At the same time that he holds the position of minister of the (Superior Electoral Court), Floriano de Azevedo Marques acts as a lawyer for the (Supreme Federal Court) in the case regarding the , in which the court .
He is one of three lawyers who signed the documents, filed in November last year. His office was included in the case in July, the month following the trial by the STF plenary. The case returned to the court’s agenda this Wednesday (10), just a few months before the 2026 elections.
While advocating for one of the main companies in the technology sector (and which is also the owner of ), Azevedo Marques is linked to issues involving big tech in different ways as minister of the TSE, especially in a scenario in which artificial intelligence and disinformation remain one of the main electoral agendas.
In addition to the fact that the parties themselves often include social networks as part of the processes when requesting content blocking, a 2022 TSE rule, for example, provides that, in the event of disinformation against the integrity of the electoral process, the court may order the removal of links to the platforms of the orders.
Other than that, there are a series of other obligations that companies like Google and the YouTube platform need to fulfill in the electoral sphere. These, in a vote in which Minister Azevedo Marques participated, at the time already a Google lawyer at the Supreme Court.
A Sheet asked the minister if he understands that his work as a Google lawyer could imply a conflict of interest in his work at the TSE. And also whether he would consider himself prevented from judging cases in the electoral court that involve Google in any way.
In a note, the minister’s office states that “there is no conflict of interest in the situation described”, highlighting that TSE ministers from the lawyer class “are not prevented from practicing law, under the terms of applicable legislation”.
It also states that Azevedo Marques “did not participate in the judgment of cases involving clients of his office” and that “any hypothesis of impediment or conflict of interest will be analyzed and conducted in strict compliance with the applicable legal and regulatory provisions”.
In total, the TSE is made up of seven judges, three of whom are ministers of the STF, two of the STJ (Superior Court of Justice) and two members from the legal profession – these names are chosen by the President of the Republic for two-year terms from triple lists formulated by the Supreme Court.
In 2008, for the role of electoral judges in the practice of law, the CNJ (National Council of Justice) vetoed only work in electoral courts, but considered law in other areas valid.
In addition to his formal work in court, Azevedo Marques also participates in different events in which he deals with topics related to big tech identified as a minister. On Tuesday (9), for example, he participated in , in a panel entitled “Elections, Technology and Democracy: an interview with Floriano Azevedo Marques, minister of the TSE”.
Insper law professor Luiz Fernando Esteves understands that, although the institutional design allows ministers in the vacancy allocated to law to continue practicing the profession, in the case in question there is a conflict of interests for two reasons.
“He represents a party that, even indirectly, will have an interest in many processes decided by the TSE, or even in the regulations established by the body”, he says.
Furthermore, Esteves points out that the STF’s decisions can have important impacts on the TSE’s powers.
The Supreme Court’s thesis on the Marco Civil made a reservation regarding electoral rules. As a result, the reading was that the STF corroborated the understanding that the TSE has the power to create obligations and expand the possibilities for holding platforms accountable.
that a clear time frame be established from which the court’s decision would apply. Furthermore, it also requests that the court define requirements for extrajudicial notifications of content removal to be sufficient to generate liability for companies in the event of non-removal.
Regarding the case in the STF, the note from Minister Azevedo Marques also says that the minister’s action began only after the trial and that the embargoes are “intended to clarify any points of doubt, omission or contradiction in the decision, as well as contributing to its adequate implementation”. He also adds that the thesis established by the STF would be in line with positions that Azevedo Marques has publicly adopted for years.
As for the rules approved by the TSE, the note says that the minister has contributed to improving the rules aimed at combating disinformation in elections.
In a note, Google stated that it hired the firm Manesco Advogados, which has Azevedo Marques as one of its partners, to reinforce the external legal team in the case of article 19 of the Marco Civil da Internet, but without any link to his work in the electoral court.
“His performance in the case in question has no relation to his institutional position at the TSE. The professional hired is respected and has technical and academic knowledge on the topic. He continued our efforts to contribute constructively to the debate,” said the company.
Azevedo Marques was appointed to the TSE in 2023 and has the support of the minister, with whom he is close.
FGV Direito SP professor Rubens Glezer considers that, if the rules of impediment and suspicion were followed properly, Moraes should consider himself a suspect to analyze the case, as well as other actions in which Azevedo Marques worked as a lawyer at the STF.
He points to a rule in the Code of Civil Procedure that establishes that the judge must declare himself a suspect if he is a close friend or enemy of the party or lawyers.
“When you have a judge who will endorse and campaign for another to occupy a public position, there is a relationship that reaches this level of intimacy, of closeness”, he assesses.
