✓ verbatim from the press ≈ paraphrased
The 2nd Civil Court of the São Paulo Court of Justice has ordered SBT to broadcast a video statement by federal deputy Erika Hilton (Psol-SP) at the same time and with prominence equivalent to the statements made by presenter Ratinho about her gender identity. The decision, published on June 17, 2026, refers to case number 4085717-92.2026.8.26.0100, filed on May 18, 2026. The broadcaster has ten days to comply with the order, under penalty of a daily fine of R$ 50,000. ✓
Press quotes (2)
"PROCEDIMENTO COMUM CÍVEL Nº 4085717-92.2026.8.26.0100/SP AUTOR: ERIKA SANTOS SILVA RÉU: TVSBT CANAL 4 DE SAO PAULO S/A"
"O prazo para cumprimento da decisão pelo SBT é de dez dias, período após o qual incidirá multa diária de R$ 50 mil."
The case originated from statements made by Ratinho on March 11, 2026, when he stated on the SBT program that Erika Hilton "is not a woman, is trans" and that "to be a woman one must have a uterus, menstruate," contesting the deputy's legitimacy to preside over the Women's Rights Defense Commission of the Chamber of Deputies. According to TVT News, Ratinho "challenged with transphobic speech the deputy's legitimacy to preside over" the committee. ✓
Press quotes (1)
"Na situação confrontada judicialmente por Hilton, Ratinho desafiou com fala transfóbica a legitimidade da deputada para presidir a Comissão de Defesa dos Direitos da Mulher da Câmara dos Deputados, afirmando que "ela não é mulher, ela é trans" e que "para ser mulher tem que ter útero, menstruar"."
Judge André Della Latta Cartaxo based the decision on the assertion that Ratinho exceeded the limits of freedom of opinion by repeatedly denying the parliamentarian's gender identity. As reported by Congresso em Foco, the magistrate wrote that "there was no criticism of her bills, the author's performance as a parliamentarian, or her formal preparation to assume the presidency of a commission, but rather a personal disqualification, exposing more intimate conditions of her identity and affecting her not as an authority, but as a person." ✓
Press quotes (1)
"Não houve uma crítica aos seus projetos de lei, ao desempenho da autora como parlamentar ou ao seu preparo formal para assumir a presidência de uma comissão, mas, sim, uma desqualificação pessoal, expondo condições mais íntimas de sua identidade e atingindo-a não mais como autoridade, mas como pessoa", escreveu o juiz."
In addition to the right of reply lawsuit, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office filed a public civil action against Carlos Roberto Massa (Ratinho) and Sistema Brasileiro de Televisão S/A, based on Fact Notice No. 1.29.000.003055/2026-45, initiated on March 11, 2026. The action seeks conviction for discrimination against the LGBTTQIA+ population and compensation of R$ 10 million for collective moral damages. The Ministry of Communications also initiated an administrative proceeding to investigate allegations of transphobia involving the presenter. ✓
Press quotes (2)
"Tramita nesta Procuradoria da República a Notícia de Fato nº 1.29.000.003055/2026-45, instaurada a partir de representação para apurar prática de discriminação contra a população LGBTTQIA+ em 11 de março de 2026, pelo réu CARLOS ROBERTO MASSA, através do programa televisivo "programa do Ratinho" veiculado pela corré SISTEMA BRASILEIRO DE TELEVISÃO S/A"
"À época das declarações, a deputada acionou o Ministério Público de São Paulo, solicitando a abertura de investigação criminal e o pagamento de R$ 10 milhões por danos morais coletivos. O episódio também levou o Ministério das Comunicações a instaurar um processo administrativo para apurar denúncias de transfobia envolvendo o apresentador."
The presenter's defense attempted to argue that Erika Hilton had already exercised her right of reply by speaking out on social media and giving interviews to the press. The court rejected the argument, stating that Law No. 13,188/2015 "ensures the publication of the correction in the same communication vehicle responsible for the offense" so that "the response reaches the same audience affected by the original offense." Ratinho may still appeal the decision. ≈
Press quotes (1)
"Na decisão, no entanto, o juízo afirmou que a Lei n.º 13.188/2015, que dispõe sobre direito de resposta e retificação, "assegura a veiculação da retificação no mesmo veículo de comunicação responsável pelo agravo, com o mesmo destaque, publicidade, periodicidade e duração da matéria", com o objetivo específico de que "a resposta alcance o mesmo público atingido pela ofensa original"
The court decision was published on June 17, 2026, and establishes a ten-day deadline for compliance by SBT, with a daily fine of R$ 50,000 in case of non-compliance.
Deputy Erika Hilton was elected on March 11, 2026, to the presidency of the Women's Rights Defense Commission, being the first transgender woman to hold this position in history.
Judge André Della Latta Cartaxo cited Theme 761 of the Federal Supreme Court, which guarantees the change of gender in the civil registry of transgender persons regardless of surgical procedure.
Covered by only some sources, or where the accounts diverge.
Covered by only some sources (3)
Ratinho made new comments on March 16, 2026, calling Erika Hilton "rude," stating he did not fear lawsuits and did not regret the statements.
SBT president Daniela Beyruti personally called Erika Hilton to apologize, and the network issued a statement saying that Ratinho's statements do not represent the company's opinion.
The decision states that Ratinho's language humiliated and ridiculed also cisgender women who do not have a uterus or do not menstruate for medical reasons or age.
-
What is the exact text of the video statement that Erika Hilton will make on the SBT program?
Why it's still unknown: The court decision grants the right of reply and establishes a deadline and conditions, but the specific content of the statement has not yet been disclosed by the deputy or broadcast by the network.
Did not cover: Congressoemfoco Tvtnews -
Have Ratinho or SBT already filed an appeal against the right of reply decision?
Why it's still unknown: The decision was published on June 17, 2026, and coverage notes that an appeal is still possible, but does not report whether one has been filed or if the defense has expressed such intention.
Did not cover: Congressoemfoco Tvtnews -
What specific doctrinal reasoning did Judge André Della Latta Cartaxo invoke when applying the proportionality test between freedom of expression and the right to honor/identity?
Why it's still unknown: The articles cite STF Theme 761 and state that Ratinho exceeded the limits of freedom of opinion, but do not detail which legal test (proportionality, reasonableness) was formally applied or which binding precedents were cited in the sentence.
Did not cover: Congressoemfoco Tvtnews -
Were there dissenting votes or concurrent reasoning in the proceeding, or was the decision monocratic with no recorded dissent?
Why it's still unknown: The coverage does not indicate whether there were statements from other magistrates or if the decision was entirely from the 2nd Civil Court in singular judgment.
Did not cover: Congressoemfoco Tvtnews -
What is the current status of the MPF's public civil action — has it been received, is there a trial date or reported procedural progress?
Why it's still unknown: The public civil action was filed by the MPF, but coverage does not detail whether it has been distributed, received by the competent court, or if there is a processing timeline.
Did not cover: Congressoemfoco Tvtnews