Rumble defies Moraes' new order and takes legal action in the US after the asset freeze in Brazil.
The company says the measure violates American laws and claims that the Supreme Court's decisions are "unenforceable." Trump's network also signed the petition.
247 - The video platform Rumble filed a lawsuit this Sunday (13) in Florida, in the United States, against a new decision by Minister Alexandre de Moraes, of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), which ordered the blocking of an account on the network linked to commentator Rodrigo Constantino, reports Folha de S. Paul.
The ruling, issued on Friday (11), requires the removal of the profile throughout Brazilian territory and the provision of the user's data. If Rumble fails to comply with the order, it is subject to a daily fine of R$ 100 (approximately US$ 20) starting Sunday night. The document filed in the US is also signed by Truth Social, a social network linked to the President of the United States, Donald Trump.
Rumble alleges violation of US sovereignty - In the petition, the companies allege that the Brazilian order is invalid and was transmitted irregularly, via email, without following the legal protocol required for international cooperation. "The order was not delivered through any legal treaty mechanism and appears to have been issued without notification to the US government," the lawyers state.
Rumble argues that Rodrigo Constantino is a U.S. citizen and that providing his data would violate U.S. law. It also states that the aforementioned account has been inactive since December 2023 and that the platform's content has been unavailable in Brazil since February of this year, when Moraes ordered the complete suspension of the service in the country. Since then, the company has accumulated a daily fine of R$ 50.
"Rumble does not intend to comply with the defendant's demands because they are invalid and unenforceable," states the document filed in the Florida court.
Trump used Moraes' decisions to justify tariffs on Brazil. The new order from Justice Alexandre de Moraes was issued two days after President Donald Trump announced the application of 50% tariffs on Brazilian products. In the petition sent to the US courts, Rumble suggests that the magistrate's decision is retaliation for the US government's stance.
"The July 11 order was issued just two days after President Donald J. Trump sent a formal letter to President Lula da Silva expressing concern about Brazil's treatment of U.S. technology companies," the platform states.
In the same text, the social media lawyers mention that Supreme Court decisions like this one were cited by Trump in his correspondence to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, in which he accuses Brazil of promoting "hundreds of orders" that would constitute censorship of the freedom of expression of American citizens.
Escalation of diplomatic tensions. According to Rumble's lawyer, Martin de Luca, the new court decision represents "an irresponsible escalation that exposes Brazil to an even more serious diplomatic crisis."
Behind the scenes, members of the platforms consider Moraes' new order a provocation and emphasize that it contradicts the content of a letter sent by the Brazilian Ministry of Justice to the US Department of Justice, where the Brazilian government expresses interest in maintaining international cooperation and reinforces that judicial decisions should be limited to national jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the company argues that the current measure repeats the pattern of the minister's previous rulings, which had already been challenged in February when Rumble refused to remove the profile of Bolsonaro supporter Allan dos Santos — a decision that, according to the lawyers, would have extraterritorial effects if interpreted as valid worldwide.
Companies are demanding that Moraes be held civilly liable. Back in May, Rumble and Truth Social petitioned the American courts to hold Alexandre de Moraes civilly liable and order him to pay damages. The lawyers classify the magistrate's decisions as "gag orders" and allege that they constitute censorship.
The escalation of tensions occurs in the context of discussions in Brazil about the regulation of social networks, following the Supreme Court's ruling on the Marco Civil da Internet (Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights), which broadened the liability of digital platforms for content published by users.
The expectation is that the new clash will have diplomatic and legal repercussions throughout this week, potentially intensifying pressure from Washington on Brasília.
