The final version of the Lula government’s Big Techs regulation bill, obtained by Sheetuses criteria similar to those adopted by the (Federal Supreme Court) in a June decision that changed the.
The text is a legislative version of – only that now in the administrative sphere. The project has a broader scope than the decision on Marco Civil, because it provides objective liability for platforms, as well as addressing frauds in and protecting children in the digital world.
The bill is not, at any time, to combat misinformation, taboo theme for opposition.
The text is ready, but the Lula government should send it to Congress only next week. Thus, the delivery will not coincide with the, nicknamed ECA (Statute of the and Adolescent), scheduled for this Wednesday (20).
The regulation of the Big Techs has been in Lula’s focus since the beginning of the term, but has gained priority in the last weeks after the surcharge imposed by the president of, Brazil and the adultization of children.
An article that has been arousing controversy, A, determines that Internet platforms should use “mechanisms and systems to promote the detection and immediate unavailable of third party illicit content” when there are certain crimes against children and adolescents, acts of terrorism, suicide and self -harm induction, and others.
Platforms that fail to comply with this determination will be subject to administrative sanctions. These punishments may be from warning, passing by up to 10% of the economic group’s revenues in Brazil, to suspension of the provider for thirty days, renewable for another 30. There may be suspension for an indefinite period, after court order.
However, no company will be fined or sanctioned if you let one or two posts that focus on these crimes or break the law in some way. Like the STF’s decision, there is no liability for sparse or unique content – there must be widespread non -compliance. If the internet company can demonstrate that it has done its best to mitigate these risks or remove illicit posts, it does not receive the fine, nor is it suspended.
Who will judge will be the ANPD (National Data Protection Agency). The text provides for a vitamin version of the agency, called the National Agency for Digital Data Protection and Services, with hiring employees to account for the new assignments, and creates a National Digital Data Protection Council.
But the text to government goes beyond the Supreme Court when determining objective civil liability to companies (regardless of fault) when damage arising from driven or paid content. If someone feels injured by the content, they can sue the company, and it can be deemed responsible, regardless of whether it is blame or previously notified.
The Supreme Court removes the possibility of objective responsibility for the platforms. The Government’s PL also provides objective liability in cases where platforms fail to adopt “the necessary measures to unavailable or disable access to harmful content, or cease harmful activity, in a quick way, when he becomes aware of the facts.”
Another article that should face resistance from Big Techs is what refers to digital advertising, and is similar to a device that was in PL 2630, the das. It establishes that the “purchase and sale of digital advertising directed to the national market should be invoiced in Brazil and observe the Brazilian law”. The goal is to prevent advertisers from hiring global advertising campaigns in jurisdictions that charge less taxes to be conveyed on globally internet platforms.
The text also establishes transparency rules for advertising, with minimal information about advertisers, audiences, and others. The Superior Electoral Court had already adopted similar transparency rules for political and electoral announcements on the 2024 resolution. Google and X stopped selling political ads, stating that it was impossible to comply with the resolution.
The project increases the responsibility of internet platforms for fraud committed by third parties. Providers are required to take emergency measures, to prevent damage, after (extra judicial) notification of misleading advertising, prohibited or irregular services, following the Consumer Protection Code. When notified by the authority of the National Consumer Protection System or responsible for product certification and supervision, companies would have to act up to twenty -four hours.
The text, at another controversial point, includes misleading public policies.
There are many points in common with PL 2628. These are the requirement to link adults to adolescent accounts under 16 years, parental supervision tools, users’ age verification, the ability to disable personalized recommendation systems, and prohibit children for advertising purposes.
The text does not prohibit children under 12 years of having access to social networks, as it was in the previous version.
