As a result, companies may now be held responsible for user content, even without a specific court order.

   Announcing the outcome, STF President Luís Roberto Barroso denied that the Court was overstepping its bounds or encroaching on the powers of the Legislative branch. “The court is not legislating. The court is deciding on two concrete cases brought before it, and we are establishing criteria that will prevail until the Legislative branch, if and when it sees fit, decides to regulate the matter,” he stated.

   Article 19 of the Internet Civil Framework outlines the principles, guarantees, rights, and duties for internet usage in Brazil, specifying that platforms would only be held civilly responsible for user content through a specific judicial order. The law states that this rule aims to “ensure freedom of expression and prevent censorship.”

   In their decision, the justices stated that “there is a state of omission arising from the fact that the general rule of Article 19 does not provide sufficient protection to constitutionally significant legal interests, fundamental rights, and democracy.” Therefore, the Court now considers it the responsibility of companies to create mechanisms to remove criminal content from platforms without requiring a court order.

   However, the justices upheld the application of Article 19 in cases of so-called “honor crimes,” such as slander, insult, and defamation, which will still require a court order for content removal.

   Alexandre Arns Gonzalez, a research fellow at the Institute for Applied Economic Research (Ipea) and a member of the Communication Rights and Democracy organization (DiraCom), explains that the exception recognized by the justices aims to preserve the legislator’s original intent when drafting the rule.

   “The idea of protecting this type of crime under the liability method outlined in Article 19 is a way to preserve the spirit of safeguarding that the article carried at the time, which was specifically designed to protect journalists and communicators from persecution and censorship,” he explained.

   The decision also outlines the duty of caution that platforms must exercise regarding serious illegal content, such as crimes against democracy and child pornography. It establishes presumed responsibility in cases involving paid advertisements or artificial content distribution networks. Furthermore, it imposes additional requirements for self-regulation, transparency, and local representation in Brazil by platforms, with the goal of balancing freedom of expression with abuse prevention.

   One expected effect of the new interpretation of Article 19 is that companies will adopt mechanisms to notify and remove irregular content, similar to existing processes used to protect intellectual property and copyright.

   In the decision, the justices listed a series of offenses deemed “serious illegal acts” that impose a duty of caution on internet application providers.

   These include: Anti-democratic acts and behaviors that fall under criminal offenses defined in the Brazilian Penal Code, Terrorism and preparatory acts of terrorism as outlined in Law No. 13,260/2016, Inducing, encouraging, or assisting suicide or self-harm, as defined in Article 122 of the Penal Code, Incitement to discrimination based on race, color, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexuality, or gender identity—including homophobic and transphobic conduct, Gender-based crimes against women, including content that spreads misogynistic hate, Sexual crimes against vulnerable individuals, including child pornography and other severe offenses against children and adolescents and Human trafficking.

   Despite the Supreme Court’s landmark decision, the need for structural and systemic regulation of digital platforms in Brazil remains squarely in the hands of the National Congress.

   The proposal also mandates the creation of a Council for Internet Transparency and Responsibility, to be established within 60 days of the law’s passage. The council would consist of 21 members, representing public institutions, civil society, academia, and the private sector.

   Finally, companies that fail to comply with the regulations could face fines of up to 10% of their total revenue in Brazil, with those funds earmarked for Fundeb, Brazil’s national education development fund, to support digital literacy and education initiatives.