Social media platforms tend not to be that bothered by national boundaries.
Take X, for example. Users of what was once called Twitter span the globe, with its 600 millions-plus active accounts dotted across nearly every country. And each of those jurisdictions has its own laws.
But the interests of national regulatory efforts and that of predominantly U.S.-based technology companies often don’t align. While many governments have sought to impose oversight mechanisms to address problems such as disinformation, online extremism and manipulation, these initiatives have been met with corporate resistance, political interference and legal challenges invoking free speech as a shield against regulation.
What is brewing is a global struggle over digital platform governance. And in this battle, U.S. platforms are increasingly leaning on American laws to challenge other nation’s regulations. It is, we believe as experts on digital law – one an executive director of a forum monitoring how countries implement democratic principles – a form of digital imperialism.
A rumble in the tech jungle
The latest manifestation of this phenomenon occurred in February 2025, when new tensions emerged between Brazil’s judiciary and U.S.-based social media platforms.
Trump Media & Technology Group and Rumble filed a lawsuit in the U.S. against Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, challenging his orders to suspend accounts on the two platforms linked to disinformation campaigns in Brazil.
The case follows earlier unsuccessful efforts by Elon Musk’s X to resist similar Brazilian rulings.
Together, the cases exemplify a growing trend in which U.S. political and corporate actors attempt to undermine foreign regulatory authority by pressing the case that domestic U.S. law and corporate protections should take precedence over sovereign policies globally.
From corporate lobbying to lawfare
At the core of the dispute is Allan dos Santos, a right-wing Brazilian influencer and fugitive from justice who fled to the U.S. in 2021 after De Moraes ordered his preventive arrest for allegedly coordinating disinformation networks and inciting violence.
Dos Santos has continued his online activities abroad. Brazil’s extradition requests have gone unanswered due to claims by U.S. authorities that the case involves issues of free speech rather than criminal offenses.
Trump Media and Rumble’s lawsuit attempts to do two things. First, it seeks to frame Brazil’s judicial actions as censorship rather than oversight. And second, it seeks to portray the Brazilian court action as territorial overreach.
Their position is that as the target of the action was in the U.S., they are subject to U.S. free speech protections under the First Amendment. The fact that the subject of the ban was Brazilian and is accused of spreading disinformation and hate in Brazil should not, they argue, matter.
For now, U.S. courts agree. In late February, a…
