Brazil's Internet Civil Mark recent changes
Executive summary
Brazil’s 2014 Marco Civil da Internet established safe-harbors: intermediaries are generally liable for third‑party content only after a specific court order (Article 19) [1] [2]. In mid‑2025 the Supreme Federal Court (STF) substantially narrowed that safe‑harbor: on 26 June 2025 the Court declared Article 19 partially unconstitutional and redefined platforms’ civil liability, a change that will apply to events after that date and expand obligations for many kinds of internet application providers [3] [4] [5].
1. What the Marco Civil originally guaranteed — “constitution of the Internet”
When Congress passed the Marco Civil in 2014 it aimed to protect privacy, net neutrality and an intermediary safe‑harbor: connection providers were exempt from civil liability for third‑party content and Article 19 required a specific court order before online application providers could be held civilly responsible for removing third‑party material — language widely described as the law’s bulwark for freedom of expression online [1] [2] [6].
2. The STF ruling: from shield to scrutiny
By late June 2025 the STF issued a landmark ruling that partially struck down Article 19 and recalibrated liability for digital platforms. The Court’s decision broadens the circumstances where platforms can face civil liability for third‑party content, modulates effects to apply from 26 June 2025 forward, and leaves pending how Congress and regulators will fill the gap with legislation or regulation [3] [4].
3. Who is most affected — platforms, marketplaces and messaging services
STF’s decision reaches “internet application providers” broadly — from large social networks to blogs and community projects — and specifically treats marketplaces under consumer‑protection rules, while carving out some exceptions (for example, certain interpersonal private messaging services and video‑meeting apps are treated differently in part) [3] [5]. InternetLab and other civil‑society analysts warn that one-size‑fits‑all treatment could favor large companies that can absorb costs while squeezing smaller services [5].
4. The practical consequences: proactive moderation and legal uncertainty
Legal commentators and law firms predict platforms will face pressure to remove content proactively or upon private requests rather than wait for court orders; that shift could increase takedowns and chilling effects on speech, while also creating compliance burdens and business‑model risks for operators in Brazil [4] [7]. The Internet Society framed the choice bluntly as preserving an open Internet or enabling a system that risks legal uncertainty and increased censorship [7].
5. Political dynamics and parallel legislative moves
The STF ruling arrives amid sustained political debate over platform regulation in Brazil — including stalled bills such as PL 2630/20 (“Fake News Bill”) and other legislative proposals. Observers say the Court’s decision will likely prompt the executive and Congress to act, creating opportunities for industry and civil society to influence new rules [3] [8]. Covington’s analysis urged companies to monitor legislative reactions and adapt compliance and policy choices [4] [9].
6. Competing narratives: safety vs. rights
Government and some victims’ advocates argue tighter platform responsibility is needed to tackle disinformation, harassment and illegal commerce. Civil‑society and technical experts counter that removing the court‑order requirement risks arbitrary or overbroad removals and threatens legal certainty for speech and smaller services [7] [5] [10]. The Electronic Frontier Foundation documents both the risks and the political context that accelerated judicial scrutiny [10] [11].
7. Open questions and what to watch next
Key unknowns include: how Congress will legislate in response; whether the STF’s modulation will be revisited; how regulators (and platforms themselves) will operationalize new liability rules; and what safeguards (due process, transparency, appeal mechanisms) will be built into any replacement framework [3] [8] [5]. Available sources do not mention precise draft congressional text after the STF ruling beyond references to existing proposals such as PL 2630/20 [3] [8].
Takeaway: the 2014 Marco Civil’s safe‑harbor that required court orders to trigger civil liability has been partially undone by the STF in June 2025, producing an immediate legal shift toward greater platform responsibility and regulatory uncertainty. The balance between reducing online harms and protecting freedom of expression will now be fought in statute, court practice and platform policies in the months and years ahead [2] [3] [7].