A plenary session of Brazil's Superior Electoral Court in Brasília, pictured in August 2025. The photo does not show the 14 October ruling. Photo: Luiz Roberto/TSE / Wikimedia Commons (Public domain)

BRAZIL · ELECTIONS

Published Friday, 16 October, 7:49 p.m. ET · Source: Meta statement and defence filed with Brazil’s electoral court (TSE)

Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, said in an official note on Friday 16 October 2026 that it did not interfere in the Brazil election 2026 or favour any candidate. It admitted, however, that temporary technical faults hit the campaign of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

The note answers a lawsuit by Lula’s coalition at the electoral court (TSE), nine days before the runoff on Sunday 25 October. His rival is Flávio Bolsonaro, a conservative senator for Rio de Janeiro, and Polymarket’s Brazil election odds give him a 77.6% chance of winning.

What Meta Admitted to the Electoral Court

Meta says Lula’s advertising account was switched off for just over one hour on 23 September, after an automated check wrongly classed an ad as impersonating a government social programme. On 7 October a bug froze video view counts in more than 100 countries for about five hours, and Meta says Flávio Bolsonaro’s campaign reported the same fault that day. (Gazeta do Povo and Times Brasil)

Around 9 October a code update briefly stopped thousands of advertisers in several countries from creating ads from existing posts, while direct uploads kept working. Meta describes each case as an error that reached users in many countries, not a move aimed at one candidate.

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 Lula’s Campaign Alleges

Lula’s coalition says Meta cut the reach of his posts and shut his ad account. A survey by the communication secretariat of Lula’s Workers’ Party (PT) found Flávio Bolsonaro’s page drew 2.96 times more engagement on average, despite 17.2% fewer followers, Times Brasil reported.

On Thursday 15 October, Justice Marco Aurélio Bellizze of the electoral court partly granted the coalition’s request and ordered Meta to treat both candidates equally in distribution, recommendations and search, under a fine of 500,000 reais (about US$99,000) per day. Our earlier reports cover Meta’s first denial and the court order on Meta AI.

Meta’s Case and Its Complaint About Brazil’s Rules

Meta says about 70% of the measures involving Lula’s accounts came from complying with court orders, and part of the rest involved electoral rules such as limits on AI content. It quoted an earlier court decision saying it was not shown, at that stage, that Meta manipulated content distribution for or against any candidacy, Poder360 reported.

The company also criticised Brazil’s rules for social networks. It argues that the wider liability for users’ posts, in force since 2025, raises the risk of over-enforcement and wrongful removals, Poder360 reported.

What It Means for US Readers

For investors in Brazilian assets, including US-listed shares of Brazilian companies, a dispute over platform neutrality adds noise to a race the latest surveys show as close. The Brazil election polls tracker lists each one.

For US readers, the case shows an American platform at the centre of a foreign election dispute, with courts rather than companies setting the rules on political reach. Meta quotes an earlier court decision that found no proof of manipulation at that stage.

What Prediction Markets Say

On Polymarket, an online prediction market, bettors give Flávio Bolsonaro a 77.6% chance of winning the 25 October runoff and Lula 22.5% (16 October, 7:45 p.m. ET). The “Brazil Presidential Election” market has about US$184.9 million in bets, and these are bets, not polls.

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

It is not known whether the court will find that the faults broke campaign rules, or whether it will order further changes at Meta before 25 October. The engagement figures come from the Workers’ Party itself and are not an independent audit.

Meta’s note and its defence were released as documents that we have read only through press reports. Any new court ruling could change the picture before voters go to the polls.

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

Frequently Asked Questions

What did Meta say about the Brazil election on 16 October?

Meta said in an official note that it did not interfere in the election or favour any candidate. It admitted temporary technical faults that hit the campaign of President Lula.

Which technical faults did Meta admit?

Meta named a one-hour shutdown of Lula’s ad account on 23 September and a five-hour view-count bug on 7 October. It also named a code update around 9 October that briefly blocked some ad creation.

What is the 70% figure in Meta’s note?

Meta says about 70% of the measures involving Lula’s accounts came from complying with electoral-court orders. It says part of the rest involved electoral rules, such as limits on AI content.

What has the electoral court found so far?

An earlier court decision, quoted by Meta, said it was not shown at that stage that Meta manipulated content distribution. On 15 October a court justice partly granted Lula’s coalition a request and ordered Meta to treat both candidates equally.

When is Brazil’s runoff?

Brazilians vote on Sunday 25 October, nine days after Meta’s note. The winner is Lula or Flávio Bolsonaro, a conservative senator for Rio de Janeiro.

Sources: Poder360, 16 October 2026; Gazeta do Povo, 16 October 2026; Times Brasil, 16 October 2026; Times Brasil, 11 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