Brazil’s Supreme Court Orders Platform X to Pay $5 Million in Fines Before Service Can Resume
Brazil’s Supreme Court has ruled that social media platform X, owned by billionaire Elon Musk, must settle more than $5 million in outstanding fines before it can resume its operations in the country, per a Reuters report on Friday. The court’s decision includes a newly imposed fine, adding to the tech company’s legal challenges in one of its largest markets.
Earlier this week, X, formerly known as Twitter, informed the court that it had complied with previous directives aimed at curbing the spread of misinformation and requested that the ban on its services be lifted. However, Judge Alexandre de Moraes ruled that X, along with its legal representative in Brazil, must first pay 18.3 million reais ($3.4 million) in fines that were previously levied by the court. According to Reuters, the court document highlights that without addressing these financial penalties, X will not be allowed to resume service.
Related: Musk’s X Requests Brazil Supreme Court to Resume Service After Shutdown
Judge Moraes further noted that funds already frozen in X’s and Musk’s Starlink accounts in Brazil could be used to cover the outstanding amounts, but only if Starlink withdraws its appeal against the asset freeze. Additionally, the judge imposed a new 10 million reais ($1.8 million) fine for a brief period last week when X became accessible to some users despite the ongoing ban.
A source close to X told Reuters that while the company is likely to pay the fines, it may challenge the latest 10 million reais penalty. The platform has been suspended in Brazil since late August following a ruling that it failed to adhere to court orders requiring it to curb hate speech and appoint a local legal representative.
Musk, who initially condemned the court’s rulings as censorship and labeled Judge Moraes a “dictator,” began reversing his stance last week. X’s legal team has since informed the court that the platform has designated a local representative and will comply with future legal directives.
Source: Reuters
Featured News
Veteran Lawyers Launch Boutique Antitrust Firm in NY and DC
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
EU’s Top Court Upholds Antitrust Veto on Thyssenkrupp-Tata Steel Deal
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Brazil’s Court Delays X’s Return Over Fine Payment Dispute
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Tencent and Guillemot Family Consider Potential Buyout of Ubisoft
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Second Price-Fixing Case Against Hotel-Casinos Dismissed by Federal Judge
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh