Constitutional Foundations

In Brazil, privacy protection starts at constitutional level. Article 5 of the Federal Constitution of 1988 guarantees the inviolability of intimacy, private life, honour and image, and it also provides for compensation for material or moral damage arising from a breach (Article 5, X). Constitutional Amendment 115/2022 strengthened that framework by elevating personal data protection to a standalone fundamental right through Article 5, LXXIX, giving data-driven privacy claims express constitutional support.

Civil Law Protections

The Civil Code (Law 10,406/2002) reinforces those constitutional protections through the personality rights regime. Article 21 states that private life is inviolable and authorises courts, at the request of the affected person, to adopt any measures necessary to prevent or stop interference with private life. Article 20 protects the use of a person’s name and image. Taken together, these provisions form the core civil law basis for injunctions and damages where privacy has been violated or is under threat.

Data Protection Law

The General Data Protection Law (LGPD, Law 13,709/2018) adds a comprehensive statutory framework for the processing of personal data by natural or legal persons, regardless of the means used or the country in which the processing entity is based, provided the processing:

• takes place in Brazil;
• targets individuals located in Brazil; or
• involves data collected in Brazil.

LGPD also gives data subjects a practical set of rights, which are often central in reputation management disputes, including:

• access;
• rectification;
• deletion;
• portability; and
• the right to object to processing.

What a Claimant Must Establish

In practical terms, a claimant bringing a civil privacy claim must show:

• a legally protected privacy interest, meaning information within the sphere of intimacy, private life or personal data;
• an actual or threatened interference with that interest, whether by disclosure, publication, processing or surveillance; and
• a causal link between that interference and the harm suffered, whether material, moral or both.

In LGPD cases, Brazilian courts generally apply an objective liability standard, so the controller’s fault is not the key issue where the damage results from unlawful personal data processing.

Injunctions

Brazilian procedural law allows urgent injunctive relief under Article 300 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) where there is evidence of the probable right asserted and a risk of serious harm or irreversibility if relief is withheld. Pre-publication injunctions are legally available, but courts approach them cautiously because Article 5, IX of the Constitution prohibits censorship. In practice, prior restraint is more likely where the content is clearly unlawful and the harm is concrete; speculative or diffuse harm is usually not enough.

Damages

Both material and moral (non-pecuniary) damages are available in privacy actions. Moral damages do not depend on proof of financial loss; the breach itself may generate compensable harm where honour, private life or image has been unlawfully affected. The quantification of moral damages remains highly discretionary. In privacy cases, Brazilian courts commonly award between BRL5,000 and BRL150,000, with higher awards where the violation involves sensitive personal data, intimate imagery or high-profile individuals facing clear professional or reputational consequences. LGPD breaches may also trigger administrative fines of up to 2% of the company’s annual revenue in Brazil, capped at BRL50 million per violation, alongside civil liability.

Limitation Periods

Civil privacy claims for damages are subject to a three-year limitation period under Article 206, paragraph 3, III of the Civil Code, counted from the date on which the claimant becomes aware of the violation. LGPD administrative enforcement follows the ANPD’s (Agência Nacional de Proteção de Dados, National Data Protection Authority’s) own regulatory timetable. By way of example, security incidents may have to be reported within three business days, while internal records relating to those incidents must be retained for five years.

Defences

The main defences to privacy claims in Brazil include the following.

• Consent – valid, specific and informed consent from the data subject under the LGPD, or the claimant’s clear consent to disclosure.
• Public interest and journalism – Article 3, I of the LGPD expressly excludes from its scope personal data processed exclusively for journalistic, artistic or academic purposes. Freedom of expression and the right to information under Article 5, IV and XIV of the Constitution operate as constitutional counterweights to privacy.
• Legal basis – processing that is necessary for contractual performance, compliance with a legal obligation, the exercise of rights in judicial proceedings or legitimate interests, as provided in Article 7 of the LGPD.
• Public domain – information already lawfully made public by the data subject.

