Assédio judicial: estudo de caso da litigância abusiva contra o jornalista João Paulo Cuenca

Abstract

This study examines the phenomenon of judicial harassment, understood as the abusive use of legal actions to intimidate and silence critical voices, through the case of journalist João Paulo Cuenca. In 2020, after publishing a satirical statement referring to a political figure and a religious organization, Cuenca became the target of 145 lawsuits for moral damages filed individually by members of the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God across various Brazilian states. The general objective was to analyze the legal and social implications of this emblematic case in order to understand the patterns of judicial harassment in Brazil. Specifically, the study mapped the lawsuits in terms of geographic distribution, plaintiffs’ profiles, legal grounds, requested remedies, and judicial decisions, aiming to identify evidence of predatory litigation. A qualitative methodology was adopted, including a literature review, analysis of legislation and case law, and a case study based on document analysis of the legal proceedings and related sources. The results indicate that the lawsuits against Cuenca exhibit typical characteristics of judicial harassment: a multiplicity of similar claims, dispersion across different jurisdictions, standardized pleadings, and high compensation amounts (with totals reaching several million reais), along with censorship measures such as court orders for public retraction and bans on further expression by the defendant. It was found that this litigation strategy was used as a tool to curtail the journalist’s freedom of expression, constituting an abuse of the right to sue with an intimidating effect (chilling effect) on both the defendant and other journalists. The study concludes that the Cuenca case exemplifies the risks that judicial harassment poses to freedom of expression and highlights the need for more effective legal mechanisms to curb such practices. Possible responses include the strict enforcement of existing sanctions for bad-faith litigation in procedural law and the adoption of specific anti-SLAPP legislation, already proposed in the National Congress, in order to prevent the predatory use of the judicial system for purposes of private censorship.