In a new chapter of the clash between Lula and Big Techs, three associations from large American technology companies sent notifications for the investigation into Brazil at the United States Commercial Representative Office (USTR). Among the highlighted points, the entities stated that Brazilian regulation reduces competitiveness and, therefore, hinders dialogue and negotiations with US companies.
According to experts heard by Gazeta do Povothe episode, as well as the research on Brazil’s own commercial practices that is being led by USTR, led to a war of narratives involving Brazilian authorities and the big techs. A dispute that helps aggravate legal instability and therefore business in the country.
The episode is another one among the many already occurred in the climate of animosity established in trade and political relations between Brazil and the United States in recent months. Days ago, Federal Supreme Court Minister Gilmar Mendes said Brazil needs to prioritize its “digital sovereignty” (Read later).
On Tuesday (26), President Donald Trump said in his social networks that he will retaliate countries whose rules harm American technology giants. According to him, some countries impose barriers on US companies while opening their doors to China.
The notes sent to USTR are from the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI). Entities represent American companies of global reach, such as Microsoft, Apple, Meta, Google and Nvidia, among others.
Started on July 15, at Trump’s request, the investigation runs under the parameters of Section 301 of the 1974 Commerce Law – created to respond to “discriminatory” foreign practices that affect US trade. If practices are considered unfair, the US may impose corrective measures, which include fares and non -tariff measures.
The US government has requested written comments from all stakeholders to subsidize the process by 18 August and there will be a public hearing on September 3 of the case. According to ITI, more than 250 stakeholders sent comments, including Brazilian companies.
War of government narratives and big techs impairs business environment in Brazil
Alexander Coelho, a partner of Godke Advogados and a specialist in Digital Law and Cybersecurity, states that the investigation in section 301 and its developments led to a narrative war in which Brazil and its business environment lose.
“On the one hand, the organized pressure of the American Big Techs with the US government, denouncing the USTR the restrictive practices in Brazil; on the other, an increasingly strict speech from the Brazilian government on behalf of the so -called ‘digital sovereignty’, which is accompanied by taxation ads, social networking regulations and even a legal milestone for data centers,” he said.
According to Coelho, the risks of this cable of war are double. In the international level, it can generate commercial friction with direct investments and strategic negotiations aimed at Brazil. Already on the domestic level, a regulatory insecurity environment is created: large companies postpone expansion decisions and startups, which depend on predictability, are suffocated between bureaucracy and uncertainty.
See also:
-
Trump threatens to impose tariffs and restrict technology exports on countries regulating big techs
-
Gilmar Mendes defends Brazilian digital sovereignty after complaints from Big Techs to the Trump administration
Entity calls for caution and limited retaliation in investigation into Brazil
Faced with possible losses for both American technology companies and Brazil, ITI recommended caution in resolutions. The director for the Americas of the Council, Husani Durans de Jesus, states that tariffs should be used only as a last resort, temporarily and under circumstances of damage proven to a specific sector.
According to Husani, the council is a great partner of the Brazilian government and works to strengthen the commercial relationship between Brazil and the US – “extreme historical and strategic importance” – and the promotion of digital inclusion in the region.
The director also comments that, for ITI, it is necessary to strengthen bilateral dialogue to solve these commercial barriers collaboratively and avoid retaliatory measures that harm the commercial relationship between the US and Brazil.
Before the investigation, Brazil had already been the target of alerts
The notifications requested by USTR were not the first movement in reaction to Brazilian practices considered distortive.
According to Jonathan Mchale, Vice President of Digital Commerce of the CCIA, the entity had previously manifested, requesting the verification of Brazilian taxes or regulations considered barriers to digital imports.
Brazilian case can serve as a global reference
According to CTA, research results can become a precedent and a model not only for Brazil, but also for other countries.
“If USTR conducts this investigation from Section 301 legitimately and significantly, it may actively help reduce Brazilian discriminatory acts, policies and practices by discouraging other countries in the region and developing world to use them as models,” says the entity in a document sent to the US government.
Main arguments sent to the investigation into Brazil
The allegations of the entities about Brazil include diverse practices, present in Anatel resolutions, projects approved in the Legislature and decisions of the Federal Supreme Court, among others.
