Case Summary and Outcome

A Brazilian civil court dismissed a lawsuit brought by a nutritionist against a social media science channel and its producers over a video that refuted misinformation about diabetes. The dispute began after the channel published a video explaining that diabetes is not caused by worms and warning about the dangers of unproven treatments, mentioning the nutritionist by name and citing his professional credentials. In 2024, a first instance court initially ruled in favor of the nutritionist, ordering the anonymization of his data and the payment of moral damages. After a review by the Supreme Court, which annulled that judgment for failing to apply its precedents on freedom of expression, the matter was sent back to the lower courts. The Court then found that the video was based on factual and scientific information, addressed a matter of public interest, and did not violate privacy or data protection rights. It concluded that the social media channel acted within the legitimate exercise of freedom of expression and dismissed all claims.

Columbia Global Freedom of Expression notes that some of the information contained in this report was derived from secondary sources.

Facts

On June 30, 2023, Dr. Ana Bonassa, a Brazilian biologist and science commentator, posted a video on the Instagram channel Nunca Vi 1 Cientista (“Never Seen 1 Scientist”) responding to health misinformation circulating online. The video addressed claims made by nutritionist André Luiz Lança, who had been promoting so-called “parasite protocols” as a treatment for diabetes. In it, Dr. Bonassa explained that diabetes is not caused by worms but by problems with insulin production or absorption, warning viewers about the dangers of abandoning medical treatment. As part of the post, she showed a screenshot of Lança’s public Instagram profile, where his professional registration number and location were visible.

In July 2023, Lança filed a lawsuit in the São Paulo Small Claims Court against Nunca Vi 1 Cientista, its marketing and production company Supernova Produções, and Facebook Serviços Online do Brasil Ltda., which represents Instagram in Brazil. He alleged a violation of his privacy and misuse of personal data, claiming that the video had used his image and professional information without consent and had implied that his conduct had caused harm or even death to patients. He sought a court order for the removal or anonymization of his data and compensation for moral damages.

In their defense, Nunca Vi 1 Cientista and Supernova Produções argued that the video was a legitimate act of scientific communication aimed at correcting misinformation on a matter of public health. They stated that the information shown in the video was already publicly available and that it did not accuse Lança of any crime. Supernova Produções also noted that Lança had repeatedly shared scientifically questionable content on his own social media profiles – such as posts suggesting that aloe vera could cure cancer or that oregano was more effective than antibiotics – thus illustrating the public relevance of the video’s criticism and the risks associated with such claims.

On August 23, 2024, Judge Larissa Valieris of the São Paulo Small Claims Court, delivered the decision and treated the case as a dispute between Lança’s right to privacy and the defendants’ claim to freedom of expression. In short, although the Court acknowledged that the video dealt with a public matter, it held that the inclusion of identifying details – such as Lança’s name, professional registration number, and city – was unnecessary and had violated his personal rights. The Court therefore ordered Nunca Vi 1 Cientista to anonymize the information, under penalty of a daily fine of 100 Brazilian reais (approximately US$19 in November 2025), and to pay moral damages of 1,000 reais (approximately US$190 in November 2025).

Nunca Vi 1 Cientista and others, including Dr. Bonassa and her colleague Dr. Laura Marise de Freitas, who co-hosts the channel, filed a constitutional complaint (72.140/SP) directly before the Brazilian Supreme Court. They argued that the lower court’s ruling had disregarded the binding precedent established in ADPF 130/DF and ADI 7055/DF, in which, respectively, the Court struck down the Press Law and affirmed the constitutional primacy of freedom of expression, especially in journalistic contexts or matters of public concern. They argued that the small claims court had restricted speech on a matter of public interest (scientific misinformation) by ordering the anonymization of information that was already publicly available and by imposing damages based on the content of lawful criticism.

On November 27, 2024, the complaint was reviewed by Justice Dias Toffoli, who agreed to hear the case and examined whether the lower court’s judgment conflicted with the precedents governing freedom of expression and communication. The ruling noted that the Nunca Vi 1 Cientista channel operated as a legitimate medium for disseminating scientific information and that its video had aimed to counter health-related falsehoods capable of endangering the public: “In the contested video […] there is an expression of critical opinion regarding the conduct of a public social media profile and a discussion grounded in both factual and scientific data about diabetes, as well as a firm statement that ‘diabetes is not caused by worms’ and that this disinformation is used to promote a product called ‘parasite protocol’, and therefore should be reported”. (in bold and underlined in the original) [pp. 20-21, Constitutional Complaint] The Court also noted that the lower court had not properly considered the broader constitutional framework protecting critical and journalistic expression, particularly in matters involving public health.

Accordingly, Justice Toffoli concluded that the lower court’s ruling failed to conform to the standards of ADPF 130/DF and, therefore, annulled the first instance judgment and ordered that a new decision be issued in accordance with the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on freedom of expression and the press.

On December 5, 2024, Judge Filipe Tavares was assigned to issue a new first-instance decision, this time in accordance with the binding precedents of the Brazilian Supreme Court.

Decision Overview

Judge Tavares issued the decision. The central issue for the Court’s determination was whether the post on Instagram was protected by the right to freedom of expression.

The Court emphasized that the Brazilian Constitution protects freedom of expression as a fundamental right in Articles 5, IV and IX, and 220 and recalled the ADPF 130 case, in which the Supreme Court had declared that “full freedom of the press is an intangible asset that represents the most eloquent testament to the political and cultural development of an entire people”. [p. 2] However, the Court also noted that freedom of expression is not absolute and that the Constitution itself establishes limits, such as the prohibition of anonymity (Article 5, IV) and the protection of privacy, private life, honor, and image (Article 5, X). [pp. 2-3]

Considering this normative framework, the Court concluded that “the video produced by the first defendant, although containing criticism of [Lança], does not appear to exceed the limits of the right to criticism or the public interest in discussing issues related to health and nutrition, as it constitutes the exercise of the right and duty of professionals in the field to warn about the risks of alternative treatments for diabetes without scientific evidence”. [p. 3]

Rejecting one of Lança’s arguments that the defendants had violated the General Data Protection Law (Law No. 13.709/2018), the Court added that “the video produced by the first defendant appears to fall within the legitimate exercise of freedom of expression and the discussion of matters of public interest. The use of [Lança’s] data, such as his name and professional registration number, is proportionate and necessary to the informative purpose of the content”. [p. 3]

Quoting ADI 4815, in which the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of unauthorized biographies, the Court emphasized that “public figures or individuals engaged in activities of public interest are subject to closer scrutiny by society”. [p. 3]

In this context, the Court concluded that there was no compensable moral damage and, on the contrary, referring to the “chilling effect”, observed that “a possible conviction of the defendants could discourage the production of critical and investigative content on matters of public interest, which would be detrimental to the free flow of information and to democratic debate”. [p. 4] All of Lança’s arguments were dismissed, and the defendants were acquitted of all claims.

On February 3, 2025, Lança filed an appeal, and in October 2025, the case was forwarded to the appellate court, where it remains pending judgment.