The São Paulo Court of Justice Recognizes the Illegality of a Business Model Based on the Creation and Exploitation of Inauthentic Accounts on Digital Platforms

The São Paulo Court of Justice Recognizes the Illegality of a Business Model Based on the Creation and Exploitation of Inauthentic Accounts on Digital Platforms

In a recent decision, the 1st Business and Arbitration Conflicts Court of the São Paulo Court of Justice recognized the illegality of business activities related to the creation and use of inauthentic accounts on digital platforms, ordering the cessation of services aimed at circumventing the rules applicable to the placement of advertisements, as well as the discontinuation of the unauthorized use of registered trademarks.

The dispute originated from an action filed by Meta Platforms, the company responsible for the Facebook, Instagram, and Messenger platforms, against a company that offered services in the market related to the creation, use, and so-called “maturation” of inauthentic accounts on such platforms. As described in the case records, these services involved the simulation of behaviors deemed regular by the platforms’ systems, with the purpose of reducing the risk of automatic blocking, in addition to the offering of courses, video lessons, and explanatory materials designed to teach third parties how to replicate such practices.

In its initial complaint, the claimant asserted that these activities repeatedly violated the rules governing the use of its platforms, arguing that the creation and maintenance of inauthentic accounts involved, in several instances, the use of false documents and information. It further alleged that the promotional and educational materials produced by the defendants demonstrated technical knowledge of the control and security mechanisms used to identify atypical behavior.

The claimant also alleged the improper exploitation of registered trademarks owned by it, stating that the defendants used, without authorization, distinctive signs associated with Meta’s platforms on websites, social media profiles, and promotional materials in order to advertise their services. According to the complaint, such use linked well-known trademarks to services that violated the platforms’ rules, characterizing trademark infringement and parasitic exploitation. In addition, a violation of software rights was alleged, on the grounds that the platforms’ computer programs were being used in a manner incompatible with their legitimate purpose.

In their defense, the defendants claimed that their activities were not unlawful, asserting that they did not engage in fraudulent conduct and that their business resulted from the exploitation of alleged flaws in the platforms’ systems. With respect to the use of trademarks, they argued that such use was merely referential, intended solely to indicate the relationship of their services with the platforms, without causing confusion or suggesting any institutional affiliation.

In examining the merits, the court found that the evidentiary record demonstrated the existence of deliberate circumvention of the platforms’ rules and control mechanisms. The decision emphasized that the defendants’ own audiovisual materials evidenced the adoption of strategies aimed at avoiding automatic blocking, as well as the teaching of such practices to third parties, expressly stating that “the defendants’ intention was to teach the public how to circumvent the rules.”

With regard to the trademarks, the judge recognized the unauthorized use of registered and well-known distinctive signs, rejecting the argument of merely referential use. The decision emphasized that the lack of authorization from the trademark owner is sufficient to characterize illegality, particularly when the trademarks are used as a central element in promoting services that violate the platforms’ own rules. In this context, the court acknowledged the occurrence of parasitic exploitation, even in the absence of direct competition between the parties.

Finally, the decision also recognized the violation of the claimant’s rights over its computer programs, finding that the defendants distorted the purpose of the software by using it in a manner incompatible with the terms and expectations established by the rights holder, in breach of the applicable legislation. Decision subject to appeal.

The decision may be accessed through the following link: 1195027-55.2024.8.26.0100.pdf

Note: For quick release, this English version is provided by automated translation without human review.