, ie repetitive manner. In such cases, they can be held responsible even without court order or private notification. They are:
- Conducts and undemocratic acts;
- Crimes of terrorism or preparatory terrorism, typified;
- crimes of induction, instigation or assistance to suicide or self -mutilation
- Incitement to the discrimination of the rise of race, color, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexuality or gender identity (homophobic and transphobic conduct);
- crimes committed against women due to the condition of females, including content that propagates hatred or aversion to women;
- Sexual crimes against vulnerable people, child pornography and serious crimes against children and adolescents; and
- trafficking in people.
However, the Court ponders that the existence of an unlawful content in isolation is not, in itself, sufficient to apply civil liability to the platforms. Therefore, a private notification is required to remove an individual post that sets up bass crimes, and only if platforms do not delete the post can they be held responsible.
The Supreme Court also established that social networks now have a presumption of responsibility for illicit content driven by advertisements paid or distributed by automated robots (bots). In such cases, liability may be regardless of notification.
The decision is not applicable to email platforms (Gmail, Yahoo, Outlook), meeting (Zoom, Google Meets and Microsoft Teams) and private messages (WhatsApp and Telegram), respecting the confidentiality of communications.
The Supreme has also reaffirmed that marketplaces – as products and services sales sites – remain regulated by the Consumer Protection Code.
The Court also determined that platforms must establish their own self -regulation rules, with mechanisms of notification, transparency and accessible channels to the public. Foreign companies that operate in Brazil will have to maintain thirst or legal representative in the country, with powers to respond in court and administrative bodies.
Finally, the court appealed for the National Congress to update the legislation to correct the failures pointed out in the decision. The effects of the new interpretation will only be valid for future situations and will not affect judgments already res judicata.
