They are publishers now, in the eyes of Brazilian law
Tech platforms must now remove illegal content after user notification without requiring court orders, shifting liability from judicial to platform responsibility. The ruling applies retroactively to ongoing lawsuits filed before June 26, 2025, though justices debated whether this creates retroactive duties unfairly.
- 60-day deadline from publication of court ruling for platforms to implement new measures
- Platforms must remove illegal content after user notification, without requiring court orders
- New rules apply retroactively to lawsuits filed before June 26, 2025, though justices disagreed on scope
- Structural duties include transparency reports, dedicated support channels, and systems to detect terrorism, child exploitation, and incitement to suicide
Brazil's Supreme Court has given major tech platforms 60 days to implement new content responsibility measures, including duty of care to prevent illegal content circulation and transparency reporting requirements.
Brazil's Supreme Court has drawn a line in the sand for the country's largest technology platforms. On Wednesday this week, the justices will formally announce what they've already decided in closed session: the tech giants have sixty days to overhaul how they handle illegal content, starting from the moment the court publishes its official ruling record. Until now, the companies operated under a different standard. They could wait for a judge to order them to remove something before acting. That changes now.
The case centers on a provision of Brazil's Internet Civil Rights Framework, a foundational law that has shaped digital regulation here for over a decade. What the court is really doing is shifting responsibility. When someone posts content that breaks the law—a threat, child sexual abuse material, incitement to suicide, terrorist propaganda—the platforms can no longer hide behind the excuse that they need a court order to take it down. A user's notification is now enough. If the company doesn't remove it, they can be sued for damages. The old system required judicial intervention. This one doesn't.
But the justices couldn't agree on everything. The thorniest question was whether this new rule should apply to lawsuits already in motion before the court's original decision last June. Justice Dias Toffoli, who wrote the main opinion, proposed a middle path: cases that were already finished should follow the old rules, but cases still pending should follow the new ones, even if the harmful content was posted before the ruling. Justice Flávio Dino objected sharply. Applying new duties to old conduct, he argued, amounts to punishing companies retroactively for something that wasn't illegal when they did it. "Before 2025, there was no duty of care," Dino said. "This creates obligations after the fact."
Justice André Mendonça went further, opposing the entire expansion of platform liability. He warned that the new rules will have a chilling effect—platforms will simply delete more content to protect themselves, he said, even content that shouldn't be removed. He wanted the court to narrow the scope by requiring that only "manifestly illegal" content be taken down. He lost that vote.
The sixty-day deadline applies specifically to what the court calls "structural duties"—the heavy lifting that requires real preparation. Platforms must build systems to detect and stop the spread of the most serious illegal material: terrorism, child exploitation, incitement to suicide, sexual crimes. They must also create their own internal rules and publish annual transparency reports showing how many times users flagged content, how many ads were removed, and which posts were artificially amplified. And they must set up dedicated support channels—ways for both users and non-users to report problems directly to the company.
What happens in sixty days will matter enormously. Brazil is one of the world's largest internet markets, and what the Supreme Court mandates here often influences how platforms operate across Latin America. The companies now face a choice: invest heavily in compliance infrastructure, or risk lawsuits from users harmed by content they failed to remove. The court has essentially told them that neutrality is no longer an option. They are publishers now, in the eyes of Brazilian law, and publishers are responsible for what they publish.
Notable Quotes
Before 2025, there was no duty of care. This creates obligations after the fact.— Justice Flávio Dino, dissenting on retroactive application
Platforms, with reason, will exclude content to preserve themselves, creating an inhibitory effect.— Justice André Mendonça, warning of over-moderation
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did the court need to give them sixty days? Why not make it immediate?
Because what they're asking for isn't simple. Building systems to automatically detect child exploitation or terrorism requires real engineering. The companies need time to train algorithms, hire moderators, set up the infrastructure. Immediate compliance would be technically impossible.
But doesn't that just give them time to lobby for exceptions?
Possibly. But the court set a hard deadline. After sixty days, the clock stops. Any company that hasn't complied can be sued. The deadline is a pressure point, not a suggestion.
This retroactivity question—why does it matter so much?
Because it determines whether a company can be held liable for something that was legal when they did it. If you post something in January 2025 that the court decides is illegal in June 2025, should the platform be punished for not removing it in January? Dino said no. Toffoli said yes, but only for cases still in court.
Which side won?
Toffoli's position became the majority. But Dino's dissent signals that this issue isn't settled. It could come back to the court.
What does Mendonça's warning about platforms deleting too much actually mean?
He's saying that when you make companies liable for illegal content, they become risk-averse. They'll delete borderline posts, political speech, satire—anything that might get them sued. The cure becomes worse than the disease.
Is he right?
It's a real concern. But the majority decided that the harm from illegal content spreading unchecked outweighs the risk of over-moderation. That's a values choice, not a technical one.