The following are the main points notified by the three institutions that will be considered in the investigation of Brazil:
- Third Party Platform and Content Responsibility
In June 2025, the Supreme Court partially declared article 19 of the Internet Civil Marco, eliminating the “safe haven” that conditioned the responsibility to the court order. Platforms can now be liable civilly by illicit third party content without notice, which generates legal uncertainty, encourages excessive removal and threatens freedom of expression, imposing high costs, especially US SMEs. - Ex-am regulation of digital platforms
Brazil proposes regulations inspired by the EU digital market law (PL 2768/2022 and proposal from the Ministry of Finance/2024), which can classify platforms as “systemically relevant” and impose obligations ex-before with large powers to Anatel and Cade. This may result in discriminatory treatment, increased conformity costs and restrictions on pro-competitive practices, impacting US digital companies. - Artificial Intelligence Legislation (AI)
PL 2338/2023, already approved in the Senate, creates wide rules for AI, divergent of the US risk model. It requires equal obligations for low and high risk systems, expands copyright (including retroactive compensation for use in model training) and concentrates regulatory powers in the National Data Protection Authority (ANPD). The proposal may stifle innovation, generate legal uncertainties and affect US AI companies. - Network Use Fees
PL 2804/2024 authorizes Anatel to charge 5% of gross revenue from digital service providers to finance local telecommunications. The measure would require US technology and content companies to subsidize competitors, distorting competition and increasing costs. - DATA CENTER OBLIGATIONS
Anatel Resolution 780/2025 has imposed ample requirements for data centers (compliance, safety, efficiency and sustainability) without public consultation or impact analysis. This increases costs, generates regulatory uncertainty and can restrict access to the Brazilian market for US companies. - 6 GHz spectrum allocation reversal
In January 2025, Anatel (Resolution 772) reserved 700 MHz from the 6 GHz range for licensed mobile services, leaving only 500 MHz for unlicensed use, reversing 2021 decision aligned with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – United States regulatory body for telecommunications and broadcasting. The change, made without transparency, undermines regulatory stability and compromises investments in R&D from US companies. - Digital Services Tax (STD)
Seven STD proposals in congressional debate, supported by the Brazilian Executive, aim to tax digital services and would mainly affect US companies. Measures raise the risk of double taxation, impair loyal competition and international tax cooperation.
Even legitimate, measures generate distortions
The institutions also mentioned: Increased IOF, CIDE Royalties (applied to non -residents) and income tax withheld at source on transfronist remittances (CCIA and ITI); discriminatory content and preferential treatment of local content (CCIA and CTA); National Certification Requirements on Marketplaces Online (CCIA and ITI); Ex-Tariff Regime (CCIA); Pix (ITI); Trade Technical Barriers (ITI); Brazilian AI plan and the emphasis on National Technological Sovereignty (ITI); Data location – Brazil imposes large restrictions on data transfer (CTA); Gray market (smuggling and falsification) of connected devices, especially cell phones (CTA); Elevation of the age group of US platforms by the Brazilian Indicative Classification System (CTA); and extraterritorial orders for content removal (CTA).
According to Jonathan Mchale of the CCIA, although some of these measures can be based on legitimate political objectives, their conception and application often result in de facto protectionism or improperly harm the Internet ecosystem.
Expert questions the concept of “digital sovereignty”
The arguments presented by the institutions generated reactions in Brazil. On Monday (25), Minister Gilmar Mendes of the Federal Supreme Court published a warning on the network of protecting what he called Brazil’s digital sovereignty.
The constitutionalist lawyer and digital law expert André Marsiglia states that the expression “digital sovereignty” is, in itself, paradoxical, unprecedented in law or sociology. According to Marsiglia, the idea of sovereignty is related to territory, while digital concerns connection and, therefore, freedom of expression.
“The connection is the principle of digital. The principle of sovereignty is the non -connection, or interruption, of connection through the territory,” he says. The expert points out that the use of expression is a “new envelope” for what, in the background, translates into state control of the content that circulates and freedom of expression, of discourse.
