On June 16, 2026, GECEX Resolution No. 906/2026 was published, which, among other matters, addresses public interest interventions of a political nature. Although this provision already existed in Decrees No. 8,058/2013 and No. 10,839/2021, which regulate the application of antidumping and countervailing measures, respectively, GECEX Resolution No. 906/2026 clarifies the existence of this possibility and establishes that such interventions must be duly justified. In this context, GECEX has the authority to suspend or reduce trade defense measures recommended by the Department of Trade Defense and Public Interest (Decom). These interventions may be subject to a request for reconsideration, first submitted to GECEX and, if the decision is not revised, to the Strategic Council of the Foreign Trade Chamber.

In addition, GECEX Resolution No. 906/2026 also stipulates that it is the responsibility of the Foreign Trade Chamber’s Committee on Trade Defense and Public Interest to discuss and seek clarification on proposals for intervention in trade defense measures in cases where a public interest review proceeding is underway—a scenario that may also justify public interest interventions in trade defense decisions.

The Internal Rules of Procedure for this Committee were published on June 25 via GECEX Resolution No. 922/2026. The Committee does not have a deliberative function, but is an integral part of the CAMEX structure designed to support the decision-making process of the CAMEX Strategic Council and GECEX on matters of trade defense and public interest. It is composed of representatives of the members of the CAMEX Executive Management Committee.

The Rules of Procedure divide the Committee’s responsibilities into two main areas. With regard to trade defense, Article 2 provides that the Committee may examine, debate, and seek clarification on recommendations concerning the imposition, extension, modification, suspension, or resumption of antidumping and countervailing duties, safeguard measures, and price undertakings, as well as other measures related to the administration, implementation, and collection of trade defense measures.

With regard to matters of public interest, Article 3 provides that the Committee may analyze recommendations concerning, among other issues, the suspension of the enforceability of definitive antidumping and countervailing duties, the non-imposition of provisional duties, the imposition of duties at levels different from those recommended in trade remedy investigations, the approval of price undertakings, the reinstatement of suspended measures, and requests for reconsideration or administrative appeals related to these matters.

Resolution No. 922/2026 also establishes internal deadlines for the Committee’s operations, particularly in Articles 10 and 11 of the Internal Rules of Procedure. In addition to the rules on convening and holding meetings, Article 11 provides that matters submitted to the Committee for consideration must be supported by opinions, technical notes, or equivalent documents. Article 13, in turn, provides for the publication on the CAMEX website of the tentative annual meeting schedule, the actual dates of the meetings held, and a record of the topics discussed.

According to the Rules of Procedure, the Committee’s meetings shall be confidential, and preparatory documents, recommendations, reports, and discussions may not be disclosed prior to the adoption of the relevant administrative acts by the decision-making authorities.

O conteúdo New Resolutions Regulating Trade Remedy and Public Interest Procedures aparece primeiro em Grinberg Cordovil Advogados.

The USTR (Office of the United States Trade Representative), the U.S. trade authority, has published new updates regarding the investigation conducted under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 against Brazil. The investigation was initiated on July 15, 2025, and covers Brazilian practices related to digital trade and payment methods, including Pix, preferential tariffs, anti-corruption practices, intellectual property, access to the ethanol market, and illegal deforestation.

On June 1, 2026, the USTR concluded that certain Brazilian practices were unreasonable or discriminatory and would burden or restrict U.S. trade. As a result, it proposed imposing an additional 25% tariff on all goods originating in Brazil. The proposed measure has broad application, covering all Brazilian products, except for those expressly excluded in the report. Among the excluded products are, for example, beef and beef offal; vegetables and fruits; coffee; teas and spices; food preparations and beverages; minerals, ores, and fuels; metals and precious stones, such as gold, silver, platinum, palladium, and rhodium; computers and parts; and certain aeronautical items, such as aircraft engines, parts, and components.These products were excluded because they are considered strategic by the U.S. government.

The next milestones in the investigation focus on the public consultation phase: the deadline for requests to participate in the hearing was June 22, 2026; written comments may be submitted until July 1, 2026; and the public hearing will take place on July 6, 2026.

At the same time, there is an investigation into forced labor, launched on March 12, 2026, covering 60 countries, including Brazil. On this front, the USTR is assessing the absence or inadequacy of bans on the import of goods produced, in whole or in part, using forced labor.

On June 2, 2026, the USTR proposed an additional 12.5% tariff on products from the economies under investigation, including Brazil. Requests to participate in the hearing are also due by June 22, 2026; written comments must be submitted by July 6, 2026; and the hearings will begin on July 7, 2026, with an additional five-day period following the last day of the hearings for rebuttal comments.

These timelines indicate that the adoption of measures against Brazil could be formalized as early as the second half of this year, and in the worst-case scenario, they would amount to an additional 37.5% tariff.

