BRAZIL Trends and Developments Contributed by: Diego Sens, Pablo Figueiredo and Maria Clara Ponciano Pupulin, Figueiredo Sens Advogados
Recent landmark rulings establish compensation models Two weeks before the decision, the Court of Justice of Minas Gerais upheld a landmark collective action against Meta for data breaches that occurred in 2018 and 2019. Recent rulings ordered direct per-user payments, and in two collective actions, set com- pensation at BRL5,000 each, potentially BRL10,000 cumulatively. These awards remain subject to execu- tion mechanics and appeals. The ruling identified 170 million potential beneficiaries. The court eliminated the liquidation phase that typi- cally required individual proof of harm. This creates a ready-to-execute model where collective action victo- ries automatically translate into mass payouts. Apply- ing these precedents to platform-wide content mod- eration failures reveals significant potential exposure. Potential exposure scenarios under the new framework Consider three scenarios based on current jurispru- dential trends. A nationwide content moderation fail- ure affecting 50 million users could result in substantial exposure, depending on the final compensation mod- els. A sector-specific failure, such as one targeting marginalised communities, could result in significant liability. Paid content amplification of illegal content, reaching millions of users, could result in a material financial impact. These are not purely theoretical scenarios. In April 2025, Brazil’s Attorney General filed a collective action against Meta for allegedly engaging in illegal enrich- ment through at least 1,770 fraudulent advertisements that utilised government imagery and likenesses of officials. This demonstrates willingness to pursue plat- form liability for paid content failures exactly as the ruling now authorises. Additional precedent comes from a July 2024 case in which the Maranhão State Court ordered Meta to pay collective damages and per-user compensation for a single-day service outage in October 2021. If brief service interruptions result in per-user damages, con- tent moderation failures that enable ongoing harm to dignity, reputation, or safety will support significantly higher awards.
Comparing Brazil’s approach with the European Union’s regulatory model Brazil’s June 2025 framework invites immediate com- parison to the European Union’s Digital Services Act, which took full effect in February 2024. Both regimes eliminate blanket immunity for platforms as mere con- duits. Both impose proactive risk assessment and mitigation duties. Both require transparent content moderation proce- dures, mandate legal representation in jurisdiction, and establish expedited takedown obligations for certain content categories. However, three critical distinctions shape relative compliance priorities for multinational platforms. Three key differences in approach to enforcement The first difference involves the enforcement mech- anism. The DSA operates through administrative enforcement by national regulatory authorities coor- dinated by the European Commission. Financial pen- alties are capped at 6% of global annual revenue. Brazil’s model combines administrative enforcement with private collective litigation, seeking direct com- pensation for affected users. This dual-track system means Brazilian exposure is not revenue-capped. A single collective action can seek damages exceeding annual Brazilian revenues if user harm is sufficiently widespread. The second distinction concerns standing and mul- tiplicity. DSA enforcement actions are singular per violation and are brought by designated authorities. In Brazil, the Public Prosecutor, Public Defender, and consumer protection associations have concurrent standing to file collective actions. A single content moderation failure can generate multiple simultaneous collective actions by different entities. Each seeks independent damages awards. While legal principles limit redundant recoveries, the multiplicity of forums and plaintiffs creates procedural complexity and increases legal costs, absent in DSA enforcement.
50 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook