Brazil's Supreme Federal Court (STF) may resume two far-reaching trials on Thursday (27): whether there is an employment relationship between digital platforms and the drivers and couriers who work through them, a debate known in Brazil as "uberization", and the validity of a provision of the Marco Civil da Internet, Brazil's Internet bill of rights, that requires a court order for access to user traffic data, including information that can identify who used a given IP address. According to G1, whatever the court decides on the labor case will be binding on the rest of the judiciary. More than 10,000 lawsuits are on hold awaiting a ruling, and the decision could affect about 1.7 million app-based workers.
According to the legal news site Migalhas, Chief Justice Edson Fachin changed the agenda and said Thursday's session will open with the Marco Civil case and a separate action on investigations conducted by police detectives, so the platform appeals will not come first. G1 reports that the "uberization" trial is expected to restart with Fachin's own vote, since he is the rapporteur of an appeal by Uber, admitted under the court's general repercussion rule, against a position of the Superior Labor Court (TST).
How the cases reached the court
The labor dispute arrived at the STF through appeals by two platforms against labor court decisions that recognized the employment bond. Uber challenges a TST position; Rappi contests a ruling by the Regional Labor Court of the 3rd Region, in Minas Gerais, that recognized the employment relationship of a motorcycle courier. The Internet case was filed by the Brazilian Association of Internet and Telecommunications Providers (Abrint) and began to be tried in the virtual plenary in December 2025, when rapporteur Cristiano Zanin and Justice Dias Toffoli voted to uphold the rule.
In his vote, Zanin argued that authorities may directly request basic registration data, such as name, parentage and address, but that access to traffic data requires a specific court order because it restricts fundamental rights. For the rapporteur, this type of metadata can reveal users' habits, routines and relationship networks.
What each side argues
Labor courts have recognized the bond on the grounds that ride-hailing and delivery apps perform, in practice, the core activity of transport or logistics companies. The platforms say they are "technology companies" that only intermediate the provision of services, with no subordination, since workers set their own hours and trips, and ask the court to recognize free enterprise and economic freedom. Workers say there is supervision by the platforms and that they follow the "algorithm's command", which sets price, route, ranking and blocking, amounting to an employment relationship.
In the trial, the Attorney General's Office (AGU) defended contractual protection for workers within an environment of technological innovation, which could pave the way for minimum rights such as a pay floor, a daily limit on hours logged in, social security contributions and life insurance. The Labor Prosecutor's Office (MPT) asked for the bond to be analyzed case by case and also defended a minimum floor of rights, noting that platform work has already spread to doctors, nurses and teachers. One reference in the debate is the recently approved ILO Convention 193, described as the first global pact on digital platforms, which sets minimum parameters such as union freedom, collective bargaining and pay compatible with each country's minimum standards.
Behind the scenes, according to G1, there is an expectation that Fachin will vote for an intermediate line, with minimum guarantees, and that there would be a majority to reject the employment bond, although justices are discussing a thesis that recognizes protections such as working-hour limits and social security contributions. The next step is Thursday's plenary session (27), which starts with the Marco Civil case; the court may then resume the "uberization" trial, but justices can still ask for more time to study the case, which would delay a final ruling.