Have you ever stopped to think about how much the decisions of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) directly impact our daily online lives? 

Recently, the Brazilian Supreme Court debated the constitutionality of the Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights, Law 12.965/2014.

The Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights is also known as the "Constitution of the Internet ." It's a law designed to balance the rights and responsibilities of users, providers, and digital platforms.

As mentioned, the Supreme Federal Court has put on the agenda for judgment the constitutionality of article 19 of the Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights, which deals with the responsibility of platforms for third-party content. 

But what exactly did the Supreme Federal Court (STF) decide? How does this affect the way we navigate the internet? And, more importantly, what paths does Digital Law point to for the future? 

That's exactly what we're going to explore in this text! 

And if you're interested in understanding or working in this ever-changing landscape, the IDP's postgraduate program in Digital Law, Data, and Artificial Intelligence is the perfect choice to get started!

What does Article 19 of the Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights say?

Article 19 of the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet stipulates that digital platforms can only be held civilly liable for damages arising from third-party content if they fail to comply with a specific court order for its removal. 

That's what the law says:

Art. 19. As an intention to assure freedom of expression and prevent censorship, or the provider of internet applications submitting may be held civilly liable for damages arising from the content generated by third parties, after a specific judicial order, do not take any provision for, no scope and technical limits of its service and within the assassinated area, make it unavailable or content set as infringing, subject to legal provisions in opposition.

This model, called judicial notice and takedown , aims to guarantee freedom of expression.

The central idea is that digital platforms can only be held liable for illegal content published by third parties if there is a specific court order mandating the removal of the content and they fail to comply with that decision. 

In practice, this means that platforms are not obligated to monitor or moderate user-posted content beforehand, and the final decision on what is or is not illegal rests exclusively with the Judiciary.

How does it work in practice?

Step 1: Publishing the content

A user posts something on a digital platform, such as Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube.

Step 2: Identifying the potential wrongdoing

Another user or the direct victim identifies that the published content may be illegal. 

The most common examples are hate speech, fake news, defamation, or the improper disclosure of personal information.

Step 3: Court petition

The victim or interested party files a lawsuit, requesting the removal of the content and, in some cases, holding the platform liable for damages resulting from the publication.

Step 4: Court decision

The judge reviews the request and decides whether the content is indeed illegal. If the illegality is confirmed, the judge issues a specific court order for the removal of the content.

Step 05: Fulfillment by the platform

After receiving the court order, the platform has a specific timeframe to remove the content. If it fails to comply with the order, it may be held civilly liable and required to pay compensation for damages caused.

But what is really being discussed?

Article 19, in fact, needs a balanced interpretation, given the discussions surrounding it.

On one hand, the legal norm prevents platforms from acting as private censors, preserving users' right to free expression. 

At the same time, the rule can also expose victims to prolonged harm, as in the case of hate speech or fake news , until the Judiciary decides on the removal.

The Supreme Federal Court (STF), in analyzing the constitutionality of the article, brought to light crucial issues :

• To what extent can the platforms be held responsible? 
• How can we balance freedom of expression and the protection of fundamental rights in the digital environment?

If you've already noticed the impact of this debate, imagine how far it extends to other areas, such as data privacy, artificial intelligence, and the regulation of digital content. 

In the IDP's postgraduate course in Digital Law, Data and Artificial Intelligence , these issues are analyzed in depth, connecting what happens in the courts with market practices and international perspectives.

The contribution of InternetLab as Amicus Curiae

InternetLab, a research institute focused on Law and Technology, acted as amicus curiae in the Supreme Federal Court's (STF) judgment on Article 19 of the Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights.

If you don't know, amicus curiae , an institution of civil procedural law, can be translated as "friend of the court." It allows external entities to contribute relevant technical, legal, and social information to support judicial decisions.

The institute defended the importance of maintaining the current model of judicial notice and takedown , as stipulated in Article 19, because this system protects freedom of expression by requiring a specific court order before content can be removed by platforms.

In practice, this would mean that companies like Facebook and YouTube cannot simply decide what stays online or goes offline.

Other technology companies, such as Google, have publicly defended Article 19, arguing that requiring a court order to remove content ensures freedom of expression and prevents arbitrary censorship. 

In a recent statement, Google highlighted that this protection is essential to guarantee a democratic environment on the internet, while also acknowledging the need to discuss improvements to the system, especially to deal with urgent cases of misinformation and hate speech.