O conteúdo U.S. Proposes Additional Tariffs on Brazilian Products Under Investigation Under Section 301 aparece primeiro em Grinberg Cordovil Advogados.

1. The Justifications for the New Regulatory Measures

The Ministry’s report provides a comprehensive review of the current state of digital platforms, emphasizing the significant role they play in connecting consumers, service providers, and advertisers. According to the report, platforms benefit from strong network effects, meaning that their value grows as more users join. This same dynamic has led to market dominance by a few large players, limiting competition and raising concerns about data privacy.

Drawing from international examples, the report compares the Brazilian proposal to regulatory models in the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Japan. It concludes that current antitrust laws are insufficient to address the unique challenges posed by digital platforms. In response, the Ministry opted for a hybrid regulatory approach that combines preventive measures seen in Europe with reactive mechanisms that are, in principle, more flexible and adaptable to each platform and/or specific service provided to users.

The report indicates that the proposals will be presented to Congress in the coming months, possibly through a government-backed bill. Legislative changes are essential to grant CADE, Brazil’s competition authority, the power to designate certain platforms as “gatekeepers” (or, in the adopted terminology, systemically relevant platforms) and to impose specific obligations on them.

2. Key Proposals from the Report

The Ministry’s report includes several key proposals, summarized below:

Proposal 1: Designating Systemically Relevant Platforms

A new legal instrument will allow CADE to designate systemically relevant economic agents in digital markets based on a combination of qualitative and quantitative criteria. This designation will identify platforms that possess significant market power due to their size, user base, and role in multi-sided markets.

• Qualitative criteria: Platforms with strong network effects, multi-sided markets, access to large amounts of personal and commercial data, and the provision of multiple digital services will be considered.
• Quantitative criteria: Minimum revenue thresholds will ensure that only large economic players are subject to designation, avoiding overregulation of smaller companies.
• Designation process: The process can be triggered by CADE or third parties, including civil society organizations, with all decisions subject to approval by CADE’s Tribunal.

Proposal 2: Substantive obligations

Once designated, the platforms may be subject to general and specific obligations, as assessed by CADE. These obligations aim to ensure fair competition and provide clarity to consumers and other stakeholders.

• General obligations: Designated platforms may be required to notify CADE of any mergers or acquisitions and adhere to transparency requirements related to their services and products.
• Specific substantive obligations: These can include both positive and negative requirements, such as modifying business practices, ensuring data access to third parties, and enabling interoperability with other platforms. Platforms may also be restricted from self-preferencing, a practice where they prioritize their own services over those of competitors.
• Monitoring and compliance: Platforms will need to provide regular reports to CADE, demonstrating compliance with both general and specific obligations.

Proposal 3: Modifications to CADE’s structure

CADE will have the authority to impose obligations on designated platforms based on a thorough investigation of each company’s business model. These obligations will be tailored to address the specific risks posed by each platform. A specialized unit within CADE should be created to manage the designation process and monitor the obligations imposed on these platforms. This unit will collaborate with other regulators, such as ANATEL (the telecommunications agency) and ANPD (the data protection authority), to ensure sector-specific compliance.

3. The full list of proposals

The proposals focus on establishing new legal instruments for designating systemically relevant platforms and adjusting existing antitrust tools to better address the unique challenges posed by the digital economy. According to the report and the speeches during the press conference, these measures aim to enhance competition, transparency, and regulatory oversight in multi-sided markets, ensuring that platforms with significant market power are subject to appropriate scrutiny and obligations.

The proposals also emphasize the importance of collaboration between regulatory bodies to ensure effective enforcement and compliance in the rapidly evolving digital landscape.

Group 1 – New Instrument for Promoting Competition in Systemically Relevant Platforms

• Proposal 1: Establish a procedure for designating systemically relevant platforms based on qualitative and quantitative criteria, such as multi-sided markets, network effects, and revenue thresholds.
• Proposal 2: Introduce procedural and transparency obligations for designated platforms, including prior merger notifications and transparency in services and terms of use.
• Proposal 3: Allow CADE to investigate designated platforms and impose specific substantive obligations to address competition concerns.
• Proposal 4: Create a specialized unit within CADE to implement and monitor the new pro-competitive tool for designated platforms.
• Proposal 5: Implement substantive obligations in collaboration with regulators like ANATEL and ANPD to address technical and sector-specific concerns.
• Proposal 6: Strengthen CADE’s capabilities for conducting market studies, granting proactive analysis power to the Department of Economic Studies.
• Proposal 7: Create an inter-institutional cooperation forum between CADE and other federal bodies to facilitate information exchange and collaboration on digital market issues.

