Case Summary and Outcome

The Federal Supreme Court (STF) of Brazil, in a ruling by Justice Alexandre de Moraes, suspended the operations of the social network Rumble in the country for failing to comply with judicial orders. The Court had ordered the platform to remove the account of a blogger who fled to the United States while under investigation for crimes including criminal organization, slander, defamation, insult, and racism. Despite not having been served due to the lack of a legal representative in Brazil, Rumble’s CEO stated that the platform would not comply with the order. The Court emphasized that all companies, whether domestic or foreign, must follow Brazilian laws and judicial decisions – including having a local representative – stressing that freedom of expression is not absolute and may be restricted to protect democracy and public security. It ordered that, to resume operations in Brazil, Rumble must fully comply with court orders and appoint a legal representative.

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

---

Facts

On September 20, 2021, the Brazilian Federal Police sought the preventive arrest of Brazilian blogger Allan Lopes dos Santos, then host of the “Terça Livre” channel, which had over 800,000 subscribers at the time. Under Article 312 of the Brazilian Code of Criminal Procedure, preventive detention may be ordered, among other circumstances, “to safeguard public order, economic order, for the convenience of criminal proceedings, or to ensure the enforcement of criminal law when there is evidence of the crime’s occurrence, sufficient indications of authorship, and a risk posed by the accused remaining at liberty”.

The Federal Police submitted that dos Santos presented himself as a journalist on social media channels as a pretext to “attack members of public institutions, discredit the Brazilian electoral process, reinforce political polarization, and incite hostility within Brazilian society by undermining the credibility of the branches of government, among other crimes”. [p. 2] The police report also described dos Santos’s behavior as habitual and stated that he allegedly committed offenses under Article 2 of Law 12,850/2013 (“Promoting, establishing, financing, or joining a criminal organization, either personally or through an intermediary”); Articles 138, 139, 140, and 286 of the Brazilian Penal Code (slander, defamation, insult, and incitement to crime, respectively); and Article 20, § 2º of Law 7,716/1989 (inducing or inciting discrimination or prejudice based on race, color, ethnicity, religion, or national origin through mass media, social media platforms, the internet, or any form of publication). [p. 3]

Dos Santos had also attracted police attention in relation to another incident – the gatherings in front of Brazilian Army barracks advocating for military intervention and the return of the dictatorship on April 19, 2020. That event led to the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGR) requesting the initiation of Inq. 4.828/DF. The PGR also requested measures such as search and seizure operations and the lifting of banking secrecy against dos Santos, who was allegedly involved in the purportedly criminal acts. [pp. 3-4] According to a statement from the Prosecutor General’s Office, “[t]he administrator of the Terça Livre channel, Allan dos Santos, used a tweet to indirectly defend a military coup during the participation of the President of the Republic in the April 19 demonstration. If I understood correctly, what he is saying is that people cannot be prohibited from advocating for intervention. If that happens, then we really do need an intervention,” he wrote. Days later, at the end of the anti-democratic demonstration on May 3, he posted a photo showing his middle finger in front of the Supreme Court, with the caption: ‘As the protest ends, I couldn’t miss the chance to share my opinion on those who tear up the Constitution’” (bold in the original). [p. 4] The statement also noted that “[t]his is a profitable business, particularly when millions of people are exposed to videos with striking titles such as ‘Bolsonaro rebuts conspirators’, ‘Bolsonaro issues ultimatum to saboteurs and intrusions’, ‘Bolsonaro invades STF’, ‘Bolsonaro’s strength is greater than Congress and STF’, ‘Bolsonaro and the Armed Forces united in an agreement for Brazil’, and ‘STF decided to eliminate Bolsonaro’” (bold in the original). [p. 4]

During the investigations, dos Santos moved to the United States, where he still lives.

