CADE recommended closing the administrative proceeding that was investigating alleged antitrust violations related to the so-called Soy Moratorium and will no longer be able to investigate the legality of the agreement.[1] The measure complies with the decision of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) in the joint ruling on Direct Unconstitutionality Actions (ADIs) 7774 and 7775. [2]
The Soy Moratorium is a sectoral agreement signed in 2006, under which purchasing companies voluntarily committed not to purchase soy produced in areas of the Amazon biome that were deforested after July 2008. The agreement was created in the absence of a Forest Code and in an attempt to curb the growth of deforestation in the Amazon biome. Even after the Forest Code was enacted in 2012, the agreement remained in effect and was, in fact, more stringent than the legislation.
The CADE proceeding was initiated on August 18, 2025, based on several complaints[3] filed against Abiove, Anec, and approximately thirty exporting companies that are members of the Soybean Working Group (GTS). The allegation was that the GTS had been formed by competitors (export companies) to monitor the market and facilitate an agreement establishing uniform conditions for soybean purchases, involving the systematic exchange of commercially sensitive information (such as price, volume, and product origin).[4]
Upon initiating the Administrative Proceeding, the SG/CADE also imposed a preventive measure ordering the immediate suspension of the Soy Moratorium. As a result, the respondents would be prohibited from exchanging commercial information regarding the sale, production, or purchase of soybeans, as well as from conducting audits and disclosing lists and reports that would facilitate the agreement. Some of the parties filed a Voluntary Appeal, and the CADE Tribunal granted a partial relief to suspend the effectiveness of the preventive measure until December 31, 2025.[5]
In the meantime, two ADIs were filed with the Federal Supreme Court (ADIs 7774 and 7775) to challenge the constitutionality of two laws that restricted the granting of tax benefits and public land to companies participating in private agreements that imposed stricter environmental restrictions on the expansion of agricultural activity than those provided for in legislation, such as the Soy Moratorium. In light of this, in November 2025, Justice Flávio Dino (rapporteur for the ADIs) suspended the proceedings in the judicial and administrative cases addressing the legality of the Moratorium, including those pending before CADE.
On August 12, 2026, the Full Court of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) jointly ruled on the ADIs and, by a majority vote, found the Soy Moratorium to be consistent with the Constitution, ordering the dismissal of all cases that directly or indirectly challenged it. Although the ADIs concerned Law No. 12,709/2024 of the State of Mato Grosso and Law No. 5,837/2024 of the State of Rondônia, Justice Flávio Dino held that the Soy Moratorium was the underlying context for these laws and, therefore, the discussion depended on a ruling on its legality (or illegality). [6]
In discussing the legality of the Soy Moratorium, the reporting judge argued that a finding of an antitrust violation would require elements such as price-fixing, market division, or the arbitrary exclusion of competitors. Such elements would be absent in an arrangement structured around public, objective, and uniform criteria regarding the product’s socio-environmental origin, as is the case with the Soy Moratorium. Another point raised to determine legality was the government’s own historical involvement in the formation of the agreement, such that it would be unlikely to sustain the existence of a cartel after approximately two decades of government support. Justices Cristiano Zanin, Cármen Lúcia, Gilmar Mendes, and Edson Fachin concurred with this line of reasoning.
The dissenting opinion, led by Justice Dias Toffoli and joined by Justices André Mendonça and Luiz Fux, held that the subject matter of the ADIs was limited to the validity of state laws and that the analysis of the Moratorium’s potential anti-competitive nature was a matter for CADE, based on an examination of factual evidence and the actual competitive reality. Justice Dias Toffoli expressed concerns regarding market concentration in the soybean purchasing market, the bargaining power of small and medium-sized producers, and the commercial exclusion of deforested areas within the limits authorized by the Forest Code. Justice André Mendonça, meanwhile, noted that legitimate private transactions remain subject to competition oversight.
The decision to set aside the presumption of intrinsic illegality of the Soy Moratorium means that CADE will not be able to initiate proceedings to investigate the legality of the agreement itself, nor to determine any potential antitrust liability that is based, directly or indirectly, on its very existence, structure, or purpose. In other words, it will not be possible to reopen, on antitrust grounds, the debate over the validity of the Moratorium, which has already been resolved by the STF. This does not, however, CADE from examining autonomous and subsequent conduct that may have been engaged in by the participating companies—such as price or volume coordination, improper exchange of competitively sensitive information, or use of the arrangement for purposes other than those considered by the Court—provided that the investigation is based on new and independent facts and does not, in practice, constitute a reexamination of the legality of the Moratorium itself.
As for state laws, the prevailing view was that states may establish conditions for granting tax incentives without being required to incorporate stricter environmental criteria adopted by private entities.
This precedent extends beyond agribusiness. Sector-specific sustainability initiatives established among competitors appear to have gained a constitutional basis for legitimacy, although they still require careful design from a competition law perspective.
[1] Administrative Proceeding No. 08700.005853/2024-38, order closing the proceeding: https://sei.cade.gov.br/sei/modulos/pesquisa/md_pesq_documento_consulta_externa.php? HJ7F4wnIPj2Y8B7Bj80h1lskjh7ohC8yMfhLoDBLddaplNNG1vpRjxPaOreL7VRykGrtvT1OTZNn8RTcpKVPM9ydfbFwSFZV_oIBQflebVLPrfcIlWPCWoSViTmuAWqq
[2] https://noticias.stf.jus.br/postsnoticias/stf-reconhece-validade-da-moratoria-da-soja-e-determina-fim-de-acoes-sobre-acordo/
[3] Submissions filed by the Chamber of Deputies’ Committee on Agriculture, Livestock, Supply, and Rural Development (“CAPADR/CD”), by Aprosoja/MT, by Senator Alan Rick and Federal Deputy Coronel Fernanda, and by the Brazilian Confederation of Agriculture and Livestock (CNA).
[4] “SG/CADE Initiates Administrative Proceedings and Imposes a Preventive Measure Regarding the Soy Moratorium,”
August 18, 2025. Available at: https://www.gov.br/cade/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/sg-cade-instaura-processo-administrativo-e-impoe-medida-preventiva-sobre-a-moratoria-da-soja.
[5] “CADE Court Upholds Preventive Measure on Soybean Moratorium, Effective as of 2026,”
September 30, 2025. Available at: https://www.gov.br/cade/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/tribunal-do-cade-mantem-medida-preventiva-sobre-moratoria-da-soja-com-efeito-a-partir-de-2026.
[6] STF, ADIs 7774 and 7775, Reporting Justice Flávio Dino, decision rendered on August 12, 2026. Available at: https://noticias.stf.jus.br/postsnoticias/stf-reconhece-validade-da-moratoria-da-soja-e-determina-fim-de-acoes-sobre-acordo/
