The highest court in Brazil has demanded a halt to X’s activities in the nation after the social media platform failed to appoint a local legal representative within the given timeframe. Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who has been involved in a disagreement with X’s proprietor, Elon Musk, since April, called for a full and immediate cessation of X’s operations in the country on a late Friday afternoon. The cessation order remains in effect until all court instructions are followed, all fines are settled, and a new legal counsel for the firm is designated in Brazil.
The decision was entrusted to the Brazilian National Telecommunication Agency, which was given 24 hours to execute the order. Upon receiving the order, the directive should be relayed to the over 20,000 broadband internet providers in the country to enforce X’s blockade. Apple and Google were also asked by the judge to establish technological hindrances to restrict iOS and Android users from using the X app, and to stop the usage of VPN applications.
The ruling imposes a daily penalty of 50,000 Brazilian real (€8,060) on individuals and firms that attempt to persist in using X via VPN. The timeline for X to name a new legal representative in the country lapsed at 8.07pm local time on Friday (0.07am BST on Friday). One hour later, Mr Musk’s social media platform announced it wouldn’t comply.
Judge Moraes initiated the dispute in April when he directed that numerous accounts be suspended for supposedly propagating misinformation — a command that Mr Musk condemned as censorship. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva stated in a Friday morning radio discussion, “Having a lot of money, as Mr Musk does, doesn’t give you the right to disregard others … Who does he believe he is?”
Previously known as Twitter, X has lacked a lawful delegate in Brazil from the date of August 17th, following an announcement made by Mr Musk of his company’s immediate closure in that nation, attributing this decision to what he called “censorship rules” imposed by Judge Moraes. Despite these circumstances, the service continued to be accessible to consumers within the country.
Judge Moraes previously ordered X in April to ban certain accounts, following an inquiry into “digital militias” backing the past president Jair Bolsonaro’s efforts to hold onto power post his 2022 electoral defeat. Mr Musk’s resistance to the order resulted in the inclusion of his name within Judge Moraes’ investigation.
Judge Moraes issued a directive on Wednesday, giving the firm a day to designate a new legal delegate within Brazil – a necessity for foreign firms functioning within the country, warning of an “instant cessation of the social network’s activities” in the event of non-compliance.
X responded to the directive by stating its refusal to carry out, what it called, “illegal orders from Moraes to suppress his political adversaries”.
Responding to Mr Musk’s decision of non-compliance, Mr Lula said on Friday: “All individuals from anywhere across the globe with investments in Brazil are bound by the Brazilian constitution and Brazilian laws.”
The president urged Mr Musk to respect the rulings of the Brazilian Supreme court, stating, “If not, this country will never gain sovereignty”.
On the day following Mr Musk’s announcement to close X’s operations in Brazil, Judge Moraes put a freeze on the local bank accounts of Mr Musk’s satellite and internet provider, Starlink. This was a measure to enforce hefty financial penalties laid on X – as of last Friday, it stood at 18.3 million Brazilian real – for its refusal to take down profiles accused of endorsing anti-democratic activities and misleading information.
Both X and Starlink form part of Mr Musk’s vast business conglomerate, involving the rocket firm SpaceX and the electric car firm Tesla. Mr Musk is the proprietor of X and owns 40% of SpaceX while he also holds the position of the CEO at Tesla.
The decision to freeze Starlink’s assets has been criticised by legal scholars, believing it to be a separate entity (though owned by the same individual) and asserting it should not bear responsibility for matters relating to X.
In a communication dispatched to its customers, Starlink expressed its disapproval over the decided course of action, remarking, “Despite this unlawful demand potentially affecting our receipt of your regular payments… we would continue offering our services to you at no cost, if required.” As the primary internet supplier in the Amazon, Starlink continues its operation unabated at present.
On the preceding Friday, Starlink officially submitted an appeal to the supreme court, aiming to either suspend Judge Moraes’ ruling and reactivate its bank accounts, or in case of rejection, limit the freeze to the total fines against X. The timeframe for the review of this plea is yet unclear.
– Guardian