Understand the responsibility of networks by user posts

The Ministers of the Federal Supreme Court on Thursday (26.Jun.2025) to a consensus on the criteria to hold social networks accountable for user publications and not withdrawn from the air even without court order. The thesis defined when the court decision will be required to exclude postshas expanded cases where a private notification and those in which platforms should act on their own to prevent content from reaching public space. Read the thesis (PDF – 22 KB).

The Court analyzed resources that questioned the validity of Article 19 of the Internet Civil Mark). The decision has general repercussion e must be followed by other instances of justice. Only for future cases.

Article 19, which requires court order to remove any content, will become the exception. As a general rule, will apply to the model of the Article 21which establishes that private notification is sufficient to exclude a publication. Otherwise, networks can be punished. The device was restricted to nudity content without consent. With the new thesis, the notification will be valid for Any type of crime or unlawful act.

Here’s what Article 19 says:

“Art. 19 In order to ensure freedom of expression and prevent censorship, the Internet applications provider may only be liable civilly for damages arising from content generated by third parties if, after a specific court order, it is not taken to, within the scope and the technical limits of its service and within the time limit, to make the contents pointed out as infringing, the contrary provisions.”

Here’s what Article 21 says:

“Article 21. The Internet Applications Provider that provides content generated by third parties will be liable in the violation of the intimacy resulting from the disclosure, without authorization from its participants, images, videos or other materials containing nudity scenes or private sexual acts when, upon receipt of notification by the participant or his legal representative, failing to promote, in diligent, in the scope and the technical limits of his service, the unavailable of this content. ”

The ministers defined that, While Congress does not approve a new legislationsocial networks may be liable civilly by illicit content, especially in cases of crimes or publications made by false accounts.

From now on, the platforms can be held responsible even without court order CASES OF SERIOUS CRUSES. They are:

• conduct and acts considered “Undemocratic”;
• Crimes of “terrorism” or preparatory to “terrorism” typified;
• Crimes of induction, instigation or assistance to suicide or self -mutilation;
• incitement to discrimination due to 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.

As big techs They must act on their own to prevent comprehensive circulation of these contents and prevent them from being replicated. But if serious crimes are identified in posts individual, it will be necessary private notification to exclude it. If the platform does not remove the content, it may be held responsible.

Private notification will also be required for cases where offensive content has already been repeated that has already been the subject of a court decision for removal.

The court order also fell to illicit content driven by Ads paid or distributed by automated robots (bots). In such cases, liability may be made regardless of notification.

It is unclear what the criteria will be used to remove content by private notification. Without the need for a court decision, it will be up to the platforms to define what is or leaves. The expectation is that the big techs pass any type of content considered controversial.

The need for a court order is still worth Crimes against Honor. When the content involves slander, defamation and injury, the big techs can only be held responsible when they do not comply with the decision of the court to remove the post.

Email platforms, online meetings and instant messages are also submitted to the need for a court order, as they involve private communications. Os marketplacesin turn, remain regulated by the Consumer Protection Code.

It was also defined that social networks must adopt the following practical measures:

• Self -regulation, with notification systems, due process and transparency reports;
• affordable channels for service to users for complaints and notifications; and
• Keep headquarters and legal representative in Brazil with full powers to respond judicially and administratively.

During the trial, some ministers proposed that a body would be responsible for overseeing the fulfillment of practical measures by big techsas well as its liability. In the consensual thesis, however, This point was left out.