By Suhely Bueno
In a case causing concern on the international stage, the blocking of approximately 10 million dollars from Starlink's accounts in Brazil due to action related to the X platform (formerly Twitter) raises questions about the risks of such practice becoming common in other countries, potentially affecting American companies globally.
Experts in international law and trade relations warn that if the United States does not present a strong response to this type of confiscation, there is a risk that other countries may adopt similar measures without facing significant consequences. Such a precedent could compromise billions of dollars in American investments abroad.
Understanding the Case
Minister Alexandre de Moraes of Brazil's Federal Supreme Court ordered the blocking of 18.3 million reais (approximately US$3.6 million) from the accounts of Starlink's Brazilian subsidiary to cover fines originally applied to the X platform. Both companies have connections to entrepreneur Elon Musk, although they are legally distinct entities.
According to a report from the portal O Bastidor, "the decision contradicts elementary principles and norms that govern the operation of companies in Brazil." The measure was taken after X emptied its bank accounts in the country amid a clash with Minister Moraes over the blocking of user accounts on the platform.
Political Persecution and International Implications
Critics of the decision point out that such a stance by the Supreme Court constitutes clear political persecution of Elon Musk, current leader of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) alongside President Donald Trump. Musk's proximity to the Trump administration has intensified the debate about the motivations behind the actions of the Brazilian Judiciary.
Recent movements by American congressmen suggest that the United States' stance should become stricter regarding these issues. Political analysts emphasize that quick actions against such illegalities are essential to avoid setting dangerous precedents for censorship and prior restraint, practices that have been observed not only in Brazil but also in countries like the United Kingdom.
Legal Separation Ignored
One of the most controversial aspects of the case is the fact that Starlink is not just owned by Elon Musk. The company is a subsidiary of SpaceX, which has more than 271 investors, including Sequoia Capital and Google. Musk holds 40% of the shares and 79% of the voting rights, but legally the companies are separate entities.
"Whether in practical terms or legal terms, SpaceX and the subsidiary are not mere 'Musk companies,' as has become common to say in Brazil," highlights the report.
Risks of a Global Precedent
International trade analysts point out that if this approach is normalized, it could create a scenario where American companies would face unpredictable risks in international operations. It is estimated that in about 190 countries where American companies operate, each jurisdiction could potentially adopt similar measures.
"This is not just a problem for Elon Musk or Starlink. It's a problem for any American company operating internationally," commented an international commercial law expert who requested anonymity. "If a country can effectively ignore the legal separation between companies and confiscate assets based on disputes with another corporate entity, this creates an extremely dangerous precedent."
Need for a Diplomatic Response
The US State Department and Department of Commerce are under growing pressure to address this issue. Sources connected to the American government indicate that the US is considering various response options, which could include diplomatic actions to trade measures against countries that adopt similar practices.
Current Situation
Meanwhile, Starlink managed to unblock its accounts after the confiscation, but X's situation in Brazil remains complex. Despite the recent release of the platform and its return to operation in the country, various profiles remain blocked in Brazil by judicial determination, maintaining the controversy about the limits of national jurisdiction over global platforms.
The case highlights the complexities of global business operations in the digital era and the challenges faced when disputes between technology companies and national authorities go beyond the traditional boundaries of legal jurisdiction.