Privacy violations in Brazil are addressed primarily through civil proceedings. There is no standalone criminal offence of “privacy violation” as such, although specific conduct may amount to a criminal offence – for example, unauthorised access to an information system or electronic device under Law 12,737/2012 (the “Carolina Dieckmann Law”). Data-related criminal matters are typically pursued by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, whereas civil claims may be brought directly by the affected party.

Civil proceedings are public as a rule, and secrecy is the exception. Courts may, however, order sealed proceedings or anonymisation where the dispute involves:

• sensitive personal data;
• intimate content;
• matters affecting minors; or
• trade or business secrets.

Article 189 of the CPC provides the procedural basis for confidentiality in cases involving personal or family dignity. To establish jurisdiction in Brazil, the claimant must show:

• a sufficient territorial connection, such as the domicile of one of the parties;
• the place where the harmful act occurred; or
• the place where the harmful act’s effects were felt.

Brazilian civil procedure adopts a form of cost-shifting through succumbing fees. Under Article 85 of the CPC, the losing party must reimburse the court costs advanced by the winner and pay the prevailing party’s legal fees, usually fixed by the court between 10% and 20% of the amount in dispute or, where there is no monetary award, assessed on an equitable basis with reference to objective fee parameters used by Brazilian Bar Associations. In practice, full recovery is uncommon in complex cases because court-awarded fees do not necessarily match the actual cost of representation. Court expenses (custas processuais) are also recoverable from the losing party.

One of the most distinctive features of Brazilian privacy law is the strength of the personality rights regime embedded in the Civil Code. These rights are inalienable, non-transferable and non-waivable, which means contractual clauses purporting to waive them entirely will generally not hold up. Consent to the use of image or personal data must be specific and may be withdrawn.

The right to be forgotten (direito ao esquecimento) has had a particularly uneven path in Brazil. After the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ, National High Court of Brazil) initially recognised a qualified version of the concept, the Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF, Federal Supreme Court) held in 2021 (RE 1,010,606) that there is no absolute right to suppress true and lawfully obtained historical information, balancing privacy against freedom of expression and collective memory. Even so, LGPD-based takedown, deletion and rectification requests remain available where data is no longer necessary, is inaccurate, or was processed without a proper legal basis. Strategically, the distinction between a civil law right-to-be-forgotten claim and an LGPD deletion request matters.

A Dual System: Criminal and Civil

Brazilian law offers two parallel and independent routes for addressing reputational harm: criminal prosecution under the Penal Code and civil liability under the Civil Code. They may be pursued together or separately, and each serves a different purpose. Criminal proceedings are mainly about accountability and deterrence; civil proceedings are focused on compensation, takedown relief and, where appropriate, rectification.

Criminal framework

The Brazilian Penal Code (Decree-Law 2,848/1940) defines three separate crimes against honour, which remain central to Brazilian reputation law.

• Slander (Article 138) – the false attribution to another person of a fact defined as a crime, with knowledge of its falsity. Penalty: six months to two years’ detention, plus a fine. Both falsity and the characterisation of the allegation as a criminal act are required elements.
• Defamation (Article 139) – the attribution to another person of facts that are offensive to their reputation. Truth is not a general defence. The core issue is whether offensive facts were attributed to the claimant. The exception is where the offended person is a public servant and the offensive act relates to the exercise of public duties (single paragraph of Article 139). Penalty: three months to one year’s detention, plus a fine.
• Insult (Article 140) – the offence against another person’s dignity or decorum. Unlike slander and defamation, insult does not require the attribution of specific facts; a generic verbal offence is enough. Aggravated insult involving race, colour, ethnicity, religion, origin, age or disability carries a penalty of one to three years’ imprisonment and a fine (Article 140, paragraph 3) and has been treated by the courts as a form of racism.

Penalties may be increased by one third under Article 141 when the offence is committed:

• against the President of Brazil or a foreign head of state;
• against a public official by reason of their duties;
• in the presence of several people or in a manner that facilitates dissemination; or
• against a person aged over 60 or a disabled person.

