The plaintiff, who never used the services of the defendant, through family members became aware of the existence of a profile under her name which contained personal information about her. She brought the case to the lower court of her residence, in the countryside of the state of São Paulo. She asked for the immediate removal of the fake profile, the disclosure of the Internet Protocol address related to its creation, and damages. The lower court granted both the former, but awarded the plaintiff no damages.
Both parties appealed the decision. The Appellate Court found in favor of the plaintiff's appeal, and denied the defendant's. In the decision, the justices held that the indemnity of the defendant is contrary to the system of consumer defense set forth by the Constitution and by the Consumer Defense and Protection act. Damages of R$ 10,000.00 were awarded the plaintiff.
Facebook appealed from the decision to the Brazilian Supreme Court, arguing that it had no duty to monitor or takedown content upon request, and faced no secondary liability. The appeal was based on the provision set forth by article 19 of Law n. 12,965/2014 (the Marco Civil da Internet act), which grants ASPs safe harbor, and imposes liability on platforms for certain claims only if they disregard court orders to remove content.
The majority of Justices from the Brazilian Supreme Court held that the case may have a "general repercussion". This means that the case will be heard by the Court and that it's decision will set a binding precedent; the reasoning shall be binding to all courts in Brazil. The issue prompted the creation of the "Theme 987" on the Brazilian Supreme Court, encompassing a "discussion on the constitutionality of art. 19 of Law n. 12,965/2014 (Marco Civil da Internet), that determines the need for prior and specific court order for the removal of content [as a trigger] for the civil liability of Internet [Service] Providers, websites and network application managers for damages caused by illicit acts of third parties."
The merits of the case still lack decision from the Supreme Court.