This week, the STF judges an appeal by Big Techs on network regulation

The STF (Supreme Federal Court) should resume this week the discussion on the liability of digital platforms for content published by users. The Court's plenary session scheduled for June 10th the analysis of the appeals presented by companies such as Google and Meta against the decision that changed the interpretation of the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet and expanded the possibilities for holding networks accountable.

The resources will be analyzed at a time of dispute over the regulation of digital platforms in the country. At the end of May, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) issued decrees that expand supervision over so-called big techs and strengthen the role of the ANPD (National Data Protection Authority), a measure that displeased the opposition in Congress.

In June 2025, the STF considered article 19 of the Marco Civil da Internet to be partially unconstitutional, a provision that conditioned the liability of platforms to non-compliance with a court order to remove content.

According to the approved thesis, companies can be held responsible in several situations after receiving extrajudicial notifications about content considered illegal.

The decision also created a "duty of care" for platforms in cases involving content related to terrorism, undemocratic acts, crimes against children and adolescents, violence against women, discrimination and other serious offenses.

Now, Google and Meta are asking for clarification on several points of the decision.

Among the main questions are the definition of the time frame for applying the new thesis, the minimum criteria for extrajudicial notifications, the scope of platform liability and the parameters for characterizing illicit content.

Meta also argues that the Court clarifies that removal without a court order should only occur in cases of clear illegality, arguing that the current wording may encourage excessive removal of content for fear of sanctions.

The companies also ask the STF to establish an adaptation period for implementing the new obligations imposed on platforms and clarify the scope of concepts such as "systemic failure", "duty of care" and "presumption of responsibility".

Debate beyond the Judiciary
For Bianca Mollicone, a lawyer specializing in the regulation of digital platforms, the embargo trial gained greater relevance after the publication of the Lula government's decrees.

"The decree published by the government incorporates several elements of the thesis established by the STF, including topics that are still the subject of requests for clarification before the Court itself", he stated in an interview with CNN Brasil.

According to the expert, the trial gained relevance beyond the legal field and started to affect the debate about who should establish the rules for the operation of digital platforms in Brazil.

"The timing is institutionally relevant because the embargoes will be judged precisely when the debate on the regulation of digital platforms is no longer just judicial and starts to directly involve, in addition to the Legislature, also the Executive Branch", he said.

In the lawyer's assessment, points that still await definition by the STF, such as the concepts of "systemic failure", "reasonable doubt", responsibility for notifications and scope of the duty of care, may impact the very regulatory basis of the decrees issued by the government.

Reaction from Congress
The decrees signed by Lula provoked a strong reaction from opposition congressmen.

In the Chamber of Deputies, opposition parliamentarians filed PDLs (Project Legislative Decree) to overturn the decrees issued by the government. In the Senate, congressmen also presented initiatives with the same objective.

Critics argue that the government would be expanding ANPD's powers and creating mechanisms to regulate platforms without legislative authorization.

The president of the Senate, Davi Alcolumbre (União-AP), ordered the House's legal consultancy to assess whether the decrees exceeded the constitutional powers of the Executive Branch.

For Bianca Mollicone, one of the main controversies may be precisely the choice of the ANPD as the body responsible for supervising the platforms.

"The most controversial point of the decree may not be content moderation itself, but the institutional choice made by the Executive", he stated.

According to her, the discussion that tends to arise is whether the expansion of the authority's powers could be carried out by decree or whether it would depend on specific legislative authorization from the National Congress.

"The decree assigns regulatory, supervisory and sanctioning functions to the ANPD regarding platforms' duties that were not originally foreseen in the legislation that created the agency. [...] Although the ANPD is today a regulatory agency, this does not mean it has universal competence over any digital matter. In Brazil, regulatory competence continues to be a matter of law", he says.

Source: CNN