 Group 2 – Adjustments to the Application of Antitrust Tools for Platforms in General

• Proposal 8: Update antitrust analysis tools to incorporate network and ecosystem analyses for assessing competitive risks in digital platforms.
• Proposal 9: Revise CADE’s merger notification form to include specific questions on digital market dynamics, such as network effects and data use.
• Proposal 10: Adopt the ordinary process for analyzing mergers involving digital platforms with a large number of users, allowing for deeper analysis.
• Proposal 11: Use the flexibility of Law 12,529/2011 to require merger submissions that pose competitive risks, even if they do not meet notification criteria.
• Proposal 12: Update revenue thresholds for prior merger notifications to focus CADE’s resources on transactions with greater competitive impact.

4. Looking Ahead

The Ministry emphasized that this regulatory framework aims to create a balanced approach, ensuring that digital platforms contribute to a competitive, transparent, and fair market in Brazil. The proposals will undergo further scrutiny once presented to Congress, and the Ministry anticipates that discussions will continue in the coming months.

O conteúdo Brazilian Ministry of Finance Proposes New Regulatory Framework for Digital Platforms aparece primeiro em Grinberg Cordovil Advogados.

The British antitrust agency decided to block the deal, reasoning that the acquisition of Activision Blizzard by Microsoft would cause a substantial and harmful concentration in the cloud gaming industry, harming the UK consumer. CMA´s decision is subject to a court appeal by Microsoft, the court section is scheduled to the week of July 24th .

The outlooks of the operation don´t seem very promising in the USA jurisdiction either, given the fact that the FTC, US´s antitrust agency, also has spoken against the acquisition. A evidentiary hearing is scheduled for august 2nd . In the Brazilian jurisdiction the merger control was approved without any remedies, as well as in China, the European Union amongst other jurisdictions.

It is curious that the US and UK jurisdictions are the responsible for bringing a more thorough and hard analysis on such a merger, when it is usually the European Union that brings a harder approach on the use of antitrust law against the big tech companies. Perhaps what we are seeing is different approaches on facing big tech, UK and US are using the merger control tool whilst the EU is betting on repressive approach with inquiries and prosecuting anticompetitive conducts.

There is still a chance that de CMA is seeking to regain its protagonism in a post Brexit moment. The only certainty is that competition law firmly holds itself as the main stage in the fierce fight in-between governments and big techs.

O conteúdo The Cloud Gaming market and CADE´s mismatch with the FTC and CMA aparece primeiro em Grinberg Cordovil Advogados.

O conteúdo ANPD selects experts to discuss Simplified Registration of Personal Data Processing Operations aparece primeiro em Grinberg Cordovil Advogados.

The Commission proposed the following lines of inquiry for the referred to inspection, formulated as objective questions to be answered in the inspection process: (i) Is there coherence and harmony in CADE’s decisions, regarding authorizations, penalties, fines, and other decisions, concerning different companies?; (ii) Is there any bias in the collegiate’s decisions that may be harming the business environment in our country?; (iii) How is CADE incorporating the provisions of §3 of art. 1 of Law 13,874/2019 in its decisions?; and (iv) Is there any aspect of CADE’s performance that may be increasing the degree of legal uncertainty in our country?

As a result, TCU’s plenary sent questions to CADE about the performance of some of its bodies and the compliance of its day-to-day activities with the dictates of the Economic Freedom Law. The questions sent to CADE were:

• if the Department of Economic Studies (DEE/CADE) prepared studies, regarding the scope and possible impacts of Law 13,874/2019, in relation to the performance of the autarchy. If so, clarify what was done, and forward relevant documentation to this Court;
• if CADE promoted any changes in internal regulations and/or in procedural rites, in order to guide and adapt the activities carried out by its technical staff and/or its judging bodies, in view of Law 13,874/2019. If so, indicate what changes were made and send this Court a copy of the amended rule; and
• when judging the cases submitted to it, if, and how, has CADE been incorporating the principles and provisions of Law 13,874/2019 into its decisions, exemplifying, if possible, judgments handed down by the autarchy since the enactment of the referred to law.

The work of the Commission and the TCU began with a meeting scheduled for the first week of November with CADE to address this issue.

O conteúdo CADE and the Economic Freedom Law aparece primeiro em Grinberg Cordovil Advogados.

O conteúdo CADE regulates the sharing of Technical Notes with Public Prosecutors aparece primeiro em Grinberg Cordovil Advogados.

O conteúdo National Data Protection Authority publishes Guide on Cookies aparece primeiro em Grinberg Cordovil Advogados.

O conteúdo Cade acknowledges gun jumping in procedure terminated by agreement aparece primeiro em Grinberg Cordovil Advogados.

O conteúdo CADE decides to close preparatory proceeding on abusive prices in the pharmaceutical sector aparece primeiro em Grinberg Cordovil Advogados.