Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court has fined Meta 7.5 million reais ($1.34 million) for failing to provide complete information in response to judicial orders concerning allegations of political bias on its social media platforms during the presidential election campaign, Agencia Brasil reported Wednesday.
The court issued its unanimous decision on Tuesday, finding that Meta had failed to adequately comply with 17 measures intended to investigate claims that its platforms treated content from rival presidential campaigns unequally.
The case originated from a complaint filed by the coalition supporting President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s reelection campaign, which accused Meta of limiting the visibility of pro-Lula content while allegedly favouring his defeated rival, Flavio Bolsonaro, of the Liberal Party.
The coalition also raised concerns about political advertisements allegedly financed from abroad, negative campaign material generated using artificial intelligence and the removal of recommendations for posts supporting Lula.
Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, denied the allegations of political favouritism, describing them as false and unfounded.
The company maintained that differences in content distribution identified by independent studies did not adequately account for variations in the rival campaigns’ digital strategies or repeated views of video content.
Reporting judge Marco Aurelio Belizze criticised Meta’s submissions, saying the company had failed to provide the transparency required by the court.
He cited information presented in foreign languages, aggregated data and generic explanations that prevented investigators from properly assessing the allegations.
The court concluded that these shortcomings amounted to inadequate compliance with its orders and imposed the financial penalty.
However, the ruling does not establish whether Meta actually favoured either presidential candidate during the election campaign.
The Superior Electoral Court will continue examining the underlying allegations to determine whether the company’s platforms provided preferential treatment to any candidate.
No deadline has been announced for a final ruling in the case.