Some justices call for merging case with another one specifically connected with Magnitsky Act; Dino decision involved UK courts and mining disaster in Brazil
08/20/2025
Supreme Federal Court (STF) justices consulted by Valor assess that the application of the Magnitsky Act by banks operating in Brazil should be better discussed in the case under Justice Cristiano Zanin’s jurisdiction that specifically addresses the effects of U.S. sanctions. There is divergence in the Court regarding Flávio Dino’s order that foreign laws, administrative acts, executive orders and judicial decisions should not be automatically applied in Brazil.
The disagreement, with some exceptions, is less about content and more about form: for part of the Supreme Court members, it would be better for the debate to occur in Mr. Zanin’s case because it addresses the Magnitsky Act. The process conducted by Mr. Dino, meanwhile, discusses lawsuits filed in UK courts by Brazilian municipalities affected by environmental disasters.
In the case with Mr. Zanin, Federal Deputy Lindbergh Farias, Workers’ Party (PT) leader in the Chamber, seeks to prevent banks operating in Brazil from blocking the accounts of Alexandre de Moraes, sanctioned by the U.S. under the Magnitsky Act in July. On August 1, Mr. Zanin sent the request to the Attorney General’s Office (PGR). He awaits the body’s opinion.
Some magistrates say Mr. Dino’s decision is too broad and may cause confusion about its effects. They also say it is necessary to better hear the actors affected by the order and know how Brazilian banks may be impacted by the decision.
Others defended Mr. Dino. For them, STF decisions can exceed the scope of a concrete case. They also affirm that their colleague defended the Supreme Court from external interference.
The Magnitsky Act can affect any company that operates in the United States or conducts transactions with the American currency. Earlier this month, justices met with bank representatives to discuss the effects of the sanction. Justices Moraes, Zanin and Gilmar Mendes participated.
Brazilian banks fear U.S. sanctions
On that occasion, financial institutions did not demonstrate intention to impede operations in Brazil on their own, but expressed concerns about how to act in case of U.S. sanction threats.
On Monday (18), Mr. Dino ruled that foreign laws and judicial orders do not automatically apply in Brazil, nor do they bind Brazilian companies or affect assets located in the country.
The decision was made in a case discussing lawsuits filed in UK courts by Brazilian municipalities that were affected by the Mariana and Brumadinho mining disasters in Minas Gerais.
Mr. Dino’s decision has binding effect. According to the justice, it applies to “the controversy depicted in these proceedings and in all others where foreign jurisdiction – or another foreign state body – intends to impose, on national territory, unilateral acts over the authority of Brazil’s sovereignty bodies.”
Mr. Dino also stated that presuming immediate effectiveness of foreign acts constitutes “an offense to national sovereignty, public order, and common morality.”
In historic ruling, companies may now face damages if they fail to remove criminal posts
06/29/2025
The Supreme Federal Court (STF) ruled on Thursday (26), by 8 votes to 3, to expand the legal liability of social media platforms for content posted by users. Companies will be required to act proactively to remove posts containing “serious crimes” and could face civil penalties if they fail to do so.
The court declared partially unconstitutional Article 19 of the Internet Civil Framework, which stated that tech companies could only be held civilly liable if they disobeyed a court order to remove content. Going forward, this rule will apply only to crimes against honor, such as libel, slander, and defamation.
Voting in favor of expanding platform liability were Justices Dias Toffoli and Luiz Fux, who served as the case rapporteurs, along with Luís Roberto Barroso, Flávio Dino, Cristiano Zanin, Gilmar Mendes, Alexandre de Moraes, and Cármen Lúcia. Dissenting were Justices André Mendonça, Edson Fachin, and Nunes Marques, the last to cast his vote.
Instead of Article 19, Article 21 of the Internet Civil Framework now applies to criminal content. This provision requires platforms to remove posts after being notified. If they fail to do so and a court deems the content criminal, the platform may be held liable. Originally, Article 21 applied only to non-consensual nudity; the STF has now expanded it to cover any type of crime or unlawful act.
The court also ruled that platforms may be held liable, even without notification or a court order, if they host or promote paid ads featuring unlawful content or maintain fake bot accounts.
Additionally, the STF established that platforms must fulfill a “duty of care” concerning “serious crimes.” If they fail to remove such posts on their own, they may be subject to civil penalties—even without prior notice or a judicial ruling.
Listed as “serious crimes” are: anti-democratic acts; terrorism or preparatory acts; incitement, assistance, or encouragement of suicide or self-harm; incitement to discrimination based on race, color, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexuality, or gender identity; crimes against women; sexual offenses against vulnerable individuals; child pornography; crimes against children and adolescents; and human trafficking.
