Brazil’s Soy Moratorium and the Limits of Antitrust Neutrality Toward Environmental Benefits

On August 12, 2026, Brazil’s Supreme Court ruled that the Amazon Soy Moratorium was constitutional. Under this voluntary pact, grain traders agreed not to buy soy grown on Amazon land cleared after July 2008. The case arose from challenges to state laws restricting public incentives for participating firms, which the Court also upheld. The Court ordered the termination of judicial and administrative proceedings based on the Moratorium’s alleged illegality, including an investigation by CADE, Brazil’s competition authority.

CADE had opened a probe into the Moratorium’s collective purchasing restrictions in 2025, following complaints from producer associations and both houses of Congress. Its General Superintendence treated the pact as analogous to a buyer cartel and ordered its suspension. At the time, CADE was still developing guidance on competitor collaboration, including sustainability agreements.

CADE never issued a final decision on the merits. Even so, the case exposed the limits of a neutral approach to environmental claims and the difficulty of assessing agreements whose restrictions serve an environmental purpose.

Looking at how the case unfolded, three aspects stand out. First, the Moratorium’s environmental purpose did not make it immune from antitrust scrutiny, but it explained the purchasing restraint. CADE lacked a clear framework for taking that purpose into account when assessing the pact. Second, the Supreme Court’s ruling may be read as a policy decision about what firms and states may do: firms may adopt environmental purchasing standards stricter than national law, and states may withhold public incentives from firms that do so. Antitrust alone could not settle that question, but clearer guidance could help. Third, the ruling leaves open how CADE will assess future collaborations. Even without a decision on the merits, CADE’s treatment of the Moratorium may discourage firms from cooperating with competitors. Guidance on sustainability agreements is the most direct way for the agency to address that uncertainty and clarify what firms can expect.

Why the Moratorium became an antitrust case

Signed in 2006 after pressure from international buyers, NGOs, and investors, the Moratorium committed grain traders accounting for roughly 90 percent of regional soy purchases not to buy soy grown in the Amazon biome cleared after July 2008. The Brazilian Forest Code permits landowners to clear a portion of private holdings subject to legal requirements; the Moratorium went further, excluding soy from land legally cleared after the cutoff.

Compliance was checked through satellite monitoring and independent audits. Research published in Nature Food estimates that deforestation in soy-suitable areas of the Amazon was about 35 percent lower between 2006 and 2016 than it would have been without the Moratorium: an estimated 18,000 km² of avoided deforestation. A recent analysis in Science traces the pressures on the agreement and argues that the implications extend to voluntary supply-chain standards that go beyond Brazil.

Producer groups had challenged the arrangement for years, but the dispute changed in 2024, when Mato Grosso, Brazil’s largest soy-producing state, enacted State Law 12.709/2024, denying tax incentives and access to public land to companies in private agreements that restrict agricultural expansion beyond legal requirements. Rondônia adopted a similar rule: firms remained free to follow the standard, but doing so meant losing those benefits. Producer associations and both houses of Congress then asked CADE to investigate the pact as an antitrust violation.

In August 2025, CADE’s General Superintendence opened an administrative proceeding and imposed an interim measure suspending the audits, information exchanges, and other mechanisms implementing the Moratorium. In September, CADE’s Tribunal upheld the measure but delayed its effective date until January 1, 2026.

The Superintendence’s theory of harm, largely accepted by the Tribunal, combined a collective refusal to purchase with concerns about monopsony and the exchange of commercially sensitive information: common purchasing conditions imposed by firms representing most regional demand could depress farmgate prices, reduce producers’ commercial options, or facilitate coordination. The public material did not, however, identify an agreement on prices, purchase volumes, or territories, and much of the coordination described concerned the system for monitoring and enforcing the environmental criterion – supplier and origin information, satellite imagery, and third-party audits.

Unlike a conventional cartel, the Moratorium was openly adopted and publicly implemented, with documented environmental effects and no identified agreement on prices or output; its broad market coverage pointed the other way, since farmers who failed to meet the common standard could lose access to most major buyers. CADE therefore had to decide whether the arrangement was inherently harmful or called for a fuller examination of its purpose, necessity, and effects.

A case that challenged antitrust neutrality

Antitrust neutrality generally entails addressing competitive risks without assigning legal weight to environmental benefits. CADE has no published framework, but its few past decisions had tilted toward that view.