But what went wrong with platform self-regulation?

During the trial, the Supreme Court also discussed the self-regulation of digital platforms. 

For the minister Alexandre de Moraes, events such as the attacks of January 8, 2023, laid bare the "total bankruptcy" of the current model. 

This is because companies like Facebook and Twitter hide behind Article 19 to avoid taking more proactive action in situations of misinformation and hate speech.

This criticism made by the Minister is not unique to Brazil. 

International models, such as the European one, propose a more dynamic system, in which formal notifications require a rapid response from platforms, especially in serious cases, such as crimes against children or extremist speech.

But how is the trial going, anyway?

The trial, which began in December 2024, has not yet concluded, as Minister André Mendonça requested a review, postponing the decision until after the Judiciary's recess, which extends until January 31, 2025. 

So far, Justices Dias Toffoli, Luiz Fux, and Luís Roberto Barroso have voted, presenting different approaches to the issue.

Minister Toffoli, rapporteur of Extraordinary Appeal (RE) 1.037.396, proposed the unconstitutionality of article 19, suggesting the application of the system of article 21. 

He advocated for a specific list of content, such as crimes against the democratic rule of law, racism, and violence against vulnerable individuals, for which platforms would have strict civil liability if they failed to remove the material, regardless of notification or court order.

Meanwhile, the rapporteur for RE 1.057.258, Minister Luiz Fux, argued that platforms should remove illegal content as soon as they become aware of it, without the need for a court order. 

The minister highlighted the seriousness of cases in which offensive posts are promoted, stating that knowledge of the illegality in such cases is presumed. 

According to Fux, big tech companies profit from degrading content, and it is their responsibility to actively monitor hate speech, pedophilia, and incitement to violence.

The impact of the decision so far

The ruling has significant implications for internet governance in Brazil. The ministers' positions demonstrate an effort to balance freedom of expression with the protection of fundamental rights. 

However, the need for greater proactivity from platforms and measures to ensure security in the digital environment were widely highlighted.

With André Mendonça's request for a review, the outcome of the trial will be resumed in 2025, at which time the Supreme Federal Court (STF) is expected to define the future of provider liability and the limits of content moderation in Brazil. 

Why does this matter to you?

As you may have already noticed, the Supreme Court's ruling is not just a legal matter – it redefines what it means to use the internet in a safe, democratic, and transparent way. 

Whether you are a lawyer, a public manager, or a digital marketing professional, understanding these transformations is essential for acting efficiently and with a strategic vision.

That's why IDP offers a postgraduate course in Digital Law, Data and Artificial Intelligence , designed for those who want to position themselves ahead in the market.

In addition to live classes, the program features a highly qualified faculty that combines academic experience and forensic practice. 

You will have access to current debates, case studies, and global best practices for addressing the challenges of the digital environment.

Do you want to be a protagonist in this constantly changing landscape? 

Enroll in the course and come shape the future of Digital Law with IDP.

Bibliographic references

ANGELO, Tiago. Barroso considers the Civil Rights Framework insufficient and proposes two models for holding networks accountable. ConJur, Dec. 18, 2024. Available at: https://www.conjur.com.br/2024-dez-17/em-nota-google-sai-em-defesa-do-marco-civil-da-internet.

LEÃO, Guilherme; COSAC, André. Protection of privacy and prohibition of illegally obtained evidence. ConJur, Nov. 9, 2023. Available at: https://www.conjur.com.br/2023-nov-09/leao-cosac-protecao-privacidade-proibicao-prova-ilicita.

Public hearing at the Supreme Federal Court discusses constitutional review of the Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights. ConJur, April 3, 2023. Available at: https://www.conjur.com.br/2023-abr-03/direito-civil-atual-audiencia-publica-stf-controle-constitucionalidade-marco-civil-internet.

OLIVEIRA, Gabriel. Net neutrality and freedom of expression. Migalhas, December 17, 2024. Available at: https://www.migalhas.com.br/depeso/417017/neutralidade-de-rede-e-liberdade-de-expressao.

FERREIRA, Camila. Perspective on the repeal of the Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights through reform. Migalhas, April 3, 2023. Available at: https://www.migalhas.com.br/depeso/405724/perspectiva-acerca-da-revogacao-do-marco-civil-da-internet-com-reforma.