Created three years ago by the Union’s attorney general, under protests from the opposition, PNDD () has already acted in hundreds of cases, ranging from the removal of a tarot reader’s post to misinformation about government programs and members.
to the (Federal Supreme Court), Messiah no, where it needs to be approved. His name is treated by opponents as one of President Lula ().
PNDD, which is part of the (General Attorney’s Office of the Union), works on judicial and extrajudicial demands that involve disinformation about public policies and members of the government. It was branded by its critics as an instrument of censorship when announced.
Composed of ten Union lawyers and two civil servants, the prosecutor’s office depends on provocation from other areas of the Executive, such as ministries, public banks and foundations, to act. Based on the data provided to Sheet108 extrajudicial actions accepted by the body from 2023 to 2025 were identified.
Content removal requests included a tarot reader’s post on Instagram. She stated that President Lula . , owner of the platform, did not remove the content as it considered that there were no violations of the terms of use, informed PNDD.
The prosecutor’s office also worked on cases involving members of the government and other public office holders. In nine of them, artificial intelligence was used, including deepfake videos – a tool that realistically imitates voices and faces. Six of these requests were met by the platforms, which removed or labeled the publications.
This content involved images of the ministers (Finance) and (Planning), vice-president Geraldo Alckmin, special presidential advisor Celso Amorim and the president of the BC (), .
It shows that, in 2025, the “defense of democracy and legal security for innovation in public policies” program cost R$430 million. The value corresponds to around 8.5% of the total committed by AGU last year.
In a note, the AGU stated that, as part of the PGU (Attorney General’s Office), the PNDD does not have an autonomous budget. The ministry did not confirm whether the value of the mentioned program was exclusively spent on the prosecutor’s office.
The STF’s decision on the affected the success rate by “establishing clearer criteria and offering greater legal certainty”, the body said to Sheet. According to the note, effectiveness “was around 70%, but has grown and is currently at 90%.”
The Supreme Court decided, in June 2025, to increase the responsibility of digital platforms for user activity. Now, these companies must proactively remove certain types of content.
The lawyer, doctor in political science from USP and professor at IDP (Brazilian Institute of Education, Development and Research), defends the criteria for spontaneous removal of content. In cases where notification is still required, he states that the prosecutor’s office can avoid overloading demands.
“When there are decentralized requests, from different public bodies, there is a risk of ‘over notification’ — an excess of notifications that leads the platform to create a layer of indifference in relation to some requests that arrive”, he says.
professor of constitutional law at USP and former attorney general of the state of São Paulo, agrees that combating disinformation about members of the government can be part of the AGU’s scope of action. On the other hand, he disagrees with the need for a specific prosecutor’s office.
“I think that massive action in this field [da desinformação] compromises democratic debate. This does not mean that, occasionally, there cannot be a serious case that harms public policy”, he states.
For him, it is unnecessary to combat blatantly false information, such as the case of the tarot reader. “Obviously there is no need to use the machine for this”, he says.
PNDD’s extrajudicial actions include requests for content removal and the right to reply. There is also a technical cooperation agreement and requests for information on updates in terms of use of digital platforms. The prosecutor’s office groups these demands into 14 thematic axes.
The themes “democracy” and “legitimacy of public service” tend to cover, respectively, cases involving the Brazilian State and attacks on members of the government. They are present in almost 60% of the performances.
Asked about the criteria for classification, the AGU stated that the defense of what it called the “integrity of public action” is done with the protection of public debate in the face of “illegitimate phenomena”.
doctor in legal philosophy from USP and professor at ECA (School of Communication and Arts), states that disinformation about members of the government is not necessarily an attack on democracy. For him, the limit of the actions of bodies like the PNDD is the public interest.
“If misinformation about public policies affects public interests, such as in vaccination policies or social programs such as Bolsa Família, there is justification for strong extrajudicial and judicial measures,” he says.
He also states that the removal of content as a way to combat misinformation should be avoided. “The State must focus on a more systemic fight linked to the possible demonetization of posts and profiles rather than on more individualized actions.”
The data shows that the PNDD acted on three requests from the Ministry of Health. They included improper use of the government’s brand to advertise courses. There is also misinformation against the immunization campaign and suspicion of illegal sale of patients’ digital data.
The prosecutor’s office also acted in relation to the actions of the federal government and the Army during the floods in Rio Grande do Sul, in 2024. There were requests for the removal of posts and the right to reply, all of which were partially or fully met by the platforms.
The lawyer states that the action in the Rio Grande do Sul case cannot be considered a defense of the Union. Another example of the lack of attention to public policies, according to Marsiglia, would be the agency’s inertia in the face of virtual attacks suffered by the Central Bank and its president in the case of .
The prosecutor’s office stated that it was not provoked into acting in the case and that it could not act ex officio.
The economic topic was the second most frequent among extrajudicial actions, with 32 mentions corresponding to almost 29.6% of the total. Nine of these involved content about public authorities considered uninformative. Galípolo appears in two requests.
