The “Right to Be Forgotten” and De-Indexing in Brazil: How to Ask for Removal of Content That Harms You

This page is a translation of the original Portuguese text, provided for convenience. It deals with Brazilian law. If there is any discrepancy, the Portuguese version prevails. Read the original in Portuguese

Erasing the past from the internet has become one of the most common requests from people who have been written about, convicted, or simply exposed online. Brazilian courts, however, draw a clear line between the legitimate wish to protect your image and a request to rewrite true facts. That line determines when you actually have a right to intervene in what search engines display.

What the Courts Have Decided About the Right to Be Forgotten

In 2021, the STF (Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court) set out the thesis of Tema 786 (RE 1.010.606) and rejected the existence of a general right to be forgotten in Brazilian law. In the Court’s view, no one can, merely because time has passed, prevent the publication of true facts that were lawfully obtained and published in the media.

The decision, however, did not leave individuals without protection. The ruling itself made clear that abuses in the publication of information remain subject to the rules already in place, such as civil liability for harm to honor, image, and privacy, as well as criminal remedies against excesses.

In practice, this means the strategy has shifted. The question is no longer whether an abstract power to be forgotten exists. It is whether a particular piece of exposure is current, proportionate, and useful, or whether it has instead become harmful and lacks any relevant public interest.

De-Indexing: The Request the Law Allows

This is where de-indexing takes center stage. De-indexing does not erase the information from its original source. It removes a specific result from the list that search engines display when someone searches for a person’s name.

The distinction is decisive. The news story stays published on the site that ran it, preserving the historical record and freedom of information. What you are asking for is that the automatic link between your name and a specific piece of content be broken, especially when the association is out of date and has become a permanent stigma.

Brazil’s higher courts have recognized that, in exceptional situations, a search engine can be ordered to remove a particular result associated with a name, without that amounting to censorship of the original publication. The test is not the passage of time alone, but the imbalance between ongoing harm and whatever public interest remains.

Brazilian law provides a legal basis for this request. Article 5 of the Constitution protects privacy, private life, honor, and image. The Marco Civil da Internet (Brazil’s Internet Civil Rights Framework, Law 12.965/2014) governs the liability of internet providers. The LGPD (Brazil’s General Data Protection Law, Law 13.709/2018) gives individuals rights over how their personal information is processed.

Together, these allow you to build a technically solid request grounded in rights that are in force today, rather than an attempt to make the world forget something that really happened.

In 2021, the STF (Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court) set out the thesis of Tema 786 (RE 1.010.606) and rejected the existence of a general right to be forgotten in Brazilian law.

When a Request Has a Solid Foundation

Not every source of discomfort justifies de-indexing. The first filter is the nature of the content. Information that is false, unlawfully obtained, or invasive of privacy has a stronger case. True facts of collective interest, on the other hand, tend to prevail.

The second filter is public interest. Political office, management of public funds, and matters of social importance increase the protection given to the information. The further a person is from public life, the more weight their privacy carries.

The third filter is current, concrete harm. You must show that the display of the result causes present damage, not just discomfort at being reminded of the past. Lost professional opportunities, repeated embarrassment, and association with events that have been legally resolved are examples that can support a request.

It is worth noting that every case is analyzed on its own facts. No automatic formula guarantees removal, because each result is weighed in light of the specific circumstances. The judge considers the factors together, including the type of information, the degree of exposure, the time that has passed, and the severity of the harm, and then decides whether the link between the name and the content should be broken.

Some scenarios tend to carry a robust case: an acquittal after a news story about an accusation, the closing of an investigation, full completion of a sentence, sensitive data exposed without consent, and content suggesting a connection between a person and an event that does not exist.

How to Make an Effective Request

Effectiveness begins before any court action. The first step is to go directly to the search provider through its administrative channel. The request should identify the exact URL, the name search that produces the result, and the legal grounds for removal, focusing on how outdated the content is and the harm it causes.

Building the evidence is the heart of the strategy. You should gather dated screenshots, the specific link, documents showing that your circumstances have changed (acquittal, case closure, payment of a debt, a correction), and evidence of the harm you have suffered. Generic requests that do not point to the precise address are usually rejected outright.

When the administrative route fails, you can go to court. The request should be surgical: identify each result to be de-indexed, specify the name search involved, and show that the measure is proportionate. Asking for broad removal of everything that mentions a person tends to fail, because it collides with freedom of information.

An urgent injunction may be available in cases of serious harm that is hard to repair, especially where sensitive data is involved or where there is an immediate impact on your career. Showing concrete risk is what supports granting the measure in advance.

It is also wise to follow how the courts’ position on this subject evolves. The case law is still taking shape, and recent decisions help set expectations and gauge the chances of success for each request. A request that fits the current guidelines conveys seriousness and reduces the risk of being denied for technical shortcomings.

You also need to identify the right target. Holding the original website liable follows the logic of the Marco Civil, while de-indexing is directed at the search engine. Confusing the two weakens your case and delays the outcome.

Handled well, a de-indexing request does not challenge freedom of the press or promise the impossible. It adjusts, under the law, the continued availability of information that has become disproportionate, giving you back reasonable control over your own digital identity.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is de-indexing the same as deleting the news story from the internet?

No. De-indexing removes only the result displayed by the search engine when someone searches for a person’s name. The article remains on the original site, preserving the record of the event and freedom of information. What is broken is the automatic association between the name and that specific content.

Does the right to be forgotten exist in Brazil?

In Tema 786, the STF (Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court) rejected the existence of a general right to be forgotten that could block the publication of true and lawful facts merely because time has passed. Even so, abuses can still be addressed under the rules protecting honor, image, privacy, and personal data.

What evidence strengthens a de-indexing request?

Useful items include the exact URL, dated screenshots, the name search that produces the result, documents showing that your circumstances have changed (such as an acquittal, case closure, or payment of a debt), and evidence of current harm, such as professional losses. The more precise and well-documented the request, the better the chance of success.

As informações deste artigo são de caráter informativo e não substituem consulta jurídica individualizada. Cada caso possui particularidades que exigem análise específica.