Presenter: Caio Mario da Silva Pereira Neto, Professor at FGV São Paulo Law School.

Discussant: Helena Alviar García, Professor at Sciences Po Law School.

On July 30, 2025, President Trump imposed 50% tariffs on imports from Brazil and sanctioned a sitting Brazilian Supreme Court Justice, both partially because of Brazil’s online content moderation decisions. This is an extreme, but not an isolated event: worldwide, legislators and regulators struggle to craft public policies that address problems of disinformation and online harassment while protecting the freedom of expression—leading to increasing international confrontations. One key question in content moderation is content adjudication—or who is responsible for deciding what type of speech violates the law and should be taken down (or not). This article contributes to this debate by presenting the results of a six-year, large empirical and qualitative project on the adjudication of fake news disputes by Brazilian Courts from 2018 onwards. It examines what led Brazilian judges to order the takedown of online content, which social networks and types of content were most affected by judicial decisions, and whether there is evidence that incumbent politicians abused the system, among other factors. It also critically analyzes the evolution of this novel court-driven content moderation regime—one in which both the Brazilian Supreme Court and Superior Electoral Tribunal play an increasingly active role in policing online discourse—with significant implications for the Brazilian information ecosystem, democratic institutions, and the Court's reputation. Ultimately, the Brazilian experience teaches many positive and negative lessons to other countries around the world, rethinking their online content moderation regulatory regimes.