Brazil's CADE fines growers' body as it closes Soy Moratorium antitrust case

Brazil's competition authority has fined the Mato Grosso soybean and corn growers' association BRL 250,000 for what it called deliberately delaying appeals, as it upheld the dismissal of its antitrust case over the Soy Moratorium, the private pact under which participating companies refuse soy from deforested areas of the Amazon. The Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) rejected a request for clarification filed by the Association of Soybean and Corn Producers of the State of Mato Grosso (APROSOJA/MT) on 7 October and upheld the dismissal of the case, according to a CADE statement published on 16 October.

The dismissal follows an order of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), which on 12 August recognised the constitutionality of the Soy Moratorium and ordered the termination of judicial and administrative proceedings alleging that the agreement was unlawful, according to the court's news service.

A competition case ended by a constitutional ruling

The Soy Moratorium, created in 2006, is a voluntary agreement under which participating companies undertake not to buy soy produced in areas of the Amazon biome deforested after July 2008, the STF says. Its purpose is to keep soy production from being linked to deforestation.

The STF ruled in the joint judgment of two direct actions of unconstitutionality, ADI 7774 and ADI 7775, which challenged laws in Mato Grosso and Rondônia that bar tax incentives and public land grants for companies taking part in agreements restricting agricultural expansion in areas not protected by environmental law. The political parties that brought the actions argued that the laws penalised companies that voluntarily adopt stricter environmental standards than the law requires.

The majority followed Justice Flávio Dino, who held that the moratorium is compatible with the Constitution. "A moratória da soja é fruto do exercício regular da autonomia privada e da livre iniciativa, orientado pela defesa do meio ambiente," he said, according to the court: the moratorium results from the regular exercise of private autonomy and free enterprise, oriented towards protecting the environment. Dino said the court's ruling was needed to give the sector legal certainty and to avoid proceedings that could create liabilities running into billions and affect credit, investment and exports.

Justice Dias Toffoli dissented on the moratorium's validity and on ending the related cases, arguing that the actions should be limited to the state laws and that CADE should assess any anti-competitive conduct. Justices André Mendonça and Luiz Fux joined him on that point, the STF reported. The court nonetheless upheld the state laws by majority, with limits: withdrawing or reducing tax benefits can only take effect after the constitutional waiting periods for tax changes, and exemptions granted under conditions already met by taxpayers are preserved.

The appeals and the penalty

APROSOJA/MT was an interested third party in the CADE proceeding, Case No. 08700.005853/2024-38, which was dismissed to comply with the STF's immediate and binding decision, according to CADE. The rapporteur, Commissioner José Levi, found no omission, lack of clarity or contradiction that would justify the association's request, and noted that CADE's Tribunal had already unanimously rejected similar requests from APROSOJA/MT in 14 appeals arising from the same proceeding.

Levi concluded that the request was "expressly dilatory in nature and reflects a deliberate strategy of systematically filing unfounded appeals to obstruct and delay compliance with a binding and sovereign decision of the STF," the statement says. The BRL 250,000 procedural penalty can be increased if the conduct is repeated.

The court had already intervened once before. In November 2025 it ordered the suspension of cases discussing the Soy Moratorium, according to an earlier STF notice, and in March 2026 it sent the dispute to its conflict resolution centre, where conciliation failed, before ruling in August.

Why it matters

The case turned on whether a private sustainability agreement among competitors could be pursued as a competition infringement. In Brazil the answer came from the constitutional court rather than the competition authority: the STF treated the moratorium as a lawful exercise of private autonomy and stopped the antitrust proceedings, over the objection of three justices who wanted CADE to decide. At the same time, the ruling leaves states free, within limits, to withdraw tax incentives from companies that join such pacts, so participation can still carry a cost.