SAO PAULO — A justice of Brazil’s Supreme Court has recently mandated the suspension of Rumble, a video-sharing service, within the country on the grounds that it has allegedly failed to adhere to court directives.
Justice Alexandre de Moraes had issued a directive requiring Rumble to appoint a legal representative in Brazil within a 48-hour timeframe, but there has been no response from the platform to this request.
De Moraes emphasized that Rumble has “repeatedly, consciously and willingly not complied” with the orders of the Brazilian judiciary, suggesting a deliberate attempt to sidestep the legal requirements of the nation.
Among the specific orders that Rumble is accused of ignoring is the demand to remove the account of Allan dos Santos, a fugitive from Brazilian law who has resided in the United States since 2020 and is a known supporter of former President Jair Bolsonaro.
In his ruling, de Moraes remarked, “There’s no evidence of the regularity of Rumble Inc’s representation in Brazilian territory.”
Rumble has not yet responded to requests for comments regarding this situation.
The platform has faced criticism for hosting content associated with far-right extremism, conspiracy theories, and election misinformation. Established in 2013, Rumble brands itself as a platform free from cancel culture limitations.
The timing of de Moraes’ ruling coincides with a lawsuit in Florida against him by the media group affiliated with former U.S. President Donald Trump, which claims that de Moraes has infringed upon American free speech rights by imposing a ban on a Bolsonaro supporter. Rumble is also listed as a plaintiff in this case.
This same justice, de Moraes, had previously imposed a ban on Elon Musk’s platform, X, in Brazil back in August for comparable reasons. He ruled that X would remain suspended until it complied with his directives and imposed a daily fine of 50,000 reais (approximately $8,900) for users utilizing virtual private networks to access the service.
Some legal analysts have raised concerns about the justifications for such a decision and the feasibility of its enforcement, while others have labeled the move as authoritarian in nature.
Following compliance with de Moraes’ orders, X was allowed to resume operations more than a month later, after a public dispute arose between the judge and Musk regarding the suspension.
