Brazil: Supreme Federal Court issued interim ruling in Google lawsuit challenging content moderation rules under Article 19 of Law No. 12.965/2014 (Civil Rights Framework for the Internet)

On 12 June 2025, the Supreme Federal Court (STF) suspended the trial of Extraordinary Appeal (RE 1057258), set to resume on 25 June 2025. Before the suspension, the STF continued the joint trial of two extraordinary appeals (REs 1037396 and 1057258), addressing the civil liability of internet platforms for third-party content and their accountability for failing to remove offensive material upon request without a judicial order. The majority of ministers argued that Article 19 of the Internet Civil Rights Framework (Law 12.965/2014) no longer provides sufficient user protection due to the evolution of internet usage, including social networks and messaging apps. One minister asserted that platforms should be legally equated to other communication services, citing regulatory developments in 35 countries, while others debated the constitutionality of requiring judicial notification for content removal, with diverging views on exceptions for crimes against honour. On 27 June 2017, the STF protocolled and registered the Google Brazil Internet Ltda. extraordinary appeal (RE 1057258) under Topic 533 of general repercussion which addresses the constitutionality of article 19 of Law 12.965/2014 (Civil Rights Framework for the Internet). The appeal concerning the duty of website hosting companies to monitor published content and remove material considered offensive without judicial intervention. The case was distributed by prevention to the rapporteur's office, replacing general repercussion paradigm process ARE 660861, with the Attorney General of the Union and Attorney General of the Republic participating as parties alongside the original appellant and interested party Brazilian Association of Digital Inclusion Centres (ABCID). The extraordinary appeal examines whether, in the absence of legal regulation and in light of articles 5, II, IV, IX, XIV, XXXIII and XXXV, and 220, §§ 1º, 2º and 6º of the Federal Constitution, constitutional principles have direct impact such that website hosting companies bear a duty to monitor content published in their electronic domains and remove information considered offensive without requiring Judiciary intervention. Multiple amicus curiae have been admitted to the proceedings, including Facebook Brazil Online Services Ltda. and the Information and Coordination Centre for Ponto Br (NIC.BR), with public hearings convened to hear testimony from authorities and experts on the liability regime of internet application providers for user-generated content and the possibility of removing content through extrajudicial notification.