The penalty is doubled where the offence is committed for payment or promise of reward.

Civil framework

Civil defamation claims are grounded in Articles 186 and 927 of the Civil Code, which establish the general duty not to cause unlawful harm and the obligation to compensate for it. Those provisions are read together with the personality rights regime in Articles 20 and 21 and the constitutional protection of honour, image and dignity. A civil claim does not depend on a prior or parallel criminal complaint. That said, if a criminal court has already established that the offending conduct occurred, that finding can materially narrow the dispute in the civil action for damages.

Criminal Remedies

Criminal proceedings may lead to detention sentences, which are often converted into alternative penalties such as community service or fines, together with mandatory fines. The defendant may avoid criminal punishment if they fully retract the offence before judgment (Article 143). Where the statement was published through the media, the retraction must be issued through the same medium and remain available for at least the same period as the original publication.

Civil Remedies

Civil courts may order:

• injunctions preventing publication or requiring content removal under Article 300 of the CPC;
• moral damages for non-pecuniary harm to honour, dignity and reputation;
• material damages for proven financial loss attributable to the defamation, including costs incurred to stop the offence;
• rectification orders requiring a correction or response; and
• final removal or blocking of digital content.

The level of moral damages in Brazilian defamation cases is discretionary and usually turns on:

• gravity of the offence;
• scale of dissemination;
• claimant’s public or private status;
• defendant’s financial capacity; and
• degree of intent.

Awards have ranged from roughly BRL5,000 in minor online cases to BRL200,000 or more where there has been widespread media dissemination or substantial professional harm, particularly for high-profile claimants. Brazilian civil law does not recognise exemplary or punitive damages as a separate head of loss, but courts may take the defendant’s conduct into account when fixing the amount of moral damages.

Platform Liability and Content Removal

Following the STF’s June 2025 ruling, digital platforms remain shielded from civil liability for honour-related content unless they fail to comply with a specific court order requiring removal. In practice, claimants seeking urgent takedown relief should pursue interim injunctions in the civil courts against both the primary author of the content and the platform hosting it.

Other categories work differently. For most forms of unlawful content, the current framework follows a notice-and-takedown model under which platforms may incur liability upon receipt of an adequate extrajudicial notice. Where the notice concerns criminal offences, other unlawful acts, copyright violations or inauthentic accounts, the platform is expected to act promptly or risk civil liability, without first waiting for non-compliance with a court order.

Limitation Periods

For criminal complaints (“private criminal complaint”), crimes against honour are privately prosecuted in Brazil: only the victim or their authorised representative may initiate proceedings. The victim has six months from the date on which they become aware of the offender’s identity to file the queixa-crime (Article 38 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Missing that deadline extinguishes criminal liability. Civil defamation claims are subject to the three-year limitation period in Article 206, paragraph 3, V of the Civil Code, and the victim may bring the action directly.

Defences

The main defences to defamation claims under Brazilian law are as follows.

• Truth (exceptio veritatis) – Available in criminal proceedings only in limited circumstances: specifically, as a defence to slander, where the defendant may prove the truth of the attributed fact; and as a defence to defamation where the offended person is a public servant and the offensive fact relates to their public duties. Truth is not a general defence to defamation or insult.
• Retraction – Full retraction before conviction eliminates criminal liability (Article 143). A retraction in civil proceedings does not eliminate liability but may mitigate the amount of damages.
• Animus criticandi and animus narrandi – Where the defendant shows that the communication was made as legitimate criticism, academic analysis or fair reporting – rather than with specific intent to defame (animus diffamandi or animus calumniandi) – the offence is not made out. Intent to offend is a required element of all three crimes against honour.
• Privilege (Article 142) – Three categories of communication do not constitute criminal honour offences (but publication of privileged statements outside their original context may still generate liability):
1. statements made during court proceedings by a defendant or counsel;
2. unfavourable opinions in literary, artistic or scientific criticism, unless there is a clear intention to insult; and
3. unfavourable opinions issued by public officials in the discharge of their duties.
• Public interest journalism – The constitutional rights to freedom of the press and freedom of information (Article 5, IV and XIV) provide qualified protection for journalism. Courts apply a proportionality analysis, balancing the right to honour against the right to inform, particularly where the subject matter is genuinely in the public interest and the publication is factually accurate. Public figures are expected to tolerate greater scrutiny of their public conduct than private individuals.

