Meta must explain why Lula’s reach fell
Brazil’s electoral authority seeks answers over alleged restrictions on campaign posts on Instagram and Facebook.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
Brazil’s electoral authority has asked Meta for an explanation after President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s campaign complained that its posts had lower reach. Meta says technical problems were the cause and denies favouring candidate Flávio Bolsonaro.
Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court gave Meta 48 hours to provide information on the distribution of posts from Lula’s campaign. Among other things, the court wants to know whether posts were recommended less often, restricted geographically or otherwise made less visible.
Lula’s campaign, which faces Flávio Bolsonaro in the second round, speaks of selective algorithmic treatment. According to the campaign, posts from Lula and profiles affiliated with him were distributed less widely. The allegation is not yet a finding that Meta influenced the election.
Meta says there were technical problems. According to a company statement, the problems were not limited to Brazil or specific accounts, and Meta is trying to apply the election rules equally. The company has not said that Lula’s campaign’s complaints are entirely unfounded; it does deny political favouritism.
The campaign bases its case partly on its own analysis of engagement. According to figures it gave to the Brazilian public news organisation Agência Brasil, Flávio Bolsonaro’s page received an average of 2.96 times as much engagement as Lula’s, while Flávio was said to have 17.2 per cent fewer followers. The figures come from the campaign and have not been presented by the electoral authority as independent research.
The issue arises in the run-up to the second round of the election. As a result, a technical problem, an error in ad processing or a change to recommendation systems has immediate political significance. Meta manages not only Instagram and Facebook, but also WhatsApp, which is an important communication channel in Brazil.
After Meta’s response, the campaign and the public prosecutor for electoral matters may respond. The electoral judge must then assess whether further measures are needed. It is not currently clear whether the court will find a breach, demand the restoration of reach or close the case without a sanction.
The case shows how difficult it is to make algorithmic distribution during elections verifiable. A platform may explain an outage as a technical problem, while campaigns primarily see its unequal effect on voters. Without access to logs, advertising data and recommendation systems, it remains difficult to establish the cause independently.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- Brazil’s electoral judge asked Meta for an explanation of the distribution of Lula’s campaign posts.
- Meta says technical problems affected reach and denies political favouritism.
- Lula’s campaign accuses Meta of selective algorithmic treatment.
- There is not yet a definitive finding on the cause or any possible breach.
Left
Arguments Platforms have a major influence on political visibility and must therefore be able to explain transparently why posts reach fewer people. Invoking technical problems is insufficient if only one side can be shown to have suffered a disadvantage.
Values Equal political opportunities, transparency and protection against the concentration of private power.
Consequences More oversight, independent audits and access to platform data may be necessary, even if that limits Meta’s trade secrets.
Centre
Arguments The electoral judge should first have the technical data checked before drawing political conclusions. Both campaigns and platforms are entitled to due process and clear rules for election communications.
Values Procedural care, institutional independence and predictable rules.
Consequences Independent scrutiny can restore trust, but takes time while the election campaign continues.
Right
Arguments The state should be cautious about intervening in moderation and recommendation systems. Platforms may correct mistakes, but political parties should not immediately frame a technical outage as electoral interference.
Values Freedom for private enterprises, restrained government intervention and responsibility on the part of political campaigns.
Consequences Less direct state control protects platform autonomy, but may leave voters with little insight into algorithms dependent on corporate explanations.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The procedural step taken by Brazil’s electoral judge and Meta’s response have been confirmed by public Brazilian sources. Claims of favouritism and the engagement ratio cited are clearly attributed to the campaign and are not presented as proven facts.
- confirmed Brazil’s electoral authority asked Meta within 48 hours for an explanation of restrictions on Lula campaign posts. — Reported by Agência Brasil on 11 October 2026. source
- confirmed Meta said that technical problems had affected reach. — Meta’s statement was reported by Agência Brasil and SBT News. source
- confirmed Meta denies favouring Flávio Bolsonaro. — This is stated in Meta’s public statement as quoted by Agência Brasil. source
- confirmed Lula’s campaign says Flávio Bolsonaro had an average of 2.96 times more engagement with 17.2 per cent fewer followers. — These figures are attributed to the campaign by Agência Brasil. source
- confirmed Brazil’s electoral judge has not yet established that Meta influenced the election. — The sources describe a request for an explanation, not a final decision. source
Editor's note
The request for an explanation and Meta’s technical explanation are confirmed. The alleged selective restriction and the engagement figures come from Lula’s campaign and have not yet been independently established.Sources
More on this in Dutch media
- De Telegraaf — „brazilië meta”
- AD — „brazilië meta”
- de Volkskrant — „brazilië meta”