For the final installment of MediaWell’s video essay series on transnational digital governance, researcher and lawyer Camila Tsuzuki explains the background of the key legal cases currently shaping Brazil’s digital regulatory landscape. The Brazilian government is currently deliberating legal safeguards surrounding online trust, safety, and content moderation. Tsuzuki explores these measures’ potential impacts on the use of biometric technologies, platform capacity and transparency, and privacy and data protection.
Hi. I’m Camila Tsuzuki. I’m head of research at InternetLab, an independent research center based in Brazil that focuses on human rights and digital technologies. I’m a lawyer and I also serve as the coordinator of a working group on intermediary liability at the Brazilian chapter of Internet Society. My research focuses on platform governance and the impacts of digital regulation on freedom of expression.
What key issues or topics have you been keeping an eye on over the last year?
There are basically three subjects I have been monitoring over the last year.
The first one refers to the debate around age assurance systems. In September, the Brazilian government enacted the Digital Statute for Children and Adolescents.
Similar to Australia and the United Kingdom, the law requires digital services and operating systems to implement age assurance mechanisms and to prevent children and adolescents from being exposed to harmful or inappropriate content. The law will enter into force March 2026, but there is still no defined position on which systems platforms will be required to use. This raises important concerns regarding privacy, data protection, potential misuse of biometric technologies, and the proportionality of available models.
The second one is the debate about intermediary liability on third party content.
In June, the Supreme Court revised Brazil’s intermediary liability framework, establishing a notice and takedown regime for third party content involving criminal offenses or unlawful acts. However, there is still uncertainty about how the decision will be implemented by both platforms and the judiciary, as well as the impacts for human rights such as freedom of speech.
The ruling increased platform responsibility for content moderation, which in turn heightens reliance on AI moderation systems without introducing adequate transparency obligations to clarify how these duties will be carried out or how users fundamental rights will be safeguarded.
And the third issue concerns AI regulation, particularly rules aimed at combating deepfakes against girls and women, as well as those threatening electoral integrity. Many countries are currently debating AI regulation, and Brazil faces a similar situation. The country still lacks a comprehensive AI law and legislative progress has stalled due to limited political support. In 2026, Brazil will hold a presidential election which is expected to take place in a highly polarized environment with significant risks of misinformation, including AI generated content. As a result, there is an expectation that the electoral justice will seek to address these challenges through electoral resolutions. However, the scope of these measures are limited to electoral matters and [do] not extend to broader issues such as transparency or platform accountability outside the lateral context. I think that these developments will shape expectations for transparency, internal platform procedures, and the oversight capacities of public authorities.