IInfo1
Politics

Section 301: How STF, PIX, Lava Jato, and Corruption Ended Up in the US Crosshairs

Waldeilson Santos•2026-06-02

The USTR's final report under Section 301 puts Brazil on the path to American trade sanctions. Understand the impacts on Pix, Big Techs, patents, and the global market.

The international trade landscape and the Brazilian digital ecosystem have just suffered a major shock. On June 1, 2026, the USTR (Office of the United States Trade Representative) published a final determination concluding that a series of acts, policies, and practices by the Brazilian government and judiciary are "unreasonable or discriminatory" and burden or restrict US commerce. According much to the official statement released on the USTR portal, Brazil is now formally subject to severe trade sanctions and customs tariffs under Section 301 of the US Trade Act.

The investigation, initiated in July 2025 by direct presidential order, focused on structural pillars of our economy. Below, we analyze the main points of this report that directly impact the technology, payments, and data sectors in Brazil.

1. Big Techs and Freedom of Expression Under the Microscope

The most controversial point of the report addresses court orders issued by Brazilian tribunals against American tech companies (such as X, Meta, and Google).

  • Secret Orders and Blocks: The USTR highlights the negative use of sealed decisions to take down political content and profiles (including those of US residents), while prohibiting platforms from notifying the affected users. Emblematic cases such as the suspension of the Rumble platform (since February 2025) and the blocking of X (between August and October 2024) were widely cited to illustrate the financial losses and missed market opportunities for these companies.
  • Legal Uncertainty with the Marco Civil (STF): The report emphatically criticizes the decision by the Supreme Federal Court (STF) on June 26, 2025, which declared Article 19 of the Marco Civil da Internet (Brazil's Internet Bill of Rights) partially unconstitutional. In the American view, striking down the requirement for a prior court order to hold platforms civilly liable for third-party content forces companies to engage in proactive censorship to avoid massive litigation.

2. Pix and Conflict of Interest in the Payments Sector

For those operating in the fintech and payment methods sector, the analysis of Pix is crucial.

  • Regulator and Competitor: The USTR pointed out that the Central Bank of Brazil (Bacen) operates under a clear conflict of interest by acting simultaneously as the market regulator and the owner/operator of Pix.
  • Disadvantage for US Companies: The report accuses Bacen of using its regulatory power to favor Pix to the detriment of foreign electronic payment solutions. Requirements making Pix mandatory for institutions with over 500,000 accounts, mandating visual prominence on primary app screens (at a level no less than other services), and forced free transactions for individuals alongside fee caps for businesses are viewed as discriminatory regulatory subsidies. According to the US, this forces American acquirers and platforms to promote their main competitor without any compensation.

3. Tariffs and Trade Agreements with India and Mexico in Sight

The USTR determined that the partial-scope bilateral agreements maintained by Brazil with Mexico and India reduce tariffs (between 10% and 100% below the Most Favored Nation/MFN Common External Tariff) in highly competitive sectors, such as automotive, chemical, and machinery.

  • Market Share Erosion: The report presents data showing that while the market share of Mexican automotive products in Brazil rose, that of US products fell by half (from 22% to 11%). Nearly all vehicle imports from Mexico enter with zero tariffs, whereas US products face MFN tariffs ranging from 14% to 35%.
  • Offshoring Risks: The US government argues that this asymmetry creates an artificial incentive for industries to move their manufacturing plants from the US to Mexico or India in order to export to the Brazilian market.

4. Setbacks in the Fight Against Corruption (Lava Jato)

A significant macroeconomic factor was the analysis of the public integrity environment in Brazil.

  • Annulling Lava Jato: The USTR cites the OECD report and sharply criticizes the decision by Justice Dias Toffoli (in September 2023) to annul evidence obtained through leniency agreements in Operation Lava Jato (Car Wash). The opaque renegotiation of these agreements in 2024 and Brazil's drop in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index (scoring 35 out of 100) were flagged as breaches of international conventions.
  • Commercial Impact: In the American view, the lack of severe enforcement allows corrupt local companies to operate with impunity, disadvantaging US firms that are rigidly bound by the strict rules of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

5. Intellectual Property and Backlogged Patents

Brazil has remained on the US Special Watch List since 2007. The main issues listed are:

  • Incentives for Digital Piracy: The fact that Brazil has not acceded to the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) Internet Treaties weakens enforcement against digital piracy of copyrighted content.
  • Patent Processing Delays: 2025 WIPO data shows that the INPI (Brazil's patent office) takes an average of 38.4 months to examine a patent (30% slower than the US). In the biopharmaceutical sector, the wait can reach an alarming 109 months, destroying the commercial value of the patent's lifespan.

6. Environment and Agribusiness: Illegal Deforestation

The report features a robust data analysis regarding illegal deforestation (responsible for 91% of forest loss in the Amazon between 2023 and 2024).

  • Commodity Laundering: The USTR asserts that the lack of effective anti-fraud audits within the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) allows timber, beef, and grains (soy and corn) produced in illegally deforested areas to be "laundered" into global supply chains.
  • Eco-Dumping: The American argument is purely economic: producing on grabbed and illegally cleared land drastically reduces production costs for Brazilian agribusiness. This forces US producers, who must comply with strict environmental laws, to compete against artificially low prices, generating billions in losses for US commerce.

The Next Step: Sanctions Timeline

The US government has opened a public comment period and established the following schedule to determine the scope of punitive tariffs against Brazilian products:

Date Event
June 1, 2026 Official opening for public comments
June 22, 2026 Deadline to request participation in public hearings
July 1, 2026 Deadline for submission of written arguments
July 6, 2026 USTR holds an in-person public hearing in Washington, D.C.

What lies ahead for the Brazilian tech ecosystem?

The imposition of these tariffs could drive up costs for Brazilian exports across various sectors and trigger a strong economic retaliation. For the corporate and tech markets, the takeaway is clear: the legal uncertainty triggered by abrupt regulatory shifts and local judicial rulings has ceased to be a strictly domestic issue. Now, issues like data governance, algorithmic regulation, and international compliance have turned into critical geopolitical risk factors capable of driving away investments and destabilizing business in the global arena.

Official Source: To read the full announcement and official investigation documents, access the press release on the official USTR website.

Stay tuned to Info1 to follow the latest insights on technology, regulation, and the financial impacts shaping the global market.