STF estabelece prazo de 60 dias para big techs se adequarem ao Marco Civil

Brazil's Supreme Court moved decisively on Thursday to impose a sixty-day deadline for technology platforms to comply with new content liability rules under the Civil Internet Framework. Six justices—Flávio Dino, Cristiano Zanin, André Mendonça, Kassio Nunes Marques, and Alexandre de Moraes—aligned with Justice Dias Toffoli, who had proposed the timeline the previous day. The vote formed a working majority on this single point, though the court remains fractured on nearly everything else.

The deadline itself is straightforward. Any platform operating in Brazil with more than one million registered users must now adopt what the court calls a "duty of care"—a legal obligation to actively monitor and manage content on their services. They must combat illegal activity, establish self-regulatory mechanisms, and create dedicated channels for users to request content removal. When someone files a removal request, platforms have twenty-four hours to take down material that violates the rules, and seven days to analyze and respond to formal notifications. These are not suggestions. They are enforceable requirements.

What remains unresolved, however, cuts deeper than the timeline. The justices have not yet agreed on which platforms actually fall under these new obligations, or how broadly those obligations should extend. The question of scope—what exactly platforms must do, and to whom the rules apply—continues to divide the bench. No consensus exists on these points, and the disagreements could fundamentally reshape how the rules function in practice. A platform that barely clears the one-million-user threshold may face different requirements than a global giant with fifty million Brazilian accounts. The court has not yet decided.

This moment arrives as the culmination of a year-long legal reckoning. In June 2025, the same court voted eight to three that Article 19 of the Civil Internet Framework was partially unconstitutional. That article had long protected platforms from liability as long as they obeyed specific court orders to remove content—a reactive model that required a judge to intervene before anything happened. The court concluded this approach offered insufficient protection for democracy and fundamental rights. Technology companies and civil society organizations filed the legal challenges that triggered the review.

The old rule created a perverse incentive: platforms could ignore harmful content indefinitely until a court explicitly told them to remove it. The new framework shifts the burden. Platforms must now anticipate problems, establish their own standards, and act without waiting for judicial intervention. It is a fundamental reordering of responsibility in the digital space.

Yet the court's internal divisions suggest the implementation phase will be contentious. The six justices who agreed on the sixty-day deadline may splinter when forced to define which companies qualify, what "duty of care" actually means in operational terms, or how aggressively platforms must police their own spaces. The next votes could reshape the entire structure. Technology companies have already signaled they will challenge the scope of these obligations. Civil society groups worry the final rules will be too weak. The court has given itself and the platforms two months to sort it out. What emerges from that negotiation will determine how the internet functions in Brazil for years to come.