Brazil’s Fight Against Election Disinformation Highlights Challenges in Preserving Free Speech

Brazilian Courts Face Dilemformation Dilemma as Freedom of Expression Clashes with Electoral Integrity

A growing challenge faces Brazilian electoral courts as they attempt to combat disinformation while respecting constitutional freedoms, according to legal expert Caio Mario S. Pereira Neto in recent discussions at the Stigler Center’s 2025 Antitrust and Competition Conference.

Pereira Neto highlighted how Brazil’s experience illustrates a paradoxical situation where anti-censorship principles can inadvertently enable flooding strategies that threaten electoral integrity. The problem reflects broader global concerns raised during the conference, where Tim Wu described how both state and non-state actors use speech itself as a weapon through harassment, troll attacks, and coordinated disinformation campaigns.

Since 2018, Brazil’s Regional Electoral Tribunals and Superior Electoral Court (TSE) have employed a case-by-case, content-based approach to combat electoral disinformation. Courts can order digital platforms to remove content “known to be untrue” during election cycles. In 2022, the TSE expanded its authority to also target “severely decontextualized” facts.

One notable example from the 2022 elections involved false claims that QR codes on new federal electoral IDs would automatically register votes for candidate Luís Início Lula da Silva. The TSE determined this claim was demonstrably untrue and ordered its removal from all platforms, asserting that the QR codes merely contained voter authentication data with no connection to any candidate.

This judicial approach has generated substantial litigation. Research from FGV-CEPI documented 1,492 cases addressing online disinformation during just the 2018 elections, comprising 2,850 total decisions including interim measures and appeals.

Brazil’s legal framework requires courts to balance freedom of expression against other constitutional principles, such as electoral fairness. However, this balancing act has sparked significant anti-censorship concerns, particularly among right-wing parties and their supporters. Although no systematic studies have conclusively shown political bias in court decisions, right-wing groups have been notably more vocal in their opposition to content removal orders.

This has created what Pereira Neto describes as a dangerous feedback loop. When courts remove content deemed disinformation, they inadvertently draw more attention to it—a variation of the Streisand Effect. The visibility of takedown orders fuels anti-censorship rhetoric, which then increases incentives for affected parties to publish even more extreme disinformation. Courts respond with further interventions, perpetuating the cycle.

“The courts’ efforts to protect election integrity and ban disinformation can ultimately generate additional harm to the information environment,” Pereira Neto explained. This creates a no-win situation: failing to strike down disinformation favors those flooding the public sphere with false content, but removing it can generate backlash and draw further attention to the disputed claims.

The complexity is compounded by the fact that court decisions themselves become part of the contested information environment. Judges cannot act from a neutral position outside the public debate, as their rulings inevitably generate strong reactions from affected parties.

Despite these challenges, Pereira Neto argues that courts have played an important role in protecting Brazilian electoral integrity. He suggests that judges should shift focus from targeting individual pieces of content to combatting organized disinformation campaigns, coordinated attacks on election integrity, and the financial backing of fake news.

Alternative strategies could include increasing transparency for paid social media advertisements, giving users more control over recommendation algorithms, temporarily limiting mass-forwarding capabilities during elections, restricting group sizes, and improving detection of automated accounts.

“There is no silver bullet to minimize the flooding of disinformation during elections,” Pereira Neto concluded. Understanding the dynamics of the information environment and potential unintended consequences of interventions is essential for designing effective policies that protect both freedom of expression and electoral integrity.

The Brazilian experience offers valuable lessons for other democracies grappling with similar challenges in an increasingly complex digital landscape where the lines between protecting speech and combating harmful disinformation continue to blur.