The Third Panel of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ, Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice) issued a significant ruling regarding the liability of digital platforms for third-party content. In Special Appeal (REsp) 2.225.111, the court established that the consumer review website Reclame Aqui cannot be held automatically liable for negative reviews and complaints posted by consumers.
The lawsuit began when a company took legal action against the platform’s operator. The lawsuit sought to remove posts that the company deemed harmful to its corporate image, as well as the complete removal of its company profile from the platform. The company argued that the posts violated the website’s terms of service and infringed upon its corporate personality rights, such as trade name and reputation, regardless of whether users intended to defame the business.
Both the trial court and the Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo (TJSP, the São Paulo State Court of Appeals) rejected the claims. The courts found that the platform committed no unlawful act, but merely facilitated the lawful exercise of freedom of expression by consumers. The STJ upheld this ruling, outlining the boundaries of civil liability in digital environments.
Application Providers and the Prohibition of Prior Censorship
Reporting Justice Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva clarified that Reclame Aqui functions legally as an internet application provider. Its primary role is to serve as an avenue for receiving and publishing consumer experiences. Although the platform is not entirely passive — as it allows companies to respond, moderates content, and uses automated filters against abusive messages —, it has no legal obligation to perform prior review of all posted content.
According to the STJ ruling, requiring the website to verify the truthfulness of every report before publication would amount to prior censorship. Such a requirement would make the service unfeasible and undermine the core purpose of the platform, which is to bring consumers together to share information about suppliers. The court underscored that, in such cases, freedom of expression, the right to information, and the right to criticize must prevail.
Application of the Marco Civil da Internet and STF Topic 987
The Third Panel’s decision reinforced the application of Article 19 of the Marco Civil da Internet (Brazil’s Civil Rights Framework for the Internet) to disputes involving alleged defamatory content related to business operations. The general statutory rule establishes that platforms may only be held civilly liable for third-party content if they fail to comply with a specific court order mandating its removal.
The ruling also applied the legal standards set under Topic 987 of the Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF, Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court). According to the Supreme Court, an internet provider can be held directly liable when harm arises from acts committed by the platform itself. The reporting justice highlighted the specific circumstances triggering direct liability:
- Systemic failures in providing the service;
- Deficient content moderation;
- Incorrect or false attribution of consumer complaints;
- Improper disclosure of personal data;
- Deliberate retention of unlawful content.
In this case, the STJ concluded that none of these failures were present in the record. Furthermore, the STF requires providers to implement self-regulatory policies and effective customer support channels. The court recognized that the platform meets this standard by offering moderation tools, extrajudicial notice mechanisms, and a dedicated right of reply directly on the page.
Practical Takeaways for Businesses
The STJ ruling consolidates the principle that platforms have no legal duty to conduct prior verification of consumer-posted feedback. Because platform liability is not automatic and judicial removal of content requires meeting strict legal standards, companies operating in Brazil should prioritize using available digital self-regulation mechanisms.
Utilizing reply channels and reporting mechanisms provided under platform terms of service is the primary course of action endorsed by the judiciary to address grievances. Liability for application providers remains strictly limited to non-compliance with judicial removal orders or cases involving systemic failures by the platform, in accordance with the Marco Civil da Internet.
This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.
Deixe um comentário