Lula Campaign Says Meta Defies Court Order

The dispute concerns equal treatment in Brazil’s presidential runoff. Lula’s Workers’ Party said Meta was not following an electoral-court order designed to prevent either campaign from receiving an unfair advantage online. The issue matters because the vote was only days away, when campaign messages can reach large audiences quickly.

On Monday, Éden Valadares told the court that the order “is not being fulfilled.” The PT claimed Meta’s artificial-intelligence tool favored images carrying number 22, the ballot number of Flávio Bolsonaro and his Liberal Party. The court’s order required Meta to guarantee equal distribution of political content and electoral advertisements.

Minister Marco Aurélio Bellizze had given Meta 24 hours, beginning Sunday, to show that it had taken corrective measures. The campaign said it had to keep filing complaints because the problem continued. Meta denied favoring any candidate, saying technical advertising faults had affected Lula’s campaign and had been fixed. The court’s next step was not reported.

Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court, or TSE, is the country’s highest court for electoral matters. It supervises the legal framework for elections and resolves disputes involving campaigns, candidates, and election procedures. The source does not detail the TSE’s full structure, but it describes the court ordering Meta to ensure equal treatment in the runoff.

The court’s authority matters because Meta’s platforms can distribute political advertisements and other campaign material to voters. In this case, Minister Marco Aurélio Bellizze ordered Meta to show that it had taken measures guaranteeing equal distribution of political content and electoral ads. The order included a 24-hour deadline and escalating daily fines.

This does not mean the court controls every post or decides which candidate voters should support. It can, however, require platforms to follow election rules and respond to alleged imbalances. The Lula campaign said Meta had not complied. Meta denied political interference, so the court’s assessment remained unresolved in the reports reviewed.

The court’s financial penalty was designed to push Meta to comply quickly, not simply to punish it later. The daily fine stood at R$500,000, or about US$99,000, and could rise to R$1 million, about US$198,000, if Meta failed to show full compliance. The figures use an exchange rate of R$5.04 per dollar.

The order gave Meta 24 hours to demonstrate that it had corrected the problem and was treating both runoff campaigns equally. If the court continued finding noncompliance, the fine could accumulate each day. That creates a direct cost while also increasing legal and public pressure on the platform.

The article does not provide Meta’s revenue, market value, or earnings, so it cannot calculate the fines as a percentage of the company’s size. It says the higher daily amount would be small for Meta but would keep the dispute in headlines until the vote. The court’s next action was not reported.

Meta and Lula’s campaign described different causes and meanings. Meta acknowledged technical faults affecting the boosting of advertisements. It said those faults hurt Lula’s campaign, were quickly fixed, and were also reported by Flávio Bolsonaro’s campaign. Meta denied deliberately helping or harming any candidate.

The PT’s allegation concerned Meta’s artificial-intelligence tool and the distribution of images containing number 22. That is Flávio Bolsonaro’s ballot number and also the number of his Liberal Party. The campaign argued that the tool favored such images, which could give Flávio’s message greater visibility among voters.

A technical fault is an operational problem that can affect delivery without proving political intent. The AI allegation concerns a possible pattern in what content received favorable treatment. The reports reviewed did not establish whether that pattern existed or whether it changed voter behavior. Meta had not publicly answered the new PT filing, and the court’s next response was not reported.

If the court found that Meta had not complied, the immediate consequence described in the article was a higher daily fine. The penalty could rise from R$500,000 to R$1 million, approximately US$198,000, while the company remained under pressure to show that both campaigns received equal treatment.

The practical issue is distribution. Meta would need to demonstrate that its systems were not unfairly amplifying or limiting political content and advertisements. A continuing dispute could require further complaints, court filings, and explanations from the company. Lula’s campaign said repeated complaints were difficult during such an important campaign moment.

The election impact would be harder to measure. Unequal visibility could affect which messages voters encounter in the final week, but the source does not report a court finding or a measurable change in voting intentions. Meta denied political interference. Its answer to the 24-hour order and the court’s next step were not reported.

Social-media advertising lets campaigns pay to place messages before selected audiences. Content boosting can increase a post’s visibility, while recommendation systems choose material that users may see in feeds or suggestions. Together, these tools influence the volume, timing, and audience of political messages. The source focuses on this mechanism without explaining Meta’s exact systems.

For example, Meta said technical faults in ad boosting hurt Lula’s campaign. The PT separately claimed that Meta’s artificial-intelligence tool favored images showing number 22, Flávio Bolsonaro’s ballot number. If true, that kind of preference could make related material appear more often or reach more users. Meta denied favoring a candidate.

These systems do not automatically determine how people vote. They can, however, shape exposure by giving some messages more opportunities to be seen. That is why Brazil’s electoral court ordered Meta to demonstrate equal distribution of political content and ads. The reports did not establish whether the alleged AI pattern existed or affected the result.

Brazil’s presidential system uses two rounds when the first vote does not settle the contest. The leading candidates then face each other in a runoff, and the second-round vote determines the president. In this article, President Lula and Senator Flávio Bolsonaro were competing in the runoff scheduled for Sunday, 25 October.

During a runoff, campaigns have a shorter and more focused period to persuade voters. Online advertising and boosted posts can quickly place messages before large audiences. If one campaign’s material is distributed less effectively because of a technical fault or an unfair system preference, voters may encounter an imbalanced set of campaign messages.

That is why the TSE ordered Meta to guarantee equal distribution of political content and electoral ads. The Lula campaign said the order was not being followed, while Meta denied taking sides. The article identifies the final week and an upcoming debate as important moments, but it does not say whether the alleged imbalance changed votes or the election result.