Brazil is one of the world’s largest streaming markets, ranking 10th globally in revenue contribution to the sector in 2023, according to a report by the country’s antitrust authority, CADE. And the growing importance of streaming services in Brazilians’ daily lives — and in the national economy — has long attracted the attention of regulators.
As early as 2012, Brazil’s National Cinema Agency (Ancine) was already discussing video-on-demand (VOD), formally defining it as a segment of the audiovisual market by way of a normative instruction. In 2015, the Culture Ministry’s cinema council published a report examining the challenges of regulating VOD.
Two years later, citing the absence of sector-specific rules, it created a committee to develop regulatory proposals — work that would inspire Workers’ Party lawmaker Paulo Teixeira (now agrarian development minister) to draft and present a bill on regulating streaming in 2017. A second proposal on the subject would be put forward in the Senate five years later.
While discussions on regulating streaming have been ongoing for more than a decade, last year marked a turning point, with debates and legislative activity stepping up the pace.
Momentum initially came from the regulation proposal filed in the Senate, which was approved by the upper chamber and forwarded to the House. Meanwhile, Teixeira’s bill also made progress, creating a dispute between the two proposals, both currently being considered in the Senate.
The streaming debate has been marked by constant disagreement between the government — above all the Culture Ministry, which has been spearheading the process — production companies, actors, traditional broadcasters and VOD providers.
Among the main points of contention concerns a provision for a new tax to be levied on streaming services: Condecine, a contribution to fund the development of the Brazilian TV and film industry. Previously, these VOD platforms were exempt from paying this tax.
The proposals under discussion would also see the Condecine tax levied on audiovisual content-sharing platforms such as YouTube and TikTok, on the grounds that these services compete with the broader TV and film market for audience attention. A central point of this discussion, however, is how to define these audiovisual content-sharing platforms — and whether, and to what extent, they differ from streaming services.
Broadly speaking, streaming is understood as a service offering audiovisual content through a curated catalogue intended for non-linear, online consumption, allowing users to choose what to watch and when. Content-sharing platforms, by contrast, are generally defined as services that enable users to create and share content online. The distinction lies not only in who produces and curates the content, but also in how it is distributed and consumed.
At the same time, there are important differences among content-sharing platforms themselves. Current debates seek to differentiate them based on both the format of the content and the way it is presented to users.
Some platforms (such as YouTube) deliver audiovisual content in a manner similar to streaming services, offering catalogues that include films and long-form videos designed for full-screen viewing. Others, such as Instagram and TikTok, center on shorter videos interspersed with photos and text, delivered through continuous scrolling feeds and a markedly different consumption experience. These distinctions could prove decisive in determining Condecine tax obligations within a streaming-focused regulatory framework, as some models more closely resemble traditionally regulated services.
Another major issue concerns the protection and promotion of Brazilian-made content, objectives which are reflected in several aspects of the proposed regulations. One key measure is the introduction of mandatory quotas for Brazilian content in platforms’ catalogues, typically calculated as a proportion of total available content. A portion of these quotas would need to be met through independent productions.
In addition to quotas, the proposals include “prominence” requirements, obliging platforms to ensure adequate visibility for national content within user interfaces. Fiscal incentives are also under discussion, including Condecine deductions and substantial discounts for platforms whose catalogues contain high shares of Brazilian and independent productions.
For now, the outcome remains uncertain. High-profile figures have entered the debate, including Golden Globe-winner Wagner Moura, the star of “The Secret Agent,” Brazil’s submission for Best International Feature at this year’s Oscars. In a video published on social media in December, he derided the proposed 4% Condecine levy for streaming services as “bizarre,” calling for a much higher rate that would be more in line with the size of Brazil’s streaming market.
It remains unclear which legislative proposal will ultimately serve as the basis for the final VOD regulatory framework. Even so, the process is expected to conclude in the near term, raising the possibility that Brazil could have comprehensive streaming regulations in place as early as this year.
Lucas Galvagna, an intern at the VMCA law firm, co-authored this text
