Article 19 of the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet, particularly its paragraph 1, establishes that application providers may only be held civilly liable if, after receiving a specific court order, they fail to remove content identified with sufficient precision to allow its unequivocal location.
Brazilian case law has traditionally interpreted this requirement as demanding the indication of the exact URL (Uniform Resource Locator) of the allegedly unlawful content. However, in a landmark decision, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), in Special Appeal No. 2,239,457, upheld the understanding of the lower courts and extended the same legal treatment to hashtags as identifiers of infringing content. The Court recognized that such markers can fulfill the requirement of precise identification under Article 19, particularly in cases involving sensitive content related to minors. As a result, platforms are required to monitor and assess content indexed under the specified hashtags and remove any unlawful material associated with them.
The case arose from a situation involving minors with a significant digital presence who became targets of coordinated online attacks on a social media platform, including serious allegations against their family. In the initial claim, filed before a court in Rio de Janeiro, the plaintiffs—represented by their mother—, requested the removal of content grouped under specific hashtags that aggregated multiple harmful posts.
The case also received particular attention due to the application of the “Digital Child and Adolescent Statute” (ECA Digital), which entered into force in March 2026 and establishes specific rules for the protection of minors in online environments. In this context, the statute played a central role in reinforcing principles such as prevention, precaution, duty of care, and the doctrine of the best interests of the child.
The ruling is therefore paradigmatic and signals a shift in the interpretation of intermediary liability in Brazil. It aligns with a broader movement in Brazilian constitutional jurisprudence, particularly in decisions by the Supreme Court (STF) in cases such as Themes 987 and 533, which recognized a partial and progressive unconstitutionality of Article 19.
This evolving interpretation reflects an expansion of digital protection standards, especially for vulnerable groups such as women and minors, and indicates a more proactive approach to content removal obligations.