On October 5, 2021, the Federal Supreme Court (STF), in a ruling by Justice Alexandre de Moraes, ordered the preventive arrest of dos Santos and directed platforms such as YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and then Twitter to block his channels. The decision was based on the argument that these channels “are used as a true protective shield for engaging in illegal activities, and considering that Allan Lopes dos Santos has left the national territory during the investigations and continued committing his criminal actions from the United States, this has granted him a de facto criminal immunity clause, allowing him to persist in committing the crimes already identified by the Federal Police, without showing any restraint in spreading his criminal discourse”.[p. 15 of the decision from October 5, 2021] After his channels were blocked, dos Santos created new accounts on other social media platforms, which resulted in the Supreme Court imposing a daily fine of 15,000 Brazilian reais (approximately $3,000 USD in March 2025) on April 22, 2022. [p. 5]

In addition, in Pet 12.404/DF — in which the STF suspended the operations of the social network X (formerly Twitter) in Brazil — on March 8, 2024, the Federal Police added that “from an uncertain location, the profiles REVISTAEXILIO and TERCALIVRE-CORTES announced that ALLAN LOPES DOS SANTOS will initiate a project to expose the federal police officers involved in the ongoing cases in the STF, which relate to criminal offenses involving a criminal organization. The profile of ALLAN LOPES DOS SANTOS on Instagram, @allanldsantos, similarly stated that he will expose all the police chiefs involved in the cases under the reporting of Minister ALEXANDRE DE MORAES, with records of other profiles joining the call, claiming they will assist him in this endeavor” (emphasis in the original). [p. 6]

In the U.S., dos Santos continued to rally other profiles to assist him in this effort. The Federal Police reported, for instance, that an anonymous profile began sending emails with threats to the police officer responsible for leading the inquiries into Fake News and Digital Militias. Other profiles followed, supporting dos Santos, exposing and attempting to intimidate law enforcement authorities. [pp. 6-9]

On February 9, 2025, after finding that dos Santos had activated his profile on Rumble, the Brazilian Supreme Court ordered the platform to block his account and prevent the creation of any new ones, under the threat of a daily fine of 50,000 Brazilian reais (approximately $10,000 USD in March 2025). The Court also suspended the transfer of monetization revenues from services used for donations, advertising payments, and the registration of supporters, as well as monetization from live broadcasts, including those conducted through the provision of transmission keys to the profiles. Additionally, Rumble was notified to prove the regularity and validity of its legal representation in Brazil. [p. 9]

On February 10, 2025, once notified, Rumble’s lawyers resigned from their mandate.

On February 19, 2025, the Court notified Rumble once again, ordering the company to indicate its legal representative in Brazil, under the threat of suspension of its operations in the country. [p. 10] Although the Court Officer certified that he was unable to notify the company, between February 19 and 20, Rumble’s CEO, Chris Pavlovski, stated on the social network X, in English and Portuguese, that he would not comply with the Supreme Court’s decisions, posting: “Hi @alexandre. Rumble will not comply with your illegal orders. Instead, we will see you in court. Best, Chris Pavlovski” and “Hi @alexandre We’re in receipt of another illegal and secret order from last night which demands us to comply by tomorrow night. You have no authority on Rumble here in the USA, unless you go through the U.S. government. I’ll repeat — see you in court. Best, Chris Pavlovski”. Pavlovski continued posting about the matter, stating “Make Brazil Free Again” and “To all the Brazilian people, I may not be Brazilian, but I can promise you, no one will fight harder for your freedom of expression rights than me. I will fight to the very end, relentlessly, without folding”, among others.

The STF was then required to determine whether it should suspend the Rumble platform in Brazil.

---

Decision Overview

Justice Alexandre de Moraes delivered the unanimous decision of the STF. The central issue for the Court was whether the actions of Rumble, particularly its non-compliance with judicial orders and attempts to evade Brazilian legal jurisdiction, posed a threat to democratic processes and public order significant enough to justify the suspension of the platform in the country.

