The (Supreme Federal Court) published this Wednesday (5) the ruling of the decision, after 132 days of the case being judged by the court.
The judgment is a document that deals with the collective decision of magistrates, with the report of the process, the reasons for the decisions and the final theses decided by the members of the court.
the average publication of a ruling in cases of general repercussion (whose thesis focuses on similar processes) is 56.7 days in the Supreme Court between 2020 and 2025.
In other words, in the case of Marco Civil, publication took more than twice that time. The document published this Wednesday has 1,323 pages.
The delay was causing legal uncertainty in other courts. For example, the (Superior Court of Justice) in a September case about Google that it was still not appropriate to apply, within the court, the theses defined by the STF.
According to the STJ, “even if it is not necessary to have a final and unappealable […] for the topic of general repercussion to have immediate application”, it is prudent to wait for the ruling “to guarantee legal certainty in view of possible modifications of the binding thesis or modulations of effects arising from embargoes for clarification”.
There is also fear that, with the publication of the ruling, the recent rapprochement between Brazil and the United States will be hindered.
The Supreme Court’s decision on the Marco Civil is an open target by the White House Commercial Office (USTR), which could result in more sanctions against Brazil.
In the June judgment, the Supreme Court decided to expand the obligations of social media platforms to operate in Brazil.
They become civilly responsible if they do not proactively remove, before a court order, a new list of content, including anti-democratic, discriminatory or inciting crimes.
The court decided, by 8 votes to 3, to increase the liability of big techs for content published by users.
The majority understood that the text in force today is insufficient to protect fundamental rights in Brazil.
The debate took place around article 19 of the Marco Civil da Internet, in force since 2014 and which states that platforms should only compensate users offended by third-party posts if they fail to comply with a court order to remove content.
There were 8 votes to expand the obligations of rapporteurs and , in addition to , , , , and .
