Brazil’s Digital Markets Bill: A DMA Through the Back Door?
The Brazilian government’s executive branch hosted a political ceremony last week in which it unveiled its “Digital Brazil Agenda,” which proposes six government projects to build a “safer, more competitive, and more innovative digital environment.” The most high-profile of these was the Digital Child and Teenager Act, which would set rules for how social-media platforms must manage use of their products by minors. But just as important was Bill 4.675/2025, the long-awaited ex-ante digital markets regulation bill, which was formally submitted by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s government to the Brazilian House of Representatives.
The submission marks the culmination of a public consultation that the Ministry of Finance kicked off in January 2024 (see here and here). Indeed, the Brazilian antitrust community had been eagerly awaiting the government’s next steps ever since the ministry published its report on the matter last October. And while Bill 4.675/2025’s fate remains uncertain, it appears to have much stronger prospects of passage than its predecessor, which languished amid a political stalemate.
In this post, we will explore four key aspects of the bill. To start, we will break down its substantive features, including the criteria for designating companies as having “systematic relevance in digital markets,” the menu of possible special obligations, the absence of efficiency or justification defenses, and the proposed sanctions.
Next, we explain why it matters that the legislation is proposed as an amendment to the Brazilian Competition Law (BCL), rather than a freestanding regulatory regime, as well as how this affects its objectives and the limits to intervention. We argue that Bill 4.675/2025 could clash with existing competition law in various ways.
Third, we examine the proposal’s institutional design and, in particular, the decision to create a new Digital Markets Superintendency. There are obvious potential risks that could arise from having two investigative bodies within the agency. We argue that this could exacerbate legal fragmentation and the proliferation of conflicting standards and goals.
Finally, we offer reflections on the Brazilian political and economic context, the bill’s prospects in Congress, and the importance of conducting regulatory-impact assessments before moving forward. Unfortunately, there are currently no plans for any such assessments.