Justice de Moraes examined the legal framework for the regulation of activities conducted on the internet in Brazil. These activities are regulated by Law 12.965/14 (“Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet” or “Marco Civil da Internet”) and are guided by principles such as free enterprise, consumer protection, social purpose of the network, freedom of expression and communication, personal data protection, (Articles 2º and 3º), as well as respect for human rights (Article 7º, XIII). [pp. 11-12] Citing Article 19 of the Law, Justice de Moraes added that “[t]he Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet establishes the civil liability of the internet application provider for damages arising from content generated by third parties and identified as infringing, if the measures determined by judicial order are not executed within the stipulated time frame and within the technical limits of the service” (emphasis in the original). [p. 12] He also noted that Article 11 of the Law authorizes the “request for information about telematic services directly from Brazilian companies that are subsidiaries of foreign companies when established under Brazilian law and headquartered in Brazil, since, under Brazilian legislation, all companies operating in the national territory must strictly adhere to the Brazilian legal framework”. [pp. 13-14] Quoting Article 997, VI, of the Brazilian Civil Code, Justice de Moraes explained that every company in Brazil must nominate a representative or administrator, “because the administrators are jointly liable to the company and to third parties harmed, for fault in the performance of their duties (Civil Code, Article 1016), since the company acquires rights, assumes obligations, and acts judicially through administrators (Civil Code, Article 1022)”. [p. 14] He noted that Articles 1137 and 1138 of the Civil Code require that foreign companies have a representative to ensure they follow the same rules as local companies and so, even in the case of a foreign company, “to be able to operate legally in Brazil, it requires prior authorization from the federal government, according to Article 11, § 2º of the Law of Introduction to the Norms of Brazilian Law (‘[…] they may not, however, have in Brazil: branches, agencies, or establishments, before their constitutive acts are approved by the Brazilian Government, being subject to Brazilian law’)” (emphasis in the original). [p. 14]

On telecommunications services, Justice de Moraes explained that Articles 86 and 171, § 1º of Law 9.472, of July 16, 1997, which regulates telecommunications services, require that any company providing these services using satellites, regardless of whether access occurs from national or foreign territory, must be constituted according to Brazilian law. Referring to the Budapest Convention, the Judge added that although Brazil has only recently acceded, “Brazilian law will be applied as long as there is a service offered in Brazil”. [pp. 16-17] Accordingly, Justice de Moraes found that Brazilian law requires that “companies managing internet services in Brazil must have their headquarters in national territory, as well as comply with court orders determining the removal of unlawful content generated by third parties, according to the provisions previously mentioned, under the risk of personal liability”. [p. 17]

In the case of Rumble, Justice de Moraes noted that, up to this point, the company had engaged in illegal and disrespectful conduct towards the Brazilian Judiciary as the orders to block the profiles of the individuals under investigation were not complied with. He added that “[t]he unlawfulness is even more serious because, even when duly notified to comply with the orders to block profiles, whose posts reproduce criminal content under investigation, the platform disobeyed the court order and, criminally, chose to publish a message inciting hatred against this SUPREME COURT, as seen in the post by CHRIS PAVLOVSKI on February 19, 2025” (emphasis in the original). [p. 17] He stated that Pavlovski “confuses FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION with a nonexistent FREEDOM OF AGGRESSION, deliberately conflates CENSORSHIP with CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION ON HATE SPEECH AND INCITEMENT TO ANTIDEMOCRATIC ACTS, ignoring the teachings of one of the greatest liberals in defense of freedom of expression in history, JOHN STUART MILL” (emphasis in the original). [p. 18] Citing the philosopher Mill and Justices Holmes and Brandeis of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice de Moraes added that although the precursors of the free market of ideas theory were against restricting the circulation of ideas, they emphasized, “from a utilitarian perspective, the exceptional possibility of restricting this right in cases that cause unjust harm […]”. [pp. 18-19] Referring to other thinkers, such as Lafer, Berlin, Shapiro, and Sabine, Justice de Moraes noted that even among classical liberals, and in respect to the principle of harm, freedom can be relativized in exceptional cases, such as “hate speech, Nazi acts, misogyny, racism, incitement to violence, to antidemocratic acts, coups d’état”. [p. 20] He referred to Justice Holmes’s opinion in the famous American case of Schenck v. United States (249 U.S. 47, 1919) which allows the restriction of freedom of expression in cases of “clear and present danger”. [p. 20]

