Meta races the clock to prove to Brazil’s electoral court it treats Lula and Bolsonaro equally

Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court wants Meta to demonstrate that its algorithms and artificial intelligence treat Lula and Flávio Bolsonaro equally. The order covers visibility controls and advertising, because unequal platform treatment could affect a close runoff five days away.

Meta must meet a 24-hour deadline ending Tuesday. It must provide detailed reports in Portuguese, not untranslated English documents. By Wednesday at the latest, it must restore Lula campaign advertising that was paid for but not delivered, or say none remains pending.

The order lasts until the October 25 vote. It blocks unequal reductions in post reach, recommendations, and search results. Meta’s daily fine rises from 500,000 to one million reais if it fails to show compliance. The timetable followed an earlier 72-hour deadline that the judge said Meta effectively extended to five days.

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is identified in the article as Brazil’s president. Flávio Bolsonaro is identified as a senator. The article presents both as candidates competing in a runoff election, with their online visibility and advertising becoming a legal issue.

Their competition is especially consequential because polls show a statistical tie. They held their first debate while the court dispute was developing, and they are scheduled to debate again on Friday on TV Globo. Their campaigns have each raised concerns about Meta’s conduct.

Lula’s campaign says Meta reduced the reach of his profiles and that its artificial intelligence tool refused to create supportive images for him. Bolsonaro’s campaign says Meta allowed negative advertisements against the senator and unlabeled AI-made Lula campaign material. The court admitted Bolsonaro’s complaint to the case, placing both campaigns’ concerns before it.

Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court is the national institution responsible for overseeing electoral matters. Its role includes enforcing election rules and resolving disputes that could affect campaigns, candidates, or voters. The article does not detail its complete legal structure, but it clearly shows the court exercising authority over a major platform.

Judge Marco Aurélio Bellizze ordered Meta to demonstrate equal treatment of Lula and Flávio Bolsonaro. The full court unanimously upheld an earlier ruling. The court also requires reports, controls how political advertising is handled, and sets a deadline for restoring advertising paid for by Lula’s campaign.

Its authority has immediate practical force. The order remains in effect until the October 25 vote and bars unequal reductions in reach, recommendations, or search results. If Meta fails to show compliance, the court can double the daily fine from 500,000 to one million reais.

Algorithms shape visibility by ranking and distributing content. A system can reduce a post’s reach, recommend one candidate less often, or make a profile harder to find in search results. Advertising systems add another layer by deciding whether a paid campaign message is approved, delivered, or withheld.

The court’s order names all these mechanisms. It bars Meta from unequally reducing candidates’ post reach, limiting recommendations, or restricting search results. It also requires Meta to restore Lula campaign advertising that was paid for but not delivered, unless no such advertising remains pending.

These decisions matter because visibility affects what voters encounter during a close campaign. Lula’s campaign alleges that his profile reach was reduced. Bolsonaro’s campaign alleges that Meta allowed negative ads against the senator. Meta warned that prior human review of ads could force it to suspend all political advertising, showing how one safeguard might also reduce campaign communication.

The court’s financial pressure is cumulative. Meta faces a daily fine of 500,000 reais, and that amount will double to one million reais if the company fails to show compliance with the latest order. The penalty applies while the dispute remains unresolved under the court’s timetable.

This is not a one-time charge. Every additional day of noncompliance can add another million reais after the increase. The court linked the higher penalty to Meta’s failure to satisfy the earlier ruling, including concerns about delayed responses, technical difficulties, untranslated reports, and documents presented out of context.

The amount gives Meta a practical reason to respond quickly and precisely. It must submit detailed reports in Portuguese and address undelivered Lula campaign advertising. The order lasts until the October 25 vote, so delay could keep the daily cost running during the final stage of the runoff.

Unequal treatment could affect how campaigns reach voters during the runoff. If posts are shown less often, recommendations favor one side, or searches restrict one candidate, voters may encounter an unbalanced selection of campaign information. Undelivered paid advertising could further reduce a campaign’s ability to communicate.

The article gives concrete examples. Lula’s campaign says his profile reach fell and that Meta’s AI refused supportive images for him. Bolsonaro’s campaign says Meta allowed negative ads against the senator and unlabeled AI-generated Lula material. These complaints point to both visibility and content-labeling problems.

Meta has warned that some requirements, including prior human review of advertisements, could force it to suspend all political advertising. That would affect both campaigns and remove paid political messages from the platform. The court’s order therefore creates pressure for equal treatment while Meta faces a choice between meeting detailed requirements and limiting political advertising.

Equal treatment is difficult because several systems operate at once. Recommendation and search systems rank content, advertising systems decide delivery, and generative AI tools respond to image requests. Small differences in rules, data, or moderation decisions can produce different outcomes for opposing campaigns.

The article shows the problem through conflicting complaints. Lula’s campaign says Meta reduced his profile reach and refused to generate supportive images for the president while doing so for Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro’s campaign says Meta allowed negative ads against the senator and unlabeled AI-made Lula material. These claims involve visibility, generation, advertising, and labeling.

Verification is also hard. Meta cited technical difficulties and submitted English reports and out-of-context documents, according to the judge. Meta warned that prior human review could stop all political ads. The court therefore demands detailed Portuguese reports and equal treatment evidence before the October 25 vote, while the company says it will provide more technical information.