On Saturday, media platform X announced it would be closing its operations in Brazil “effective immediately” due to what it described as “censorship orders” issued by Brazilian judge Alexandre de Moraes. X, which is owned by billionaire Elon Musk, claimed that Moraes secretly threatened to arrest one of the company’s legal representatives in Brazil if they did not comply with orders to remove specific content from the platform.

The social media giant shared images of a document allegedly signed by Moraes, stating that X representative Rachel Nova Conceicao would face a daily fine of 20,000 reais ($3,653) and an arrest order if the platform did not fully comply with his directives. “To protect the safety of our staff, we have made the decision to close our operation in Brazil, effective immediately,” X stated.

Brazil’s Supreme Court, where Moraes serves as a justice, declined to comment on the situation and would not confirm the authenticity of the document shared by X. Despite the closure, X noted that its service would still be accessible to users in Brazil.

Earlier this year, Moraes had ordered X to block certain accounts as part of his investigation into so-called “digital militias” accused of spreading fake news and hate speech during the administration of former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro. Moraes also launched an inquiry into Musk after the billionaire announced plans to reactivate accounts that the judge had ordered blocked, which Musk described as “unconstitutional.”

Although Musk initially challenged Moraes’ rulings, X representatives later assured Brazil’s Supreme Court that the platform would comply with the legal decisions. In April, X’s lawyers in Brazil admitted to the Supreme Court that “operational faults” had allowed users who were supposed to be blocked to remain active on the platform, after Moraes demanded an explanation for the platform’s apparent failure to fully adhere to his orders.

In posts on X on Saturday, Musk called Moraes an “utter disgrace to justice” and asserted that the company could not agree to the judge’s “secret censorship and private information handover demands.”