To characterize the seriousness of Rumble’s conduct, Justice de Moraes mentioned that the repeated criminal use of various social networks is also “under investigation by the European Union for failing to prevent hate speech and misinformation from being disseminated” (emphasis in the original). [p. 23] He noted that, due to the unlawful conduct of various social networks, the European Parliament approved two laws, the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA), to “ensure a safer, fairer, and more transparent digital environment.” and cited an ongoing investigation in Australia, where the platform X “had not cooperated with the competent authorities in the investigation of child abuse practices”. [pp. 23-24]

Justice de Moraes set out instances that demonstrated Rumble’s disregard for Brazilian law and stated that its conduct, both under Brazilian law and in relation to the Supreme Court, represented a serious attack on democratic institutions, elections, and the rule of law, in the following terms. He said that “The attempt by RUMBLE INC. to place itself outside Brazilian jurisdiction — IN GRAVE DISREGARD OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION AND SOVEREIGNTY — will amplify the massive spread of illicit messages, leading to a significant amount of disinformation and enabling SERIOUS THREATS TO DEMOCRACY” (emphasis in the original). [pp. 24-25] He added that “The attempt by RUMBLE INC. to operate outside Brazilian law clearly demonstrates its intent to maintain and allow the instrumentalization of social networks, with the massive dissemination of disinformation and the potential for the harmful and unlawful use of technology and artificial intelligence to clandestinely direct the will of the electorate, putting Democracy at risk, as has been attempted in Brazil before and in several countries worldwide by the new extremist digital populism” (emphasis in the original). [p. 26]

Justice de Moraes acknowledged that the realization of democracy depends on factors such as legitimacy, honesty, efficiency, transparency and the freedom of voters to choose candidates, and pointed out that free choice presupposes that “the conditions under which each citizen will form their convictions for choice must be sound, equitable, and free from artifices and spurious interference, whether through the abuse of economic or political power, or through the illicit use of various media, including digital platforms, to produce massive disinformation, with the dissemination of fraudulent news and anti-democratic hate speech”. [p. 25] Citing the book “A máquina do ódio”, written by journalist Patrícia Campos Mello, he emphasized that “the spread of fake news is much faster than that of true news,” [p. 25] and that this “new reality” demands that constitutional principles such as sovereignty, citizenship, political pluralism, and others provided in articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Federal Constitution, be “respected by all national or foreign companies operating in national territory” (emphasis in the original). [p. 27]

Referring to Pet 12.404/DF, the case in which the Supreme Court suspended X in Brazil, Justice de Moraes noted that here, as in that case, the Court “made every possible effort and provided all opportunities for RUMBLE INC. to comply with judicial orders and continue its services in the country”. [p. 31] However, given its continued noncompliance, suspension was the appropriate measure.

Accordingly, given the “repeated, conscious, and voluntary non-compliance with court orders, in addition to the attempt to evade Brazilian legal and judicial authority to establish an environment of total impunity and a ‘lawless land’ in Brazilian social networks” and the risk “consistent with the maintenance and expansion of the instrumentalization of RUMBLE INC., through the actions of extremist groups and digital militias on social networks, with the massive dissemination of Nazi, racist, fascist, hate speech, and antidemocratic messages” Justice de Moraes ordered the suspension of Rumble in Brazil until it fulfills all obligations determined by the Court (emphasis in the original). [p. 31]

Note: Although this lawsuit is confidential, the STF has been disclosing the rulings that are issued.

---