According to the ruling, platforms will not be penalized for isolated serious crimes unless notified and they fail to act. Civil liability will apply when there is a high volume of such content and the platform takes no action. In practice, the decision forces companies to adopt active monitoring practices to curb criminal behavior on their networks.
Justices also required platforms to adopt self-regulation policies that include “notification systems, due process mechanisms, and annual transparency reports on extrajudicial takedown requests, ads, and content promotion.” Companies must also provide dedicated user-support channels.
The court determined that companies operating in Brazil must establish and maintain a local headquarters and legal representative. Marketplaces will be held liable under the Consumer Protection Code. Messaging services such as WhatsApp remain subject to Article 19, but only in relation to interpersonal communications.
Fake profile case triggered ruling
The STF analyzed two cases. Justice Dias Toffoli was the rapporteur in a case examining the constitutionality of Article 19, which involved a fake Facebook profile. Justice Luiz Fux reported on a case concerning platform liability for third-party content; it involved a ruling ordering Google to remove a community from the now-defunct Orkut.
Mr. Toffoli, the first to vote, proposed applying Article 21 instead of Article 19 in December of last year. Mr. Fux supported holding platforms liable when they have “clear knowledge of unlawful acts” and fail to act. He cited hate speech, racism, pedophilia, incitement to violence, advocacy of the violent overthrow of the democratic state, and support for coups as examples.
Chief Justice Luís Roberto Barroso proposed that Article 19 be retained only for honor-related offenses. For all other crimes, he argued Article 21 should apply. His position prevailed.
The dissenters—Justices André Mendonça, Edson Fachin, and Nunes Marques—argued that Article 19 should be fully preserved.
Tech firms raise concerns
In a statement, Attorney General Jorge Messias called the ruling “historic.” “It is a civilizational milestone and aligns with measures adopted by other democratic countries aimed at better protecting society from crimes, fraud, and hate speech that threaten citizens and democracy in the digital environment,” he said.
Google, a party in the case reported by Mr. Fux, said it is still reviewing the decision. “Google has expressed concerns about changes that may impact free speech and the digital economy. We are evaluating the approved ruling, especially the expansion of takedown obligations under Article 21, and their impact on our products. We remain open to dialogue.”
Meta, parent company of Facebook and Instagram and a party in the case under Mr. Toffoli, expressed concern in a statement. “Weakening Article 19 of the Internet Civil Framework introduces legal uncertainty and will have consequences for free expression, innovation, and digital economic growth, significantly increasing the risk of doing business in Brazil.”
*By Tiago Angelo and Isadora Peron, Valor — Brasília
The decision prevents an impact of R$480 billion, according to the 2024 Budget Guidelines Act
03/22/2024
Cristiano Zanin — Foto: Gustavo Moreno/SCO/STF
In a surprising turn of events, when assessing the validity of amendments to the Social Security Benefits Act (Law 8213/1991) introduced by Law 9876/1999, the Federal Supreme Court overturned the “lifetime review” theory. The retirees’ loss is a billion-reais victory for the federal government, which estimated a potential cost of R$480 billion, according to the 2024 Budget Guidelines Act.
The financial impact discussed was not unanimous. For the Brazilian Institute of Social Security Law (IBDP), there were about 383,000 benefits eligible for review, and the amount would be much lower—R$1.5 billion. That’s because the theory would benefit a restricted group of retirees—only those who were in the transition rule of the 1999 Social Security Reform would be in a disadvantaged position in relation to the planned rule.
When ruling on the matter in December 2022, the Supreme Court gave retirees an option for the more beneficial calculation. Today, a new composition of the Court overturned this possibility in the rulings of two other cases (ADI 2110 and 2111), where the review was a secondary issue. Additionally, an appeal related to the 2022 decision (RE 1276977) was on the agenda but was not addressed.
In Thursday’s (21) ruling, the justices validated the creation of the social security factor and made family allowance payments—government-provided benefits intended to support families with children by helping to cover some of the costs of their upbringing and education—conditional on presenting a vaccination card and verifying the child’s school attendance. By a majority vote (six to five), the requirement for a ten-month waiting period for maternity leave payments to individual contributors was eliminated. Justices Edson Fachin, Flávio Dino, Luiz Fux, Cármen Lúcia, Dias Toffoli, and Luís Roberto Barroso voted in this manner.
