SAO PAULO — On Friday, a Brazilian Supreme Court justice mandated the suspension of the video-sharing service Rumble within the country, citing its failure to adhere to judicial directives. Justice Alexandre de Moraes had previously given Rumble a 48-hour deadline to appoint a legal representative in Brazil, but no response was received within that time frame.
Justice Moraes indicated that Rumble has “repeatedly, consciously and willingly not complied” with Brazilian legal requirements, suggesting an intention to evade the nation’s legal authority. A significant aspect of the controversy is Rumble’s refusal to remove the account associated with Allan dos Santos, a fugitive from Brazilian justice who has been living in the United States since 2020 and is known for his unwavering support of former President Jair Bolsonaro.
Moraes remarked on the lack of verification for Rumble Inc’s legal representation within Brazilian borders, underlining the necessity for foreign platforms to adhere to local regulations. Attempts to reach Rumble for a comment were unsuccessful at the time of the ruling.
Rumble has faced scrutiny for its perceived facilitation of far-right extremism, misinformation about elections, and conspiracy theories. Established in 2013, the platform touts itself as being resistant to cancel culture—a point that has drawn significant attention in current debates.
The ruling from de Moraes coincides with litigation initiated by former U.S. President Donald Trump’s media group against the justice in a Florida court. The group accuses de Moraes of infringing on U.S. free speech protections by imposing a ban on one of Bolsonaro’s right-wing supporters, with Rumble joining the case as a plaintiff.
Earlier in August, de Moraes issued a similar ban against the social media platform X, owned by tech mogul Elon Musk, citing comparable reasons for the action. He stipulated that X’s suspension would continue until it complies with judicial orders and imposed a daily penalty of 50,000 reais (approximately $8,900) on individuals or entities employing virtual private networks to bypass the ban.
The rationale behind these judicial actions has provoked some legal experts to question their legitimacy and enforceability, with critics describing the measures as authoritarian in nature. However, after Rumble and X complied with the court’s demands, de Moraes permitted X to resume operations more than a month later, leading to a public clash between the judge and Musk regarding the prohibition.
