After long months of growing tensions between Elon Musk’s platform, X (formerly Twitter), and the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF, in Portuguese), led by Justice Alexandre de Moraes, resulting in being blocked from operating in the country in August 2024, the situation heads towards a backdown from the tech giant accepting to comply Brazilian regulations.

The social media platform X has found itself at the centre of a legal battle in Brazil, threatening its operation in the country. The dispute stems from X’s refusal to comply with Brazilian court orders, including appointing a legal representative and addressing harmful content such as hate speech and misinformation.

Digital Sovereignty in Action: A Brazilian Tale

The Brazilian regulations require foreign companies to have a local representative to ensure accountability and compliance with the country’s legal framework, especially the Marco Civil da Internet. After X closed its Brazilian office, arguing censorship from part of the STF, the company failed to meet this legal requirement, further igniting tensions. On the 28th of August, X received a court order to appoint a legal representative for its operations in Brazil in 24 hours, which failing to comply would lead to blocking the platform on the Brazilian territory. On the 31st of August, Brazilian users were unable to access the social platform.

Elon Musk, a self-declared free speech defender, however, views these actions as a direct threat to freedom of expression. He has vocally criticized Justice de Moraes, labelling him as an undemocratic pseudo-judge and accusing him of censorship. The legal struggle dragged Starklink Holding, Musk’s satellite internet provider, to fray. The court has frozen up assets to cover the fines imposed.

The refusal to comply with the court order to take down profiles suspected of disseminating fake news and disinformation demonstrates the resistance to respect Brazilian regulation and overall sovereignty. Musk’s supporters argue that this legal battle represents a broader issue of government overreach. The legal struggle bordered personal attacks, including Musk sharing an AI image generated comparing Justice de Moraes as a mix of Voldemort and Sith Lord from the Harry Potter and Star Wars franchises, respectively.

Musk’s critics point out the importance of upholding local laws, especially in the digital age. An open letter titled ‘Against Big Tech’s Attack on Digital Sovereignties’ asked for respect for Brazilian digital sovereignty to build a democratic cyberspace and socioeconomic development. It was signed by over 50 scholars and intellectuals, including Shoshana Zuboff, author of “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power,” and scholars from prestigious centres like MIT, Stanford, the London School of Economics, the Paris School of Economics, and more.

Despite Musk’s criticisms, X is now taking steps to comply. As of late September 2024, X named Raquel de Oliveira Conceição as its legal representative in Brazil, a key move to restore its operations in the country. The company is also working to meet the court’s previous demands regarding content moderation. At the moment of the writing (1st October), X is still blocked in Brazil. In the following weeks, if the cooperation spirit presented by the tech company continues, the STF is expected to lift the ban, following the proof of payment of the fines imposed.

The Shift Toward Digital Sovereignty

Without entering into the constitutionality or procedural aspects of the measures imposed by the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court, the case highlights a growing global debate on digital sovereignty, especially what Anu Bradford calls ‘vertical battles’, clashes between tech companies and governments¹. The recent years discussions over strengthening the bridge between sovereignty and cyberspace gained importance in the public and policy debate space. Under different labels and justifications, the terms ‘data sovereignty’, ‘cyber-sovereignty’, ‘technical sovereignty’, and ‘digital sovereignty’ represent a consolidated trend of attempts to assert government control over data flows and combat fake news and disinformation, which can affect elections and the normal functioning of institutions.

Tech companies are now seen by many as having amalgamized too much power and influence. On both sides of the equator, slow wheels of governments are moving to reign in digital giants. The European Union’s GDPR, DMA, and DSA are frequently appointed as examples par excellence; however, other legislation has sprung up in Australia (the Digital Platform Service Act), China (the Personal Information Protection Law), South Korea (the Telecommunication Business Act), and Brazil (Bill 2630/2020), among others.

Chander and Sun present a relevant reflection analysing the apparent contradiction of the term ‘digital sovereignty’. Sovereignty was traditionally understood to mean having control over a geographical area. However, as Chander and Sun contend, the widespread use of the Internet and the importance of online activities in everyday life make cyberspace control an essential component of territorial control². This factor is clearly shown by Internet shutdowns imposed by authoritarian governments to suppress protests and civil demonstrations like X’s banning by the Venezuelan regime in the context of the disputed elections in August 2024.

For X, the tension between adhering to national laws and maintaining an open platform is a challenge the platform is likely to face in other jurisdictions. The internet is not the wild west. Respect for countries’ sovereignty and free speech should go hand in hand, even though finding a compromise that respects the different legal frameworks, and cultural norms can be a herculean task.

Other Brazilian Digital Sovereignty Judicial Cases

It is not the first time that Brazilian courts have clashed with tech companies to uphold their authority. On three occasions, WhatsApp was suspended in Brazil in 2015 and twice in 2016. The same happened to Telegram in 2022 and 2023. The former, ordered by Justice de Moraes and lifted following Pavel Durov, Telegram’s founder, apologised and complied with the Supreme Court decision and appointed a legal representative for the Brazilian operations.

Another worth mentioning case was the inclusion of Telegram Brazil’s and Google Brazil’s directors in a criminal investigation for their incessant campaigns against Bill 2630, previously mentioned, and labelled the Fake News Bill, which was later archived as requested by the Federal Prosecutor Office after analysing the evidence.

The temporary bans on social media platforms as forms of coercion to comply with national regulation demonstrate the Brazilian authorities’ will to impose its control over cyberspace, which overlaps with its territory guided by the principles of rule of law and sovereignty established by the country’s own constitution.