The main point of contention was precisely the transition rule established in Article 3 of Law 9876. Until the enactment of this law, retirement benefits were calculated based on the 36 highest salaries received in the 48 months before retirement or the beneficiary’s death. Following the law, the calculation considered the highest 80% of salaries received throughout the worker’s life.
The law established a transition rule for those who had started contributing by its publication date but had not yet retired, which was to calculate using the highest 80% of salaries received, excluding salaries prior to July 1994, when the Real Plan—a set of measures implemented in Brazil in 1994 to stabilize the country’s economy— was implemented.
The divergence analyzed on Thursday (21) by the Supreme Court was in the transition regime. The justices debated whether the beneficiary would be subject to the transition rule or could benefit from the definitive rule applicable to those who joined later.
The obligation of the transition regime was the prevailing understanding by seven votes to four. Voting in this direction were Justices Cristiano Zanin, Flávio Dino, Dias Toffoli, Gilmar Mendes, Luiz Fux, Luís Roberto Barroso, and Nunes Marques.
The approved thesis clarifies: “The constitutional validation of Article 3 of Law 9876/1999 requires that this legal provision be mandatorily followed by other judicial bodies and the public administration, strictly according to its literal interpretation, which admits no exceptions. Consequently, social security beneficiaries falling under this provision are not permitted to choose the definitive rule, even if it would be more advantageous to them.”
João Badari, a partner at Aith, Badari e Luchin Advogados and representing retirees as an amicus curiae, stated, “By reviving two direct actions for the declaration of unconstitutionality that didn’t originally address the ‘lifetime review,’ they successfully annulled it. That effectively terminated the retirees’ rights.”
Diego Cherulli, director of the Brazilian Institute of Social Security Law, highlighted the Court’s decision’s dependency on its composition, describing the day’s events as a procedural coup. “They employed a 25-year-old case to overturn a new thesis adjudicated in general repercussion. This approach raises significant procedural questions and poses a serious threat to legal certainty,” he explained. Mr. Cherulli further emphasized the gravity of the situation, adding, “The implications for retirees and pensioners are profoundly detrimental.”
According to Mr. Cherulli, some beneficiaries who have already secured their rights in court cases with no further appeal possible (res judicata) should see no change. However, those with ongoing proceedings will likely be denied their requests.
“As part of a procedural strategy by those aiming to win the case, they prioritized the lawsuits tried today, thereby securing the right. It was a tactical move to use one case to overturn another,” Mr. Cherulli stated. He expects the appeal pending from the 2022 decision to be deemed moot and dismissed.
The lawsuits judged now reached the Full Bench after Justice Cristiano Zanin highlighted them in the STF’s Virtual Plenary, where he also led the majority vote. Justice Alexandre de Moraes expressed strong reservations about re-evaluating the lifetime review under these circumstances. He clarified, “If we proceed with a review, it means we’re in a position where one Plenary is reviewing the decision of another Plenary due to the Court’s changed composition since the 2022 session.”
Justice Cristiano Zanin mentioned that the appeal concerning the lifetime review has not achieved res judicata status, and the motions for clarification, set for Thursday’s (21) agenda, remain unresolved. “The merits have already been adjudicated; any further review would constitute an oversight or contradiction,” Justice Moraes articulated in his vote.
The General Counsel for the Federal Government, Jorge Messias, stated that the decision safeguards the integrity of public accounts and the financial stability of Social Security. “This is a paradigmatic decision for the country,” he remarked.
Moreover, Mr. Messias noted that the decision prevents the emergence of a “scenario of judicial and administrative chaos” that the National Social Security Institute would have inevitably faced had it been required to apply the so-called lifetime review thesis, as highlighted in the arguments made by the Office of the General Counsel for the Federal Government in the cases presented to the Supreme Court.
“The Supreme Court’s decision ensures legal certainty and reaffirms a stance the court itself established over 20 years ago,” Mr. Messias commented.
The federal government’s economic policy team widely acclaimed the decision. “It’s a significant win for the country,” a Finance Ministry source expressed. Although the 2024 Budget Guidelines Act includes the R$480 billion, the Supreme Court’s ruling, while not generating additional revenue, ensures the federal government is no longer at risk of forfeiting the amount estimated by the economic policy team. Since taking office, Finance Minister Fernando Haddad has repeatedly underscored the importance of Thursday’s (21) decision.
/i.s3.glbimg.com/v1/AUTH_37554604729d4b2f9f3eb9ad8a691345/internal_photos/bs/2024/6/Q/AC6MSRTT6OvRFGNlf2xA/cristiano-zanin-gustavo-moreno-sco-stf.png)