Downtown Caracas under storm clouds and a rainbow, October 2011. (Photo: Krisangela, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

BRAZIL · ELECTIONS

Published Friday, 23 October, 7:15 p.m. ET · Source: CTRL+Z, Folha de S.Paulo

Technical problems kept hitting President Lula’s Instagram profile in the last days of the Brazil election 2026 campaign, the digital-rights group CTRL+Z reported on Friday 23 October. The group says internal Meta documents show the faults hit only Lula’s account and not that of his rival, Senator Flávio Bolsonaro.

Brazil Election Data Room

Runoff poll average: Flávio Bolsonaro 51.0%, Lula 49.0%

41 national polls from 20 pollsters since 4 October, updated hourly. Every poll, free to download.

The Brazil runoff on Sunday 25 October decides who leads Latin America’s largest economy, so how social platforms treat each candidate matters to investors and voters alike. Meta, the owner of Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp, has said the episodes were technical incidents, and traders’ Brazil election odds are shown below.

What the Leaked Meta Documents Show

CTRL+Z reporters Tatiana Dias and Paulo Motoryn describe problems with stories, comments and search that affected only Lula’s profile, CTRL+Z said, citing internal Meta documents. Folha de S.Paulo reported that an internal report dated 19 October records at least six high-priority issues still open on Instagram and on the Meta AI app.

On Tuesday 20 and Wednesday 21 October, employees again reported problems with searching for Lula’s profile and with ads, according to Folha. The faults listed include comments that did not appear, stories that lasted only six seconds when shared, and a profile missing from search.

A hand presses the confirm key on a Brazilian electronic voting machine. File photo, 2021. (Photo: Superior Electoral Court of Brazil, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons)

Search Results and Meta’s Reply

CTRL+Z says that between 6 and 10 October the Instagram search required at least five typed characters to show candidate accounts, so “Lula”, with four letters, did not appear. CTRL+Z says the problems persisted despite reported fixes, and employees flagged search problems again on 20 and 21 October.

Meta said in a 16 October statement that it is not interfering in Brazil’s elections and that the episodes were technical incidents, Folha reported.

The Court Order Behind the Story

Brazil’s electoral court (TSE) barred Meta from discriminating against candidacies and set a fine of R$500,000 (about US$100,000) a day, later raised to R$1 million (about US$200,000) a day, Folha reported. Folha says Meta has not been punished so far (conversion at 4.97 reais per US dollar, RT market data, 23 October).

Folha reports, citing CTRL+Z, that in every case employees were aware the problems violated electoral law and worried about punishment from the court. A week earlier, Folha reported that staff had admitted in internal messages that Lula’s account was disadvantaged against Flávio’s.

A voter casts a presidential ballot on an electronic voting machine in Brasília. File photo, 2014. (Photo: Marri Nogueira/Agência Senado, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

What It Means for US Readers

On Thursday 22 October, 13 US lawmakers wrote to Meta about its handling of the Brazilian vote, as our report on 13 US lawmakers and Meta shows. For a US-listed company, a court fine or a political dispute in Brazil is a reputational and legal risk to watch before Sunday.

Readers following the race can track every survey in our Brazil election polls tracker. Claims about platform bias are allegations until the court or Meta responds in full.

What Prediction Markets Say

On Polymarket, an online prediction market, traders give Flávio Bolsonaro a 76.6% chance of winning the 25 October runoff and Lula 23.5% (23 October, 7:10 p.m. ET). The “Brazil Presidential Election” market has seen about US$193.4 million in bets.

Prices are bets, not polls. Kalshi, a US exchange regulated by the CFTC, also lists Brazil runoff markets.

Why we show this: prediction markets turn real-money bets into a live probability that moves within minutes of the news, which is why investors, campaigns and newsrooms in the United States now follow them closely. We show them next to polls and official results, never instead of them.

What Is Not Known

We have not seen the internal documents ourselves, and we have not yet seen Meta’s reply to the 23 October report. It is not known whether the electoral court will act on the new material before the vote.

The documents do not show intent, and Meta says the faults were technical. How many voters were reached or missed is not stated.

More: Brazil news in English, every day from The Rio Times.

Frequently Asked Questions

What do the leaked Meta documents say about Lula’s Instagram?

The digital-rights group CTRL+Z says internal Meta records show problems with stories, comments and search that hit only President Lula’s profile. An internal report dated 19 October listed at least six open high-priority issues.

Has Brazil’s electoral court fined Meta?

Not so far, according to Folha de S.Paulo. The court set fines of R$500,000 (about US$100,000) a day, later raised to R$1 million (about US$200,000) a day, for discriminating against candidacies.

What does Meta say?

In a statement on 16 October, Meta said it is not interfering in Brazil’s elections and called the episodes technical incidents. We have not yet seen a Meta reply to the 23 October report.

When is Brazil’s runoff?

Brazil votes on Sunday 25 October in a runoff between President Lula and Senator Flávio Bolsonaro. The electoral court (TSE) announces the official result.

Who is CTRL+Z?

CTRL+Z is a Brazilian digital-accountability group that publishes the newsletter Parem as Máquinas. The report was written by reporters Tatiana Dias and Paulo Motoryn.

Sources: CTRL+Z, Parem as Máquinas, 23 October 2026; Folha de S.Paulo, 23 October 2026; Núcleo Jornalismo, 23 October 2026; Jornal de Brasília, 23 October 2026.

This article was produced by The Rio Times’ automated newsroom system. How we use AI · Report an error · Editorial responsibility: Matthias Camenzind, Editor-in-Chief