The president of the (Supreme Federal Court), minister, scheduled the judgment of appeals, as well as other actors in the digital environment, for June 10th.
Questions presented by both companies and civil society organizations regarding aspects of the court’s decision will be analyzed in the court’s physical plenary session.
These are embargoes for clarification, a type of appeal applicable when it is understood that there was some obscurity, inaccuracy, contradiction or omission in the decision. As a result, the judgment does not tend to result in major changes in relation to what has already been decided.
In June last year, the Supreme Court declared one of the articles of , a law approved by Congress in 2014, as partially unconstitutional. Based on this understanding, the court determined a series of new obligations and duties for companies and called on Congress to legislate on the topic.
Following the publication of the ruling in November 2025, appeals were filed questioning aspects of the decision, on the grounds that it had left a series of gaps.
The case returned to the court’s agenda shortly after the Lula (PT) government and regulating rules on big techs, based on what was established in the Supreme Court’s judgment.
Among other items, the Executive assigned responsibility for monitoring whether platforms are complying with the rules imposed by the court. The deadline for the decree rules to come into force was 60 days from their publication, which occurred on May 21st.
On the same day as the announcement of the decrees, the minister, who is the rapporteur of one of the actions on the Marco Civil in the court, even scheduled the beginning of the analysis of the resources for May 29, in a virtual plenary. Two days later, however, Toffoli removed the case from the virtual agenda and asked that they be included in the physical plenary agenda, a measure that then depended on the president of the court, Edson Fachin.
According to article 19 of the Marco Civil da Internet, social networks were only subject to pay compensation for content posted by third parties if, after a court decision ordering its removal, they kept content up.
In the thesis approved at the time, the court – which until then only included non-consensual nudity and copyright infringement. It also created the obligation for proactive moderation by the networks for a list of topics — such as anti-democratic crimes, terrorism, incitement to racism and incitement to suicide — providing for punishment in case of systemic failure. In other cases, the STF understood that networks can only be punished if they do not remove them after notification. As for crimes against honor, the rule has not changed.
The argument used by members of the government to defend the issuance of a decree is that the Supreme Court’s decision, despite already being valid, would be ineffective and operational, both due to a lack of detail on points that would be broad or generic and also due to .
On the part of companies, the criticism is that the Executive’s measures have brought greater legal uncertainty. In an open letter, the Brazilian Chamber of Digital Economy () speaks of the weakening of “regulatory predictability” and that the STF’s decision was handed down without unanimity and is still subject to appeal.
In , the Steering Committee in Brazil (CGI.br), which is made up of members of the government, civil society, the technical community and companies, said it recognized as a legitimate and relevant initiative of the Presidency to “receive the decisions of the STF in regulation” to guarantee compliance with companies’ obligations defined by the court.
He also added that the assessment of the embargoes for clarification could result in modifications to the initial decision and could require adjustments to the decrees published by the government.
