The trial of those against the decision that expanded the holding big tech companies responsible for content published by third parties.
Although the ministers advanced in the analysis of the embargoes last week, the Court postponed the establishment of the final wording of the thesis that will guide the application of the understanding. It will be up to the rapporteur, minister Toffoli Dayspresent a consolidated version of the text, incorporating the convergences and submitting to the plenary the points that still divide the ministers.
Among the pending issues are the scope of the new obligations imposed on platforms, the criteria to define which companies will be subject to certain requirements and, mainly, from when the new liability rules should be applied.
So far, the ministers who have already voted have converged around the . There are still disagreements, however, about which obligations should only apply to large platforms and which should be extended to other internet application providers.
This Wednesday’s session is not expected to completely end discussion on the topic. After completing the analysis of the resources reported by Toffoli, the plenary will still have to examine three other resources reported by the minister Luiz Fux against a decision in which the Court invalidated part of the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet.
Marco Civil Trial
In June 2025, the STF Plenary judged the Themes 987 e 533 of the General Repercussion and, by a majority vote (8 to 3), declared the partial unconstitutionality of article 19 of the Marco Civil da Internet.
Until then, the provision provided that platforms could only be punished or required to pay compensation if they failed to comply with a specific court order to remove content. The Supreme Court changed this logic when it understood that the model generated “insufficient protection” democracy and fundamental rights.
The embargoes were filed by technology companies and civil society entities to question parts of the thesis established by the Supreme Court.
Among the contested points were the lack of a deadline for adapting to the new rules, the scope of obligations imposed on platforms and the wording of the provisions related to the civil liability of companies.
