巴西最高选举法院限制候选人网络竞选，中资平台需关注算法透明度合规

Brazil’s Electoral Court Justice Dias Toffoli has restricted online election advertising by Renan Santos, the presidential candidate of the newly formed Mission party. The ruling, which had been sealed and was made public on Monday (31), also bars Santos from participating in debates and from accessing public campaign funds. Members of the court criticized the decision. Lawsuits from presidential campaigns more than double from 2022 Candidates map out TV strategies as mandatory ads begin airing Renan Santos backs abolishing labor courts, opposes end of six-day workweek Toffoli is overseeing Santos’s application to register his candidacy with the Superior Electoral Court. The candidacy remains valid. The order targets advertising on websites, blogs and social-media accounts that the campaign failed to report to electoral authorities by the required deadline. According to Toffoli, at least 16 accounts were registered 12 days after the candidacy application was filed. The ruling does not mention any restrictions on street campaigning. Toffoli suspended the transfer of R$3.3 million from the public campaign financing fund to which Santos’s ticket would have been entitled. The candidate will also be barred from participating in debates on radio, television, podcasts or other media. The justice ordered platforms to suspend accounts showing signs of irregularities and provide data on posts, paid promotion, recommendations and advertisements, as well as preserve their access records. Under election law, candidates must disclose, when registering their candidacies, all websites, blogs and social-media accounts that will be used for election advertising. In his ruling, Toffoli argued that the requirement is essential before the campaign period begins, both to allow oversight and to prevent candidates from gaining an unfair advantage through platforms’ algorithmic content-recommendation systems. In reviewing the case, Toffoli identified 16 social-media accounts disclosed 12 days after the candidacy application was filed. Among these, at least one account with nearly 2.4 million followers was noted, with the justice pointing out that election-related advertising often attracts recommendations from other candidates and is itself endorsed by them. This benefits from algorithms in a manner that electoral authorities view as inappropriate. Toffoli said that until electoral authorities obtain information about the accounts, platforms keep advising users about them without overseeing the content, labeling it as election advertising, or tracking ad spending and paid promotions. He believes that accounts not identified before the election advertising period started can gain an unfair advantage over candidates who fulfilled their obligations. “A candidate who fails to disclose campaign accounts on time and provides the information only after the deadline misuses the period allowed to correct deficiencies. The candidate assumes the registration will not be denied because the omission is supposedly ‘remedied,’ while gaining, with each passing day, an immeasurable advantage over competitors who fulfilled their obligations", the justice said. "Undisclosed accounts benefit from opaque algorithms and evade public and legal scrutiny. They masquerade as ordinary users, operating outside the legitimate arena for online political competition,” Toffoli said. Toffoli gave Santos and Mission 24 hours to respond, or risk having his presidential candidacy rejected. They must provide the creation date of each account and when it began being used for election advertising, as well as explanations for the violations cited in the ruling. Internal criticism Toffoli does not plan to refer the case to the full Superior Electoral Court immediately, Valor has learned. He has told associates that there is no need to submit the decision for consideration at the court’s in-person session on Tuesday night (1). He also said any ruling this week would depend on developments following his order and that it is still necessary to assess how the measures will be implemented. Court members who were consulted by Valor criticized the decision, arguing that the alleged irregularities involving Santos should be scrutinized in proceedings related to election advertising and media abuse, rather than within the candidacy registration process. They also noted that any sanctions could have been decided in a separate investigation into electoral misconduct. According to one judge, only a situation in which registration of the candidacy was clearly impossible would justify such a decision. One example cited was Pablo Marçal, the presidential candidate of the PRTB party. The Superior Electoral Court barred the businessman from participating in debates and campaigning because there are indications that Marçal may have fraudulently obtained his party membership. In Santos’s case, the judge said, the maximum penalty should have been a fine ranging from R$5,000 to R$30,000. The judge also said the order should be submitted to the full court because its internal rules provide for the plenary to consider “precautionary measures necessary to protect a right susceptible to serious harm that may be difficult to remedy.” Experts say ruling went too far Election-law experts said the ruling went beyond the consequences established for the late disclosure of social-media accounts. According to lawyer Kaleo Dornaika Guaraty, election regulations themselves already set out a specific consequence for reporting accounts after the deadline, without providing for the other restrictions imposed by Toffoli. “The Superior Electoral Court’s resolution says an address reported after the deadline can only be used 48 hours after it is registered. That is the penalty established by the rule. Suspending campaign funds and participation in debates is not provided for anywhere as a penalty for this violation,” he said. Guaraty also criticized the breadth of the order suspending the accounts. Similarly, Guilherme Barcelos, an election-law attorney with a doctorate in constitutional law, called the ruling “indefensible.” He said the alleged irregularity could, at most, lead to the suspension of an undisclosed account, as the regulations provide. “In the worst-case scenario, that account could no longer be used, as the Superior Electoral Court’s resolution [on the matter] itself provides,” he said. What Renan Santos says Santos called the measure “illegal” and “persecutory” and said he would appeal. “First, I want to thank everyone who is fighting alongside us. We will keep fighting, and we will go to the Superior Electoral Court to overturn this absolutely unfair and illegal decision. The decision is illegal. The decision is persecutory,” Santos said in a video released to supporters. Known for saying in interviews that, if elected, he would not comply with rulings issued by individual judges that he considers illegal, Santos said he has few alternatives in this case. “I already posted a video on social media after the decision. Of course, my accounts will be taken down. TikTok already has been, and the others will be too. After that, there isn’t much I can do,” he told reporters in São Paulo. Santos’s lawyer, Arthur Rollo, criticized the ruling and said he would challenge it before the Superior Electoral Court. Renan Santos Ana Branco/Agência O Globo