A RESPONSABILIDADE CIVIL DOS PROVEDORES DE APLICAÇÕES DE INTERNET POR ATOS DE TERCEIROS À LUZ DO ART. 19 DA LEI Nº 12.965/2014

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the civil liability of internet application providers for third-party actions in light of Article 19 of Law No. 12.965/2014, also known as the Internet Civil Framework. The research examines the changes introduced by this legislation in the system of liability for providers, which was previously established by jurisprudence, and assesses whether the current model represents an advancement in the protection of rights in the digital environment or constitutes a setback in relation to fundamental rights such as human dignity, honor, privacy, and image. The study considers both the praises and criticisms directed at the more stringent system instituted by Article 19, which, compared to the previous scenario, makes it more difficult to characterize the responsibility of providers. Furthermore, the paper investigates the possible incompatibility of Article 19 with the Federal Constitution, given the identified shortcomings. To this end, the first chapter discusses the digital landscape and the need for regulation, the principles of the Internet Civil Framework, and the differences among the types of providers contemplated in the legislation. Subsequently, the second chapter examines the concepts and types of civil liability, as well as the systems of liability applied to providers before the Internet Civil Framework. Finally, the third chapter analyzes the liability model provided for in Article 19, highlighting the privileged position of freedom of expression and the overprotection granted to providers, ultimately verifying the possible unconstitutionality of this article in light of the Brazilian constitutional system. The study concludes that, although the Internet Civil Framework has promoted advances in the use of the internet in Brazil, the legislation has proven insufficient to adequately protect fundamental rights, such as human dignity. The previous model, consolidated by jurisprudence, offered greater protection to victims of virtual damage than the system established by Article 19, which, by prioritizing freedom of expression, resulted in a setback in the defense of personality rights in the digital environment. Thus, a revision is necessary to achieve a more effective balance between fundamental rights in the virtual space.