7/28/26, 2:44 PM consultaunificadapje.tse.jus.br/consulta-publica-unificada/documento?extensaoArquivo=text/html&path=tse/2026/5/18/17/51/1/86e… Thus, once the irregularity of the advertising disseminated in the case at hand is recognized, the offender is subject to the fine stipulated in Article 57-D, § 2, of Law No. 9.504/97, which, according to the jurisprudence of this Court, is not restricted to cases of anonymity, being equally applicable to instances of abuse of freedom of expression occurring in electoral advertising disseminated on the internet. Along these lines: 2024 ELECTIONS. REGIMENTAL APPEAL. APPEAL IN SPECIAL ELECTORAL APPEAL. REPRESENTATION. IRREGULAR PROPAGANDA. DISSEMINATION OF ADVERTISING WITH OFFENSIVE CONTENT. INTERNET. FINE PROVIDED FOR IN ART. 57-D, § 2, OF LAW NO. 9,504/1997. APPLICABILITY. CONFORMITY OF THE REGIONAL COURT'S DECISION WITH THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE SUPERIOR ELECTORAL COURT (TSE). TSE PRECEDENT NO. 30. DENIAL OF PROVISION. 1. The fine stipulated in Article 57-D, § 2, of Law No. 9.504/1997 is not limited to cases of anonymity, and may be applied to instances of abuse of freedom of expression occurring in electoral propaganda disseminated via the internet with the publication of injurious, defamatory, or knowingly false information. Application of Ruling No. 30 of the TSE (Superior Electoral Court) Summary. 2. The appeal is denied. (AgR-AREspE No. 0600589-77.2024.6.26.0386/SP, Justice André Mendonça, DJe of 04/30/2025) On the other hand, the appellant seeks a reduction of the fine – set at R$15,000.00 in the judgment – ​ based on the principles of reasonableness and proportionality. I emphasize, however, that there are no elements in the regional court's decision that would allow for such a measure. Furthermore, according to the jurisprudence of the TSE (Superior Electoral Court), a fine set within legal limits does not violate these principles. In this regard, see: 2024 ELECTIONS. REGIMENTAL APPEAL. APPEAL. SPECIAL ELECTORAL APPEAL. REPRESENTATION. IRREGULAR ELECTORAL PROPAGANDA. PRINTED CAMPAIGN MATERIAL. FLYERS. SPILLAGE. FINE. REEXAMINATION OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE. IMPOSSIBILITY. REGIONAL DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THIS SUPERIOR COURT. TSE SUMMARIES Nos. 24 AND 30. APPLICABILITY. DENIAL OF PROVISION. [...] 5. A fine imposed within legal limits does not violate the principles of proportionality and reasonableness . 6. The appeal is denied. (AgR-AREspE No. 0600358-49.2024.6.18.0038/PI, Rel. Min. André Mendonça, DJe of 4/2/2026 – emphasis added) Finally, as highlighted in the appealed decision, granting the special appeal did not imply a reexamination of facts and evidence, which is prohibited by Precedent No. 24/TSE, but rather a legal reclassification of the factual premises contained in the regional court's decision. Based on the factual guidelines established in the original ruling, the court concluded that the post was irregular, given the use of deepfake , a prohibited method provided for in Article 9-C, § 1, of TSE Resolution No. 23,610/2019, whose nature is objective, not requiring proof of potential to mislead the voter, contrary to what the TRE/CE understood. Therefore, I reject the claim that the single-judge decision involved a re-examination of the factual and evidentiary record to reach a conclusion different from that adopted by the court of origin. The appealed decision, therefore, does not warrant reversal. In light of the foregoing, I deny the motion for reconsideration. It's the vote. https://consultaunificadapje.tse.jus.br/consulta-publica-unificada/documento?extensaoArquivo=text/html&path=tse/2026/5/18/17/51/1/86eb5dfd8c3ddd… 5/6