Meta, Brazil's elections and equal treatment of political expression

UN independent experts, including the Working Group on Business and Human Rights, urge Meta to protect political expression and guarantee effective remedies during Brazil's presidential election, following Superior Electoral Court (TSE) orders on equal treatment of the campaigns.

What happened

The Superior Electoral Court ordered Meta to guarantee equal treatment of the two presidential campaigns in the distribution of political content, under a daily fine, following complaints from the Lula campaign about restrictions on the reach of its posts and about AI-generated election material (O Tempo). According to press coverage, Meta AI reportedly refused to generate images of the president but not of his rival. Meta attributed this to a failure that has since been corrected, and Justice Bellizze acknowledged the failure while finding no elements showing it was deliberate or systematic.

Other incidents were cited (a campaign ads account mistakenly deactivated, frozen video view counts and problems boosting posts), which Meta attributed to technical issues, denying that it favoured either side. The case does not replace electoral rules or the platform's internal policies: what it examines is their consistent application to both campaigns during the electoral period.

Who it affects

Directly, Meta and Brazil's two presidential campaigns. More broadly, any digital platform whose moderation, recommendation and AI systems operate during electoral processes. The UN experts frame these duties under the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which require companies to identify, prevent and address adverse impacts, including in platform governance and content moderation. The assessment must be made case by case, having regard to the specific system, the electoral context and the applicable national rules.

Key statements

• UN independent experts (four Special Rapporteurs and the Working Group on Business and Human Rights, who act in their individual capacity and do not speak on behalf of the organisation): algorithms, AI systems and content-moderation decisions must not become “invisible arbiters of political discussion”, and platforms should not act as unaccountable gatekeepers of political debate, nor should their systems be open to undue influence by political actors (statement).
• The information received, including from Meta employees, suggests that accounts linked to one side of the race were disproportionately curtailed. The experts warn that even a perception of unequal treatment can erode public trust, and that during elections a delayed remedy may have irreversible consequences.
• Meta's Oversight Board (statement of 20 October) warns of “recurring enforcement failures” in the company's election integrity efforts, citing the technical restrictions on a presidential candidate's ad accounts in Brazil and a case in the United States, indicating that both should have been escalated to specialist human reviewers and that election enforcement must be transparent and consistent.
• The TSE held that equal treatment covers content distribution, recommendation systems, search results and election advertising. The order provided for a daily fine of R$500,000 for non-compliance; on 19 October, according to Brazilian press reports, the Justice granted a further 24-hour deadline and raised the prospective fine to R$1 million, after noting that the company had not yet proven compliance with all of the court's determinations (Mobile Time).

Relevant dates

Relationship to other frameworks

The statement frames Meta's duties under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: identifying, preventing and addressing adverse impacts, including in platform governance and content moderation. It operates alongside the Brazilian electoral rules applied by the TSE and the platform's internal policies, including the independent review carried out by Meta's Oversight Board. The signature of the Working Group on Business and Human Rights places the case in the field of due diligence, not only in the content-policy debate: rules on political content should be consistent, predictable and auditable, and explaining criteria and corrective measures is part of due diligence in relation to political rights and access to information.

Sources and references

1. UN Human Rights Office (OHCHR), “META must protect political expression and guarantee effective remedy during Brazil elections: UN experts”, 21 October 2026. Available at: ohchr.org
2. Oversight Board, “Oversight Board Statement on Protecting Election Integrity on Meta's Platforms”, 20 October 2026. Available at: oversightboard.com
3. AFP, “UN experts urge Meta to safeguard political expression in Brazil election”, 21 October 2026. Available at: france24.com
4. O Tempo, “Bellizze manda Meta garantir tratamento igualitário a Flávio Bolsonaro e a Lula”, 15 October 2026. Available at: otempo.com.br
5. Mobile Time, “Meta tem mais 24 horas para comprovar tratamento igualitário a Lula e Bolsonaro”, 19 October 2026. Available at: mobiletime.com.br
6. O Tempo, “TSE cobra Meta por cumprimento de decisão sobre campanhas nas redes”, 20 October 2026. Available at: otempo.com.br
7. La Nación, “Qué se sabe de los resultados de las Elecciones Brasil 2026”, 25 October 2026. Available at: lanacion.com.ar