Brazil court bans AI chatbots from offering election advice

RIO DE JANEIRO (CN) — Artificial intelligence companies and social media platforms in Brazil will face new obligations during October’s general election, including restrictions on AI-generated content and transparency requirements for moderating political material.

The rules are part of a package of 14 resolutions published Wednesday by Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court, which oversees the application of the country’s election laws.

The resolutions detail how election legislation will be applied in the October vote, when Brazilians will elect the president, governors, senators and members of the lower house and state legislatures. They cover areas such as campaign advertising, financing, candidate registration, polling, oversight of electronic voting machines and procedures to challenge content and decisions during the electoral period.

Under the new regulations for platforms, chatbots and virtual assistants are barred from recommending votes, favoring candidates or prioritizing information about specific contenders in responses to users.

In disputes involving election content generated by artificial intelligence, the court also established that electoral authorities may shift the burden of proof when it is difficult to demonstrate digital manipulation. In such cases, the person who posted the material — and potentially the platform itself — may be required to explain how the content was produced and prove its authenticity.

Campaign material created with AI must also be clearly identified and cannot circulate during the 72 hours preceding the vote or in the 24 hours following the close of polls.

According to Fernando Neisser, a lawyer and member of Brazil’s Electoral and Political Law Academy, Brazil’s system of electoral governance is unusual compared with other countries. Unlike nations that follow the traditional French model, where the organization of elections falls to the legislative branch, that responsibility is assigned to Brazil’s judiciary.

“During the Old Republic [1889–1930], there was a strong perception of electoral fraud in Brazil,” Neisser said. “Much of the rationale behind the modernizing revolution of 1930 was to curb electoral fraud, and the reasoning was that the legislative branch would be contaminated because it had a direct interest in election outcomes.”

Because the judiciary was seen as more impartial — since its members are not elected — Brazil created its electoral justice system in 1932, giving it the dual role of organizing elections and resolving electoral disputes.

“Our electoral code gives the Superior Electoral Court the power to issue resolutions to organize how election law is implemented,” Neisser said. “They can provide practical details on how the rules will be applied, because sometimes the law is too broad. But a resolution cannot create a new penalty, a new crime or a new unlawful act.”

Neisser noted that electoral reform approved by Congress in 2009 gave the court broader authority to issue rules concerning digital technologies, recognizing that technological advances often outpace the legislative process.

‘Uncharted territory’

According to Ana Paula de Barcellos, a law professor at Rio de Janeiro State University, the constitution gives the court broad authority to organize elections, but the scope of its regulatory powers remains contested.

She said it is “quite reasonable” for resolutions to simply detail rules already set out in legislation. As an example, she cited provisions allowing funds allocated to women’s campaigns to cover security expenses for female candidates.

In other cases, however, she said the court may end up regulating matters for which there is no explicit legal provision, such as the use of AI in electoral campaigns. “This is largely uncharted territory because there is no clear legal framework,” she said.

João Victor Archegas, a lawyer and researcher at the Rio de Janeiro-based Institute for Technology and Society, said the new resolutions significantly expand the regulation of technology in elections by imposing direct obligations on AI companies and social media platforms.

He said complying with the rules could require structural changes to AI systems, since it would be difficult to create different versions of the same model just for the election period.

“That effectively puts the Superior Electoral Court in the role of a regulator of digital platforms, which is quite complex, to say the least,” he said.

At the same time, Archegas acknowledged that “many of these rules are important to ensure a fairer and more reliable electoral process as new technologies emerge.”

Still, he said the real challenge “has not even begun,” since “it is very difficult to make foreign platforms comply with rules established in Brazil.”

Barcellos said Brazil’s electoral justice system has developed a relatively effective enforcement system.

“It began by suspending profiles, accounts and even entire platforms, and now there is also the possibility of removing elected officials from office,” she said.

Although she acknowledged the practical difficulties of taking action against accounts based overseas, she said enforcement mechanisms can target political parties and candidates, giving electoral authorities “a broad range of tools.”

Neisser said the electoral justice system is “by far” the fastest branch of Brazil’s judiciary. “Ordinary courts might take a month to remove content that the electoral court can take down in one or two hours,” he said.

That speed is partly the result of a strong relationship with major social media platforms — something that still needs to be developed with AI companies.

“Our relationship with social media platforms is already well established. Since 2018, we have had memorandums of understanding, information exchanges and compliance with court decisions,” he said. “That does not yet exist with OpenAI, for example. That will be the next step. It will likely not be in place in time for this election cycle, but we have begun moving in the right direction.”

Beyond the AI provisions, Neisser also highlighted a resolution addressing the distribution of campaign funding and broadcast time for candidates from underrepresented groups.

For the 2026 elections, the court determined political parties must allocate resources from Brazil’s public campaign finance fund to Indigenous candidates in proportion to their share of registered candidates. If a party fields 20% Indigenous candidates, for example, at least 20% of the fund must be directed to those campaigns. Similar rules already applied to women and Black candidates.

The court also removed a proposal that would have allowed spending on security and efforts to address political violence against women to count toward the minimum 30% share of public funding reserved for female candidates. The change followed criticism that the rule could reduce the resources effectively available for women’s campaigns.

“The resolutions were quite detailed, which is important to ensure these campaigns have a real chance of success,” Neisser said.

Even with the rules in place, the way they are interpreted and applied may vary throughout the electoral process.

Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court is composed of seven members — three justices from the Supreme Court, two judges from the Superior Court of Justice and two lawyers appointed by the president from lists prepared by the Supreme Court. The composition of the court changes every two years and members serve no more than four years.

“Of course this leads to greater fluctuation in case law, but it is a trade-off that makes sense to avoid the entrenchment of power,” Neisser said.

Courthouse News reporter Marília Marasciulo is based in Brazil.