In 2023, CADE reviewed the SustainIt joint venture, a sustainability-data platform for agricultural commodity traders. The Tribunal cleared the transaction, examining safeguards for sensitive information and proposing standards for fair, transparent access by supply-chain participants.

SustainIt has been presented as a model for “agnostic” agencies, addressing competition risks without deciding what legal weight sustainability benefits deserve. But neutrality may have worked there because CADE could address the competition concerns through safeguards on platform access and information sharing and approval did not depend on assigning legal weight to environmental benefits. In that respect it was a relatively straightforward case.

The Moratorium was different. Its environmental purpose was the very reason for the restraint under investigation, so understanding that rationale was part of assessing it. Setting the environmental purpose aside was itself a choice about its legal relevance; whether the claimed benefits could justify any competitive harm was a further question. Difficult cases will require agencies, or the bodies reviewing them, to explain what legal weight, if any, environmental benefits carry. In that sense, the analogy to a buyer cartel, adopted at an interim stage, narrowed the inquiry before the pact’s purpose could be examined.

That assessment depends on domestic law and the policy choices it reflects, including whose benefits count and who bears the costs. The Supreme Court addressed part of that question by holding that private firms may adopt environmental standards stricter than national law, but future cases may still require CADE – like other competition agencies – to decide if and how environmental benefits enter the analysis.

The need for guidance on sustainability agreements

CADE’s experience with sustainability cooperation is limited, but collaboration among competitors has become a recurring enforcement issue. The agency therefore commissioned a UNDP-funded study of its own decisional practice on cooperative arrangements and a benchmark of international experience, to assess whether formal guidance was warranted and what it should contain. In March 2026, it submitted draft Guidelines on Collaboration Among Competitors to public consultation, including specific provisions on sustainability agreements; the draft remains under internal revision.

Sustainability guidelines reflect different legal commitments, but they perform the same basic function: telling firms what the authority will examine before treating cooperation as unlawful. They can also specify what evidence firms must produce and when environmental benefits may enter the analysis.

A jurisdiction can borrow another’s analytical criteria more easily than it can adopt its policy choices. Guidance can identify what an authority should examine, but it cannot decide whether benefits to society may offset harm to a particular group of suppliers, how those benefits should be measured, or who must benefit from them – questions that involve economic policy, who bears environmental costs, and how constitutional values are balanced.

What guidance does is bring that choice into the analysis and make it explicit, in a framework developed through public consultation and set out in advance. Publication also creates discipline around departures from it: an agency that reaches a conclusion inconsistent with its announced criteria is expected to explain the difference. Otherwise, the choice remains embedded in how the authority characterizes an individual case.

CADE’s draft draws on the tools found in foreign guidelines. Measured against those criteria, a public and independently audited purchasing standard, supported by federal environmental bodies but opposed by producer groups and some states, called for assessment rather than immediate characterization as a cartel.

Still, environmental merit does not exempt an agreement from competition law in Brazil, and in difficult cases CADE may have to decide how environmental benefits should be weighed. The Supreme Court answered one question: an agreement cannot be treated as unlawful merely because its environmental standard is stricter than national law. It did not decide whether the pact restricted competition, or how CADE should assess future agreements when environmental benefits and harm to suppliers may both be real.

The Moratorium’s signatories challenged the interim measure on appeal, but CADE had no published domestic criteria against which to assess the treatment of the agreement’s environmental purpose, so the underlying policy judgment remained implicit. Guidance would have given the parties a basis for insisting that the relevant questions be addressed, while leaving the agency free to reach its own conclusion. The Moratorium confirms that CADE was right to develop specific guidance on sustainability agreements, particularly because the next case may require CADE itself to answer the questions left unresolved.

***

Author’s disclosure: The author served as an external consultant on a project commissioned by Brazil’s Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) and funded by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Under that engagement, she reviewed CADE’s decisional practice on cooperative arrangements between competitors and international benchmarks, to propose the framework for the agency’s draft Guide to Collaboration Among Competitors, which was submitted to public consultation in March 2026. She received consulting fees for that work. She holds no current mandate from CADE and does not speak for the agency. Neither she nor her firm has acted for any signatory of the Soy Moratorium, the Soy Working Group, any complainant in the CADE proceedings discussed here, or any party to the constitutional challenges decided by the Supreme Court. The article relies solely on publicly available material, and the views expressed are her own.