Criminal proceedings for slander, defamation and insult are initiated by the victim or their legal representative through a private criminal complaint filed directly with the competent court. These are privately prosecuted offences; the Public Prosecutor’s Office does not ordinarily have standing to bring them, except in cases of racially aggravated insult under Article 140, paragraph 3, which STF case law now treats as a public prosecution offence.

Civil proceedings are independent of any criminal complaint and may run in parallel. São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro hear a large share of significant defamation cases because media and corporate activity is heavily concentrated in those jurisdictions. For internet publications, claims may generally be filed in the claimant’s domicile, the defendant’s domicile or the location of the server, and Brazilian courts tend to apply relatively flexible jurisdictional rules in online defamation matters.

Proceedings are generally public. Courts may, however, grant confidentiality or anonymisation where the subject matter involves:

• sensitive personal data;
• intimate content;
• minors;
• company secrets; or
• circumstances in which public proceedings would aggravate the claimant’s harm.

Applications for secrecy should be made at the outset and remain subject to the court’s discretion under Article 189 of the CPC.

Cost recovery in Brazilian defamation proceedings follows the general succumbing fees rules of the CPC. The losing party must pay the prevailing party’s legal fees, fixed by the court at 10–20% of the judgment value where there is a monetary award, or on an equitable basis in other cases. Court costs and expert costs are also recoverable from the losing party. In criminal proceedings, court costs are usually less significant because the private prosecution is conducted by the victim’s own legal counsel and does not ordinarily involve court fees of the same kind.

Several features of the Brazilian system deserve particular attention for practitioners and clients with cross-border exposure. First, legal entities cannot claim moral damages for honour-related offences under criminal law because Brazil does not recognise corporate criminal liability for crimes against honour. They may, however, pursue civil claims for moral damages where reputational harm affects their good name and economic standing, which the STJ has consistently recognised provided there is concrete evidence of reputational damage.

Second, the interaction between defamation law and the platform liability regime after the STF’s June 2025 ruling requires strategic planning. Given that crimes against honour remain subject to a judicial notice-and-takedown model, claimants need a specific court order to force platform action on honour-related content. That extra procedural step has no real equivalent in many other jurisdictions. In practice, experienced counsel often run two tracks at once: a civil interim injunction for removal and a criminal queixa-crime for accountability and deterrence.

Third, retraction plays an important tactical role. A well-timed and adequately prominent retraction by the defendant can eliminate criminal liability and materially reduce civil damages, which is why early settlement discussions are often preferable to full litigation, particularly in disputes involving media defendants.

Brazil does not have a single consolidated harassment statute comparable to the UK Protection from Harassment Act. Protection against harassment-type conduct instead comes from a combination of overlapping criminal and civil provisions.

Criminal Protections

The main criminal provisions used in harassment-type cases are as follows.

• Stalking (Article 147-A of the Penal Code, inserted by Law 14,132/2021) – criminalises repeated persecution by any means that threatens physical or psychological integrity, restricts freedom of movement, or invades or disturbs a person’s sphere of privacy or intimacy. Penalty: one to two years’ imprisonment, plus a fine. The penalty increases by half where the victim is a woman, child, older person or disabled person.
• Illegal constraint (Article 146) – coercing someone, through violence or serious threat, to do, refrain from doing, or tolerate something.
• Criminal threats (Article 147) – threatening someone with serious and unjust harm.
• Domestic and family violence (Law 11,340/2006, the “Maria da Penha Law”) – provides specific protections against moral and psychological harassment within domestic or family relationships, including emergency protective orders, specialised courts, and no-contact orders.
• Cyberbullying and digital harassment of minors (Law 14,811/2025, Digital ECA) – provides further protection against online harassment targeting children and adolescents.

