The (Supreme Federal Court) defined this Thursday (11) a period of 60 days for big techs to adopt measures to remove illegal content, including posts with anti-democratic content, terrorism, incitement to racism and incitement to suicide.
The deadline was set as a transition for digital platforms to comply with the court’s decision on the rules for holding these companies accountable.
The court judges appeals against the decision taken a year ago on the Marco Civil da Internet, and the conclusion should be formalized next week by President Edson Fachin. The deadline must be valid from the publication of the minutes of the judgment of the embargoes, which generally occurs until the day following the conclusion of the analysis.
Companies and entities asked for at least another six months to implement the standards.
The trial was scheduled three weeks after (PT) published decrees based on the court’s own decision. The opposition moves to try to overturn such texts.
The transition proposal was given by the rapporteur, as he understood the deadline to be “reasonable and more than sufficient to finalize the relevant measures and/or possible adjustments as a result of the clarifications provided”.
At the end of the trial, Fachin made a suggestion that must still be analyzed by the rapporteur. For the president of the court, it is important to include protection for platforms when there is doubt about the content to be removed.
“I am putting here a kind of safeguard for reasonable doubt regarding illegality, as long as there has been qualified due diligence on the part of the referral provider,” he said.
When voting, like Toffoli, he stated that the thesis approved last June must be preserved.
“It was a work of very high quality that must be prestigious, even avoiding declaration embargoes that would even generate a reversal of the meaning of what was deliberated at that time. I emphasize: the thesis was approved unanimously and therefore deserves special protection in its application”, he said.
Furthermore, the minister argued that the delay in its validity creates more doubts, and, therefore, insecurity.
“The longer we delay in the world of technology, the more outdated the thesis becomes. And the more insecurity it generates, because let’s remember, one of the cases we are judging is from Orkut’s time”, he stated.
At this point in the debate, the Dean, Gilmar Mendes, stated that this issue deserves adjustment. “Often we have not been careful to establish the immediate effectiveness of the decision. But it is clear that embargoes of declaration are pending, or may be pending embargoes of declaration. Sometimes this extends over time, for the most diverse reasons. We will have to take some measure because there is an undue delay”, he said.
“In view of the non-judgment of the motions for clarification, injunctive decisions began to appear, including suspending the effectiveness of the Supreme Court’s decision. We have to take a deliberation at some point regarding these issues, because it takes us months to build, or sometimes years, to build solutions, and then, apparently, we fall into a state of ineffectiveness,” he stated.
Minister Cristiano Zanin followed the rapporteur. Minister André Mendonça agreed with the deadline suggested by Toffoli, but presented a divergence. He stated that the responsibility of big tech for illegal content published by third parties cannot be joint, as this could generate an inhibitory effect and a more censorship stance in relation to freedom of expression.
The ministers focus on challenges that seek, from different perspectives, restrictions on the rules imposed, as well as more details about the 2025 decision.
There are nine resources under analysis, presented both by companies participating in the process, and by platforms, entities and civil society organizations.
In June 2025, the court expanded the obligations of social media platforms to operate in Brazil. From then on, they became civilly responsible if they do not proactively remove, before a court order, a new list of content, including undemocratic, discriminatory or inciting crimes.
The debate took place around article 19, which has been 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.
During the first part of the session, the ministers dedicated themselves to debating the moment from which the decision becomes valid.
Since the session on Wednesday (10), Toffoli defended that the thesis takes effect since the publication of the minutes of the trial a year ago, on June 27, 2025, making a reservation regarding the possibilities of ongoing processes proposed before the decision.
“Acts carried out before June 26th, which was when the trial ended, which had not been filed, the previous system applies. Those who have ongoing action, the thesis applies”, he defended.
The proposal generated a reaction at the session. Moraes stated: “You can’t retroact.” Fux replied: “But then it takes you by surprise.”
“I maintain the divergence due to the breadth of the thesis. If the illicit content is still there, the crime is permanent. And we are not just dealing with repairing damage. Either we talk about item-by-item modulation or we choose a principle, which is the case I defend”, said Dino.
In the first session for the case, Toffoli proposed relaxing the requirement set by the court for maintaining headquarters in Brazil for digital platforms that have an economic interest in the country. With the proposal, Alexandre de Moraes raised concerns about the possibility, and the plenary should debate the topic again.
This Thursday, Toffoli retreated from his position. “I convinced myself, after a night’s sleep, that the most appropriate thing is to return this qualification, because there are several ways of acting and evidently in the academic hypotheses, in which he was well qualified, I led myself to accept this definition, but these cases can be analyzed case by case”, he said.
Alexandre de Moraes was involved in clashes with X (former Twitter) and Rumble precisely due to the absence of legal representatives of these companies in the country and the failure to comply with orders given by him. OX was even banned in Brazil for 38 days in 2024.
