Brazil’s Supreme Court finalizes platform liability rules and updates 2025 precedents

Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court (STF) has ruled on motions for clarification challenging its earlier decisions on Themes 987 and 533 (numbered dockets under the STF’s system of binding precedent with general applicability, meaning the court’s holdings on a given constitutional question are binding on all lower courts nationwide). The central issue was the constitutionality of Article 19 of Brazil’s Internet Civil Framework (Marco Civil da Internet – Law No. 12,965/2014), which governs the liability of internet application providers for user-generated content.

In its June 2025 decision, the STF set new standards for holding platforms liable for hosting and failing to remove third-party content. The decision introduced the concept of ‘systemic failure’ liability in cases involving the viral spread of seriously harmful content and expanded the obligation to remove content under a notice-and-takedown framework. As a general rule, liability triggered only by a court order was preserved for defamation-related offenses and certain specific services.

On June 11 and 12, 2026 the STF ruled on motions for clarification filed in relation to the June 2025 decision, seeking to clarify and further elaborate on key aspects. The final consolidated text of the ruling was approved in a special session on June 17.

The STF has set a 60-day deadline for internet platforms to comply with the decision, which runs from the date the official minutes of the ruling on the motions are published. The practical scope and effects of this requirement may still give rise to further debate.

In addition to the principles the STF previously established, it has addressed the following points:

Joint and several liability for third-party content

The original ruling provided that internet platforms would be liable for harm arising from unlawful content under Article 21 of the Marco Civil da Internet (MCI).

In ruling on the motions for clarification, the STF specified that a platform will be held jointly and severally liable alongside the user who posted the content, and it must also remove the content, unless it can demonstrate a reasonable doubt as to whether the content is actually unlawful. Joint and several liability will also apply to accounts flagged as inauthentic.

Liability framework for paid advertising and boosted content

The STF has clarified the fault-based liability standard applicable to content distributed through paid advertisements, paid boosting, or artificial distribution networks – now referred to as “artificial mechanisms for the inorganic dissemination of unlawful content.”

The original ruling had simply stated that liability would be “presumed,” leaving room for uncertainty about whether that presumption could be rebutted.

Services that remain governed by Article 19 of the MCI

The original ruling indicated that the Article 19 regime (under which platforms are liable only if they fail to comply with a specific court order to remove content) would continue to exclusively apply to: interpersonal communications protected by the confidentiality of communications; providers of services for conducting private meetings (videoconferencing); and private or instant messaging, exclusively for interpersonal communications.

When ruling on the motions for clarification, the STF extended this carve-out to a broader category of ‘internet application providers that do not interfere with the communicative and informational flow’, expanding the list of services exempt from the new duty-of-care and notice-and-takedown obligations.

Expanded list of illegal acts against reputation

The STF clarified that, in addition to crimes against honor, illegal acts against reputation will also be subject to the provisions of Article 19 (removal subject to a court order), without prejudice to the possibility of removal through extrajudicial notification.

Structural implementations

Internet application providers will have 60 days, starting from the publication of the judgment on the motion for clarification, to implement the obligations related to the duty of care in the event of widespread circulation of severe illegal content.

Possibility of provisional relief to reestablish removed content

The STF has recognized that courts may grant provisional injunctive relief both in favor of internet application providers and in favor of users whose content has been removed, to prevent or reverse removal measures taken under the duty-of-care standard when the plausibility of the content’s legality has been demonstrated in court.

The STF maintained its call for the National Congress to enact legislation on the matter, but clarified that this must occur without affecting the Executive Branch’s authority to regulate the matter in accordance with Article 84, IV of the Federal Constitution, and to establish provisions regarding the organization, jurisdiction, and operation of the Federal Administration, as provided in Article 84, VI, ‘a’. The Executive Branch has issued decrees on the matter, and it is possible that new parameters may be established by law.

For more information on this topic and how the final version of the Thesis affects the decrees issued by the Executive Branch, please contact Mattos Filho’s Technology and Litigation & Arbitration practice areas.