Civil Protections

Under the Civil Code, persistent harassment that causes moral harm – whether in the workplace or in a broader personal context – entitles the victim to moral and material damages under Articles 186 and 927. Workplace moral harassment is also addressed by Article 483 of the Consolidated Labour Laws (CLT), which may amount to just cause for resignation and entitle the employee to full severance benefits.

Criminal remedies for harassment include detention sentences, which may be converted into community service or other alternative penalties, as well as restraining orders. Under the Maria da Penha Law, courts may impose protective measures including:

• no-contact orders;
• exclusion from the shared home; and
• electronic monitoring of the offender.

Civil remedies include moral and material damages together with injunctive relief. Awards for workplace moral harassment in Brazilian labour courts commonly range from BRL5,000 to BRL50,000, depending on severity and duration. For personal harassment causing psychological harm or public exposure, civil courts have awarded amounts in a similar range, with higher awards in aggravated cases.

Stalking under Article 147-A is a public prosecution offence, so proceedings are initiated by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and do not depend on a private complaint. Civil harassment claims are subject to the three-year limitation period in Article 206, paragraph 3, V of the Civil Code. The main defences are:

• lack of persecutory intent;
• legitimate exercise of rights – eg, debt recovery communications that do not cross the line into harassment; and
• consent.

Stalking is a public prosecution offence, so the Public Prosecutor has standing to bring proceedings, although in practice the victim’s complaint often triggers the investigation. Domestic violence cases under the Maria da Penha Law are heard in specialised criminal courts or specialised units within existing courts (Juizados de Violência Doméstica e Familiar). Civil harassment claims proceed in the ordinary civil courts. Proceedings may be anonymised or evidence sealed where the victim’s safety requires it, particularly in domestic violence cases and under Article 189 of the CPC.

The same succumbing fees rules that apply to civil proceedings generally apply to civil harassment claims. In criminal proceedings, the victim may act as an assistant to the prosecution and, if there is a conviction, seek compensation through the civil reparation mechanism established in Article 91, I of the Penal Code. Legal costs in criminal proceedings are usually borne by each party, with only very limited scope for recovery.

Data protection in Brazil is anchored at constitutional level through Article 5, LXXIX, inserted by Constitutional Amendment 115/2022, which recognises the protection of personal data, including in digital media, as a fundamental right. The primary statute is the General Data Protection Law (LGPD, Law 13,709/2018), which entered into force in September 2020, with administrative penalties enforceable from August 2021. Inspired by the EU GDPR, the LGPD establishes a comprehensive framework for the processing of personal data by natural or legal persons, in both the public and private sectors, regardless of processing medium or where the controller is located.

LGPD applies to any processing operation involving personal data carried out in Brazil, directed at individuals located in Brazil, or involving data collected in Brazil. The National Data Protection Authority (ANPD) is the competent regulator for LGPD enforcement and has powers to investigate, impose sanctions, and issue regulations and guidance.

The ANPD may impose the following administrative sanctions for LGPD violations:

• warnings;
• publication of the violation;
• blocking or deletion of personal data;
• temporary or permanent prohibition of processing activities; and
• fines of up to 2% of the Brazilian entity’s revenue in the previous financial year, excluding taxes, capped at BRL50 million per violation. Multiple infringements may lead to multiple fines, subject to the statutory cap for each violation.

In parallel, individuals harmed by unlawful data processing may bring civil claims for moral and material damages under the Civil Code and Article 42 of the LGPD. The LGPD adopts a strict liability regime for controllers where damage arises from unlawful processing, so the claimant does not need to prove fault. Operators (processors) may be jointly liable where they cause damage by breaching LGPD duties or the controller’s lawful instructions. Civil damages in LGPD cases are assessed on the same discretionary basis as other moral damages claims, with courts considering:

• the sensitivity of the data;
• the scope of the unauthorised disclosure; and
• the consequences for the claimant.

