Google and Facebook ask for adjustments in decision on the removal of illegal content, fake profiles, paid advertisements and robot networks
The Federal Supreme Court in this Wednesday (June 10, 2026) of digital platforms against the decision that increased the responsibility of technology companies for content published by users. The case is in the REs (Extraordinary Appeals) e of general repercussion.
The Court must analyze requests for clarification presented by Google and Facebook regarding the thesis set out in the judgment on article 19 of the . The case deals with when a platform can be held responsible for not removing illegal content, fake profiles, paid advertisements and robot networks.
The judgment does not reopen the entire discussion about the Marco Civil. The step now is to indicate how the 2025 will be applied on a daily basis. The Supreme Court can keep the thesis as it is, adjust sections, clarify the platforms’ obligations or better define the cases in which the removal of content can generate liability without a court order.
WHAT THE STF DECIDED
In 2025, the STF declared article 19 of the Marco Civil da Internet partially unconstitutional by 8 to 3. This section of the law said that platforms could only be held civilly liable for third-party content if they failed to comply with a specific court order to remove the publication.
Here is the list of votes at the time:
- Toffoli Daysrapporteur of RE 1,037,396: in favor of the thesis;
- Luiz Fuxrapporteur of RE 1,057,258: accompanied Toffoli;
- Alexandre de Moraes: followed the thesis;
- Roberto Barroso (former minister): followed the thesis;
- Flavio Dino: followed the thesis;
- Cristiano Zanin: followed the thesis;
- Gilmar Mendes: followed the thesis;
- Carmen Lucia: followed the thesis;
- André Mendonça: opened divergence;
- Edson Fachin: followed the divergence;
- Kassio Nunes Brands: followed the divergence.
The rule, therefore, worked as a protection for platforms, since without a previous court decision, the company was not generally liable for damage caused by content published by a user.
The Supreme Court understood that this protection could not be valid absolutely. For the Court, the rule did not offer sufficient protection to fundamental rights in situations involving the circulation of crimes, fraud, attacks on children and adolescents, discriminatory speeches and attacks on democracy in the digital environment.
WHAT CHANGES
The decision paved the way for in some cases even without a prior court order.
This applies, for example, to illicit content published through paid advertisements or boosts and to artificial distribution networks, such as chatbots and robots. In these cases, the STF established a presumption of responsibility for the platforms, which only stop responding if they demonstrate diligent action and within a reasonable period of time to make the content unavailable.
The Court also established hypotheses in which withdrawal must be faster, especially when there are serious crimes or a relevant risk to fundamental rights.
WHAT PLATFORMS ASK FOR
Google and Facebook want the STF to clarify the scope of the decision. Companies ask for adjustments to how the thesis should be applied and what duties fall on each type of digital service.
Among the points under discussion are the limits on removing content without a court order, liability for false profiles, the treatment of paid advertisements and boosts and the identification of artificial distribution networks.
The platforms also look at what should be removed automatically, what depends on notification and what still requires a court decision.
WHY DOES IT MATTER
The decision could change the way social networks, search engines, video platforms and advertising systems moderate content in Brazil.
For companies, the judgment defines the degree of legal risk of maintaining content published by third parties. For users, the press, candidates and parties, the thesis defines the limits between freedom of expression, removal of illicit content and platform responsibility.
The issue also has an electoral impact. In a campaign year, the STF and the Superior Electoral Court must be called to decide cases involving coordinated attacks against candidates.
WHAT IS THE CIVIL MARK
The Marco Civil da Internet is the law that establishes rights, duties and principles for the use of the internet in Brazil. The standard was approved in 2014 and became known as “Constitution of the Brazilian internet”.
Article 19 was one of the central points of the law. He sought to avoid excessive removals of content for fear of platform liability, but came under question for allowing companies to delay taking action against illicit publications until there was a specific court order.
The discussion also reached the Executive. In May 2026, the president (PT) changed the Marco Civil regulations and expanded the liability of platforms for criminal content.
The text determined action “proactive and proportional” of companies to prevent the massive circulation of criminal content and incorporated, according to the government, recent understandings of the STF on the subject.
