Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court has given Meta 48 hours to provide technical data and explanations after Lula’s campaign alleged that Facebook and Instagram restricted its content, impaired advertising and treated its accounts differently from those of rival Flávio Bolsonaro.

The campaign’s case rests on reports it says show uneven engagement, inconsistencies in Lula-related metrics and possible selective moderation. It also points to the disabling of its advertising account on September 23 and asks whether Meta identified automated profiles promoting Bolsonaro while attacking Lula. The court said the allegations involve complex internal systems and that the relevant evidence is controlled by Meta, making direct information from the company necessary before it assesses the urgency of the case.¹

The order requires Meta to preserve moderation records, advertising data, metrics and other materials connected to the dispute. It must also detail moderation actions taken since August 16, explain how views are counted and recounted, justify the advertising-account action, and describe whether its rule excluding presidential candidates from recommendation systems was applied equally to both runoff campaigns.¹

Meta, however, rejects the premise that its platforms were used to disadvantage Lula. The company said the allegations are “simply false and unsupported by the facts,” maintaining that the technical problems cited were not directed at particular accounts and did not occur only in Brazil.²

Both sides therefore agree that platform operations—including reach, ads and moderation—are central to the dispute. They differ sharply over what those operations mean: Lula’s campaign sees possible unequal enforcement, while Meta says it follows electoral rules and provides equal conditions for users. The court’s request is an evidence-gathering step, not a finding that either campaign was favored; the report also notes there is, so far, no proof that Meta acted to benefit either candidate.²