Brazil's Supreme Court to Hear Big Tech Responsibility Appeals June 10

Brazil's Supreme Court, led by Justice Edson Fachin, has scheduled a hearing for June 10 to consider appeals against a landmark decision that significantly broadened the responsibilities of big tech companies and other digital actors. The court will examine challenges presented by both corporations and civil society organizations concerning the ruling, which addressed ambiguities, imprecisions, contradictions, or omissions in the original judgment.

Last June, the Supreme Court declared a portion of the Marco Civil da Internet, Brazil's 2014 internet law, partially unconstitutional. This ruling established a series of new duties for tech companies and urged Congress to legislate on the matter. Following the publication of the decision in November 2025, appeals were lodged, arguing that the ruling left several gaps.

The case gained renewed attention after the Lula administration issued two decrees outlining new obligations for social media platforms and regulating big tech companies, aligning with the Supreme Court's judgment. These decrees, which took effect 60 days after their May 21 publication, assign the National Data Protection Authority (ANPD) the task of overseeing platform compliance with the court's rules.

Initially, Justice Dias Toffoli had scheduled the appeals for a virtual hearing on May 29. However, he later moved the case to the physical plenary session, requiring approval from the court's president, Edson Fachin. The original Marco Civil da Internet stipulated that social media platforms were only liable for third-party content if they failed to remove it after a judicial order. The Supreme Court's revised thesis expanded these exceptions beyond non-consensual nudity and copyright infringement, mandating proactive moderation for specific issues like anti-democratic crimes, terrorism, incitement to racism, and promotion of suicide, with penalties for systemic failures. In other instances, liability still hinges on platforms failing to remove content after notification, while rules for defamation remain unchanged.