← Back to feed

Supreme Court sets 60-day deadline for big tech content responsibility measures

8 sources · 12 Jun 2026 · Share coverage ·

verbatim from the press composed from multiple sources

Brazil's Supreme Court (STF) has formed a majority to grant digital platforms 60 days to implement structural obligations determined by the Court regarding responsibility for illegal content. The decision came on Thursday (11) during the trial of appeals filed by companies like Google and Facebook against the June 2025 ruling that expanded platform responsibility for user posts.

Press quotes (1)
STF

"A questão foi debatida no Recurso Extraordinário (RE) 1037396 (Tema 987 da repercussão geral), relatado pelo ministro Dias Toffoli, e no RE 1057258 (Temas 533), relatado pelo ministro Luiz Fux."

The 60-day deadline applies to the so-called "duty of care" to prevent massive circulation of serious illegal content, including terrorism, suicide incitement, sexual crimes and child pornography. Platforms must also implement self-regulation with annual transparency reports, provide specific service channels for users and non-users, and maintain legal representatives in Brazil to receive court orders.

Press quotes (1)
Exame

"O relator de nove desses recursos, ministro Dias Toffoli, sugeriu o prazo de 60 dias, tendo seu entendimento acompanhado pelos ministros Flávio Dino, Cristiano Zanin, André Mendonça, Kassio Nunes Marques e Alexandre de Moraes."

Reporting Justice Dias Toffoli proposed the deadline and established June 27, 2025 as the temporal landmark for applying the rules — the date of publication of the original trial minutes. Justices Flávio Dino, Cristiano Zanin, André Mendonça, Kassio Nunes Marques and Alexandre de Moraes followed the rapporteur's vote. The trial should resume next Wednesday (17) for final result proclamation.

Press quotes (1)
Jornal GGN

"Além do prazo de adaptação, Toffoli votou para fixar o dia 27 de junho de 2025, data de publicação da ata do julgamento original, como marco temporal a partir do qual a decisão passa a produzir efeitos."

In June 2025, the STF had declared Article 19 of the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet partially unconstitutional, which established that platforms could only be held responsible for third-party content after specific court orders. The original decision was taken by 8 votes to 3, considering that the previous model offered "insufficient protection" to democracy and fundamental rights.

Press quotes (1)
Exame

"Em junho de 2025, o plenário do STF analisou os Temas 987 e 533 da Repercussão Geral e, por maioria de 8 votos a 3, declarou parcialmente inconstitucional o artigo 19 do Marco Civil da Internet."

1. What we know (2)

The STF formed a majority to grant a 60-day deadline for digital platforms to implement structural obligations

7 sources Exame G1 GaúchaZH JC Jornal GGN Jovem Pan Veja

The trial analyzes appeals filed by Google, Facebook and other platforms

5 sources Exame G1 GaúchaZH JC Jornal GGN
2. Where coverage thins out (3)

Covered by only some sources, or where the accounts diverge.

Covered by only some sources (2)

Justices disagreed on criteria to define which platforms will be subject to obligations (by size or all)

Reported by: JC Jovem Pan
Did not cover: Exame G1 GaúchaZH Jornal GGN Veja

André Mendonça expressed concern about the 'inhibitory effect' of measures on freedom of expression

Reported by: JC Jovem Pan Veja
Did not cover: Exame G1 GaúchaZH Jornal GGN

Points disputed between the actors (1)

The same outlets report both versions — the contradiction is between the actors in the story, not between outlets.

Temporal scope of decision for ongoing cases

2 sources — "Toffoli proposed that cases filed until June 26, 2025 that are still ongoing should apply the new thesis": JC Jovem Pan
2 sources — "Flávio Dino defended that ongoing cases filed before June 26, 2025 should follow the previous system": JC Jovem Pan
3. What we don't know yet (3)
  • What specific doctrinal test did the STF apply to support the decision?

    Why it's still unknown: The votes of the rapporteur and other justices with complete doctrinal reasoning were not published in full

    Did not cover: Exame G1 GaúchaZH JC
  • How does the 60-day deadline compare with similar deadlines in other jurisdictions?

    Why it's still unknown: No source analyzed the technical feasibility of the deadline or compared it with European Digital Services Act implementations

  • What is the official position of PGR and AGU in the analyzed appeals?

    Why it's still unknown: Statements from the Federal Public Ministry and Attorney General's Office were not reported by the press

All sources

8