In Brazil, debates over the regulation of digital platforms have become an increasingly prominent feature of the legislative agenda. Over the past decade, the number and significance of laws governing the digital environment have grown substantially. The Brazilian Internet Act, the General Data Protection Act (LGPD), and, more recently, the Digital Statute for Children and Adolescents (ECA Digital), followed by new presidential decrees, are examples of legislation that has introduced new rules directly affecting the day-to-day operations of digital platforms.
However, in Brazil, the enactment of a law is far from the final stage of the regulatory debate. In practice, newly enacted rules are frequently subject to judicial scrutiny and, ultimately, to constitutional review before the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF – Supremo Tribunal Federal), particularly when they affect economically significant sectors such as digital platforms.
For this reason, monitoring legislative developments alone is insufficient to fully understand the scope of the obligations imposed on digital platforms or how those obligations will be interpreted and enforced. Judicial decisions, particularly those handed down by the STF, can fundamentally reshape how platforms must comply with their legal obligations.
In 2025, for instance, in its ruling on Extraordinary Appeal #1,037,396, the STF redefined the civil liability framework applicable to platforms for damages arising from third-party content. By holding Article 19 of the Brazilian Internet Act partially unconstitutional, the Court expanded the circumstances under which digital platforms may be held civilly liable for unlawful content posted by users.
Accordingly, for platforms to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the Brazilian regulatory landscape, it is essential to track judicial developments arising from these discussions as well.
Moreover, it is not enough to learn of decisions only after they have been issued. In many cases, doing so may leave platforms with little time to adapt their practices efficiently and cost-effectively, which may increase their exposure to legal risks and potential adverse court rulings. For that reason, it is important to monitor these discussions while they are still pending before the courts.
The importance of this type of monitoring is evident in recent cases involving laws and decrees regulating the digital environment. In the last three months alone, two important cases directly affecting the operations of digital platforms in Brazil have been filed before the STF: ADIs #7,999 and #7,981.
The first case, ADI #7,981, challenges the constitutionality of Decree #12,975/2026, which amended the regulation of the Brazilian Internet Act. Central to the dispute is the scope of the President's regulatory powers. The challenge argues that the presidential decree goes beyond merely implementing existing legislation by creating new obligations without adequate statutory authority.
In general, the decree revised the liability framework applicable to internet application providers and codified into the Brazilian legal system the aforementioned interpretation adopted by the Brazilian Supreme Court regarding the partial unconstitutionality of Article 19 of the Brazilian Internet Act. Consistent with the STF’s ruling, the decree established circumstances in which platforms may be held liable for unlawful content even in the absence of a prior court order directing its removal.
However, the STF itself made it clear that a long-term solution to the issue would require legislation. While acknowledging the President’s authority to issue regulatory decrees, the Court expressly urged Congress to enact a statute capable of addressing the shortcomings identified in the current framework. In the pending unconstitutionality challenge, the plaintiff argues that the decree goes beyond merely regulating the Brazilian Internet Act and instead addresses matters that should be governed by legislation enacted by Congress.
ADI #7,999, in turn, concerns the protection of children and adolescents in the digital environment by challenging provisions of the ECA Digital. The case centers primarily on age-verification requirements for internet users and the prohibition of loot boxes in electronic games.
With respect to age verification, the challenge asks the STF to prevent any interpretation of the law that would permit the use of biometric data for age assurance. The argument is that the collection and storage of sensitive data, such as facial recognition data, fingerprints, and iris scans, could increase privacy risks and lead to the creation of databases vulnerable to leaks or misuse.
ADI #7,999 also challenges the ban on loot boxes in games targeted at minors. While acknowledging the concerns associated with these products, the challenge argues that the blanket prohibition established by the ECA Digital is disproportionate and that parents or legal guardians should be allowed to decide, in advance and explicitly, whether to permit their use.
In both cases, rules that are already in force and affecting the activities of digital platforms have been brought before the STF for constitutional review. Although based on different legal arguments, the two challenges illustrate how regulatory discussions relevant to the digital environment often move from the legislative arena to the courts and ultimately to the constitutional scrutiny exercised by Brazil’s Supreme Court.
Accordingly, for companies operating in the digital sector, these cases reinforce the view that the process of defining the rules governing the digital environment does not end with the enactment of a statute or decree. It is essential that platforms closely monitor judicial developments involving new legislation and regulatory measures.
To support this effort, the Portal’s Regulatory Radar includes a Policy and Enforcement Tracker that brings together the major legislative proposals, regulatory initiatives and judicial proceedings that may affect the operation of digital platforms in Brazil.
