The video platform Rumble and Trump Media & Technology Group, a company linked to President Donald Trump and owner of the social network Truth Social, took this Thursday (18) a new step in the legal battle against the minister of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), Alexandre de Moraes.
The two companies asked a federal court in Tampa, Florida, to declare Moraes in default, arguing that he was formally notified of the lawsuit in the United States, had time to present a defense, but did not respond to the lawsuit.
The request does not represent an automatic defeat for the minister, but it could pave the way for the American justice system to move forward in analyzing the case without a formal challenge presented by him.
What does default mean?
Default occurs when a person being sued fails to respond to the action within the period established by the court.
According to the petition presented by Rumble and Trump Media, Moraes was cited using an alternative method authorized by the American Court itself after months of frustrated attempts at notification through the traditional mechanisms provided for in the Hague Convention.
The authors state that the minister received the summons by email and that the legal period of 21 days to respond expired without any response. Furthermore, they maintain that Moraes did not present a defense, did not ask for an extension of the deadline and did not hire lawyers to represent him in the process.
Therefore, the companies ask the court to make the so-called “Entry of Default”, a formal recognition that the defendant has stopped responding to the action.
It is important to highlight that this does not mean an automatic conviction. In practice, default acts as a first procedural step. If the request is accepted, the authors will still need to request a judicial decision known as “Default Judgment”, at which time the judge will analyze the arguments and decide whether there is a legal basis to grant the requests.
The case goes far beyond a procedural discussion. The action was filed by Rumble and Trump Media under the argument that decisions issued by Alexandre de Moraes would have had effects in the United States, affecting American companies, American citizens and platforms based in American territory.
The companies allege that the minister tried to impose restrictions on content and accounts hosted in the United States, in addition to seeking information from American users without using the legal mechanisms provided for by American law.
In the authors’ view, this would represent a violation of the protections guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects freedom of expression.
In a statement released after the default request was filed, Rumble stated that the process does not question Brazil’s right to apply its laws within its own territory.
According to the company, the central discussion is different. The platform maintains that American Justice needs to decide whether a foreign judge can issue orders that have a direct impact within the United States, affecting American companies, American users and content protected by the American Constitution.
Lula government
Another point mentioned in the petition involves the Brazilian government’s attempt to participate in the judicial discussion.
According to lawyers from Rumble and Trump Media, the Brazilian government presented statements to the American court related to national sovereignty and the immunity of foreign authorities.
However, the government itself would have clarified that it was not acting as Alexandre de Moraes’ personal legal representative.
Therefore, the companies argue that there is still no formal defense presented on behalf of the minister.
Experts consider that the dispute could become one of the most important cases involving freedom of expression, national sovereignty and regulation of digital platforms.
This is because the American court may be called upon to decide the extent to which a foreign authority can exercise influence over companies located in the United States.
The debate has gained strength in recent years with the expansion of large digital platforms, which operate simultaneously in dozens of countries and are often forced to comply with court decisions from different governments.
At the center of the discussion is a question that could have global repercussions:
Can a foreign authority order the removal of content, demand user data or impose restrictions on American companies when the effects of these decisions reach the territory of the United States?
The answer could influence future disputes involving governments, courts and technology companies around the world.
The next step will be the analysis of the request by the Florida Federal Court. If the court agrees with Rumble and Trump Media’s arguments, Alexandre de Moraes could be officially declared in absentia. After that, companies will be able to request a default judgment, seeking a favorable decision on the merits of the action.
Even in this scenario, the judge will still have to face complex issues involving diplomatic immunity, international jurisdiction, validity of summons made by email and the limits of the scope of judicial decisions issued by foreign authorities.
Therefore, although the request represents a procedural victory for Rumble and the company linked to Trump, the outcome of the dispute could still take months and has the potential to produce consequences that go beyond Brazil and the United States, reaching the entire global debate on freedom of expression and the power of digital platforms.