Civil data protection claims are subject to the general three-year limitation period under Article 206, paragraph 3, V of the Civil Code. ANPD administrative proceedings follow the authority’s own investigative timetable rather than a fixed statutory limitation period comparable to civil claims.

Key exemptions under Article 4 of the LGPD cover processing carried out:

• exclusively by natural persons for private and non-commercial purposes;
• exclusively for journalistic, artistic or academic purposes;
• exclusively for public safety, national defence or the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences; and
• involving data originating outside Brazil that does not involve communication to Brazilian processors or international transfers.

These exemptions are interpreted narrowly. In practice, the journalism and academic carve-out requires the processing to be exclusively directed to those purposes.

Data protection matters may arise in three forums:

• ANPD administrative proceedings;
• civil courts, for damages and injunctive relief; and
• criminal courts where the conduct also amounts to a criminal offence.

Criminal liability for specific data-related crimes is established chiefly under Law 12,737/2012, which criminalises unauthorised access to information systems. The Carolina Dieckmann Law, as it is commonly known, has since been amended to increase penalties, particularly where cyber intrusions cause financial loss.

Civil proceedings may be brought in any jurisdiction connected to the dispute, typically the defendant’s domicile or the place of processing. ANPD proceedings are administrative and may begin by complaint or ex officio. Where the case involves sensitive personal data or the identity of the data subject requires protection, courts may order confidentiality under Article 189 of the CPC.

Cost recovery in civil data protection proceedings follows the standard succumbing fees rules: the losing party bears the prevailing party’s legal fees, usually fixed at 10–20% of the judgment amount, together with other procedural costs. ANPD administrative proceedings do not generate costs in the civil procedural sense, but non-compliance with ANPD orders and the conduct of enforcement proceedings can create significant unrecoverable legal spend.

Brazil has a large and highly fragmented media landscape, and journalistic standards vary materially across outlets. Five providers remain especially influential:

• Globo (including TV Globo, the G1 news portal, and a broad network of regional and thematic channels, and by far the country’s most influential media group);
• Folha de S.Paulo (the leading broadsheet by circulation and a heavily accessed digital platform, with a strong reputation for investigative political journalism);
• O Estado de S.Paulo/Estadão (one of Brazil’s oldest newspapers, with strong financial and political coverage);
• UOL (the country’s largest digital content portal); and
• CNN Brasil (the Brazilian CNN franchise, launched in 2020, which has quickly become a relevant player in television news).

Standards vary considerably. Globo and the major broadsheets generally maintain internal editorial codes and have visible compliance routines around accuracy and corrections. At the same time, Brazil’s media landscape includes tabloid and celebrity-focused outlets where ethical standards are applied less consistently. The growth of digital-native news sites and individual influencers with very large audiences has also expanded the volume of content in circulation without an equivalent expansion in verification or editorial oversight.

Brazil’s media framework is shaped more by constitutional principles than by a single consolidated media statute. The Federal Constitution:

• prohibits censorship and anonymous speech;
• protects freedom of the press; and
• guarantees a right of reply (direito de resposta) in cases of inaccurate reporting (Articles 5 and 220).

Brazil has no dedicated press regulator. Although the federal government has operated a press secretariat (SECOM) for communications policy, day-to-day editorial oversight rests with the media companies themselves.

Broadcasting is regulated by the Ministry of Communications and Anatel (the National Telecommunications Agency), which grants and renews broadcasting concessions. How effective that oversight is remains open to debate, particularly because concession renewals have at times been affected by political considerations. CONAR (Conselho Nacional de Autorregulamentação Publicitária) is the advertising industry’s self-regulatory body; it issues and enforces advertising standards but has no authority over editorial content. The ANPD regulates data processing by media and technology companies within the scope of the LGPD.

