Justice Toffoli voted for the unconstitutionality of Article 19, proposing a notice-and-takedown regime for ISPs liability, except in cases where the content (i) is promoted, (ii) involves fake profiles, (iii) concerns copyright violations, and (iv) falls under an exhaustive list of serious crimes proposed in the vote, in which the platform will be held liable, regardless of a notice to remove the content. Email services and online meeting tools are exempt from this regime, provided they do not operate as social networks; blogs and journalistic websites should be subject to the right of reply law (Law #13,188/15).

Justice Fux also voted for the unconstitutionality of Article 19, proposing a notice-and-takedown regime for ISPs liability. In his proposal, the Judiciary should be involved only if there is an interest in restoring the removed content. In addition, Justice Fux suggests that ISPs should have the duty to actively monitor content related to hate speech, racism, pedophilia, apology to violence, and the coup d'état.

Justice Barroso, delivered a more balanced vote, defending that Article 19 is partially unconstitutional, and its liability regime could be maintained with changes. Justice Barroso defended that notice-and-takedown regime should be the general rule and that the existing regime (judicial takedown) should be maintained for content involving crimes against honor (such as slander, insult, and defamation). His vote also highlights platform's duty of care regarding systemic risks, such as the spread of child pornography, suicide incitement, human trafficking, and terrorism. Barroso also urged the Congress to establish a regulatory framework focused on mitigating systemic risks, including audits, impact reports, and sanctions under the supervision of an independent authority. He also suggested that, until such an authority is created, platforms should publish annual transparency reports modeled after the European Digital Services Act.