Story
Sep 26, 2026
Court Orders Pablo Marçal to Pay Damages Over Flour Incident
Both accounts describe the ruling as a response to a public incident that the court found damaging to Marco Antonio Mills Martins’s reputation, while differing over whether the modest award or Marçal’s wider political position is the more significant consequence.
A São Paulo court has ordered influencer and former coach Pablo Marçal to pay R$10,000 in moral damages to Marco Antonio Mills Martins over a 2024 campaign incident in which Marçal blew flour into Martins’s face and published video of the encounter online.1
The two reports agree on the central findings: the footage, recorded during an event in Vila Madalena, was viewed more than 7 million times; Marçal accompanied it with a phrase implying drug use; and the court concluded that the conduct went beyond a minor annoyance. Judge Telma Berkelmans described the behavior as “disrespectful and inappropriate,” according to the account published by Brazil Left.1 Brazil Right similarly reported that the court found the episode had harmed Martins’s honor and image, and said Marçal was found liable after failing to attend a conciliation hearing.2
There is little dispute in the reporting about the underlying incident, but the emphasis differs. Brazil Left foregrounded Martins’s response: he said the decision showed that “the internet is not a lawless land and that no one is above justice.”1 At the same time, his legal team plans to appeal, arguing that the R$10,000 award is insignificant compared with the wealth Marçal declared to electoral authorities.1
Brazil Right placed the ruling alongside Marçal’s broader electoral difficulties, noting that he remains ineligible after electoral-court decisions related to his 2024 São Paulo mayoral campaign. It also reported that his defense considered one of those measures disproportionate.2 Marçal’s press office told both outlets he would not comment on the damages ruling.1
Separately, commentator Allan Dos Santos criticized Marçal on X for abandoning what he said was a promised effort to weaken the Workers’ Party, reflecting political frustration rather than a response to the court case itself.
3