Online platforms are regulated primarily through the Marco Civil da Internet (Federal Law 12,965/2014), as reshaped by the STF’s June 2025 ruling. Platforms operating in Brazil must maintain a local legal representative and are subject to Brazilian jurisdiction for takedown orders and enforcement of Brazilian judgments.

There is no independent press complaints commission or press ombudsman with formal authority over Brazilian editorial content. Complaints about broadcast content may be addressed to the Ministry of Communications or Anatel, which may in principle initiate proceedings for breaches of licence conditions, although regulatory intervention in editorial content is rare and legally sensitive given the constitutional prohibition on censorship. The right of reply (direito de resposta), guaranteed by the Constitution and regulated by Law 13,188/2015, allows individuals or legal entities defamed or injured by broadcast or published content to demand a response of equivalent prominence and duration. Courts enforce that right, and non-compliance may lead to damages and, in some cases, fines. CONAR handles advertising-specific complaints through a self-regulatory panel process, with sanctions including suspension or withdrawal of the offending advertisement.

Before the STF’s June 2025 ruling, digital platforms benefited from broad civil immunity for user-generated content under Article 19 of the Marco Civil da Internet, which required a specific court order and subsequent non-compliance before liability could arise. The STF replaced that model with a hybrid approach: protection was reduced for most categories of unlawful content, but preserved for crimes against honour. The following apply under the current framework.

• For crimes against honour (slander, defamation, insult) – platforms retain civil immunity unless they fail to comply with a specific court order to remove the content (essentially, the original Article 19 standard).
• For other unlawful content, including crimes, other illegal acts, and inauthentic accounts – platforms may incur liability once they receive an adequate extrajudicial notice and fail to act promptly (a notice-and-takedown model).
• For paid advertising and boosted content – a presumption of liability applies where the content has been declared unlawful, given the platform’s direct economic interest.
• For private communications (email, WhatsApp, videoconferencing) – confidentiality protections apply, and liability only arises pursuant to a court order. Public spaces, however, such as public groups and channels on messaging services, fall within the notice-and-takedown regime.

All platforms operating in Brazil must designate a legal representative with authority to receive and respond to legal proceedings.

Brazil does not have dedicated anti-SLAPP legislation at federal level. Courts instead address abusive litigation through the general principles of procedural bad faith and abuse of rights. Under Articles 79–81 of the CPC, a party acting in bad faith or for dilatory purposes may be sanctioned with payment of the opposing party’s legal fees and a fine of up to 10% of the value of the claim. Article 187 of the Civil Code treats abuse of rights as an unlawful act, which in theory can support a civil damages claim against a party using litigation primarily as a tool of intimidation rather than for legitimate vindication of rights.

In practice, obtaining sanctions for SLAPP-type behaviour requires clear evidence of bad faith, which is difficult to prove at an early stage. Civil society organisations, including Artigo 19 Brasil, have advocated for dedicated anti-SLAPP legislation, and bills have been introduced in Congress, but none has yet been enacted. Practitioners defending suspected SLAPPs should focus on early jurisdiction and standing challenges, proportionality arguments, and, where the facts allow, counterclaims for procedural abuse.

Brazil does not have legislation equivalent to the US SPEECH Act specifically designed to prevent enforcement of foreign defamation judgments. Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Brazil are governed by Articles 961–965 of the CPC and require homologation by the Superior Court of Justice (STJ). The STJ will refuse homologation if the foreign judgment:

• violates Brazilian sovereignty or public order;
• was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction under Brazilian private international law principles;
• has not become res judicata in the state of origin; or
• was served without proper notice to the defendant.

Public order is the main ground on which a foreign defamation judgment might be refused enforcement in Brazil. In principle, courts may apply that exception where the foreign judgment was rendered under a legal regime materially incompatible with Brazil’s constitutional protection of freedom of expression – for example, a judgment issued in a jurisdiction with criminal defamation penalties far more severe than those accepted under Brazil’s international human rights commitments. However, there is limited case law directly on this point in the defamation context, so each case still turns on its own facts.