Brazil’s New Digital Child Protection Law: Practical Implications for Foreign Tech Companies

Summary

Brazil’s new Digital Child Protection Law (ECA Digital – Law No. 15,211/2025) radically changes the compliance obligations for foreign technology companies operating in Brazil. The law introduces a proactive duty of care toward minors, replacing the previous reactive liability model under the Marco Civil da Internet. Any digital service accessible to children or adolescents — including social media, gaming, streaming, AI tools, and app stores — must now adopt safety-by-design and privacy-by-default principles.

Brazil Introduces a New Digital Protection Framework for Minors

When Law No. 15,211/2025, known as the ECA Digital or Digital Statute for Children and Adolescents, came into force on March 17, 2026, Brazil took a significant step in regulating the digital environment. For foreign technology companies that offer services to the Brazilian public, the legislation is far more than just another local rule. It represents a genuine paradigm shift in how platforms must be designed, operated, and monitored.

Until now, the Brazilian Internet Civil Framework (Marco Civil da Internet) of 2014 established essentially a reactive liability regime. Platforms were generally only held responsible for third-party content after receiving a specific court order or valid notification. The ECA Digital inverts this logic. Companies now face a proactive and continuous duty of care, something close to the “duty of care” we already know in Europe through the UK’s Online Safety Act or parts of the Digital Services Act (DSA).

The Best Interests of the Child Become the Central Compliance Principle

The central principle of the law is the best interests of the child and adolescent. Any information technology product or service that is targeted at minors or has a reasonable likelihood of being accessed by them must be developed with this interest as an absolute priority. This includes social networks, gaming apps, streaming platforms, app stores, and even artificial intelligence tools.

In practice, this means adopting the concepts of safety-by-design and privacy-by-default from the outset. It is no longer enough to fix problems after they arise. Companies must anticipate risks to the physical, mental, and moral integrity of younger users and build preventive safeguards.

Mandatory Impact Assessments and Platform Risk Analysis

One of the pillars of the new legislation is the requirement for impact assessments. Platforms must conduct periodic detailed analyses of the potential effects of their functionalities (recommendation algorithms, engagement mechanisms, advertising systems, and even augmented reality features) on children and adolescents. These reports need to be properly documented internally and, in many cases, generate transparent information that can be shared with authorities or made available to the public in a summarized version.

New Age Verification and Parental Control Obligations

Age verification has become significantly more rigorous. A simple self-declaration (“click here if you are over 18”) is no longer considered sufficient. The law requires effective and proportionate mechanisms that respect privacy but genuinely manage to distinguish adults from minors. For users up to 16 years old, accounts on social networks and similar platforms must, as a rule, be linked to a legal guardian.

Furthermore, companies are required to provide robust parental control tools. Guardians must have access to dashboards that allow them to set screen time limits, restrict contacts, approve or block in-app purchases, and disable personalized algorithmic recommendation systems. Many foreign clients I have spoken with still underestimate the weight of this requirement.

Restrictions on Advertising, Profiling, and Gaming Monetization

In the commercial sphere, the law is particularly restrictive. The use of advanced behavioral profiling, emotional analysis, or immersive technologies to target advertising at children and adolescents is prohibited. Monetization of content that inappropriately exploits the image of minors is also subject to severe limitations. In the gaming sector, there are express bans on “loot boxes” and randomized reward systems when the game is accessible to minors, precisely because of their addictive potential and the risk of uncontrolled spending.

Harmful Content Removal and Reporting Requirements

Another aspect that deserves attention is the swift removal of harmful content. The law establishes short deadlines – in some cases as little as 24 hours – for the removal of material related to sexual exploitation, violence, bullying, cyberbullying, incitement to suicide, self-harm, or drug use. In addition to removal, in serious situations platforms must notify the competent authorities, including through international cooperation when necessary.

Legal Representation and Enforcement Risks for Foreign Companies

For foreign companies without a physical presence in Brazil, the law strengthens enforcement mechanisms. It is mandatory to appoint a legal representative established in the country, with powers to receive judicial and administrative citations, respond to requests from the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the National Data Protection Authority (ANPD), and serve as the local point of contact.

In fact, the ANPD assumes a central role in supervising and regulating the law, acting in coordination with the Public Prosecutor’s Office. This creates a more robust enforcement scenario than many international players initially anticipated. Moreover, the law provides for joint and several liability: subsidiaries, branches, or companies within the same economic group in Brazil may be held accountable for violations committed by the foreign parent company.

Financial Penalties and Operational Sanctions

The sanctions are dissuasive. Fines can reach up to 10% of the economic group’s revenue in Brazil in the previous year, or up to R$ 50 million per individual violation, depending on the severity. In extreme cases or in the event of recurrence, authorities may order the temporary suspension or even the complete blocking of the service within Brazilian territory. For companies that depend on the Brazilian market, especially consumer technology firms, this operational risk is very real.

Relationship Between the ECA Digital and Brazil’s LGPD

It is worth noting that the ECA Digital interacts closely with the General Data Protection Law (LGPD). Many of the principles of privacy-by-default, data minimization, and impact assessments already existed under the LGPD, but they now take on more specific contours when the data subject is a child or adolescent. The processing of minors’ data requires even greater care, with more restrictive legal bases and heightened attention to consent and the rights of legal guardians.

Global Regulatory Trends and Brazilian Specificities

From a comparative perspective, the Brazilian law aligns with global trends. It bears clear similarities to the UK’s Age Appropriate Design Code, certain aspects of the European DSA, and ongoing discussions in other Latin American countries. However, it presents distinctly Brazilian nuances: strong influence from the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the tradition of integral protection of children established in the 1990 Child and Adolescent Statute (ECA), and an approach that combines state regulation with the shared responsibility of families, schools, and platforms.

Practical Compliance Steps for Foreign Technology Companies

Foreign legal advisors must act with urgency. A good starting point is to conduct a comprehensive gap analysis: mapping user onboarding flows, reviewing advertising and algorithmic recommendation policies, assessing the adequacy of age verification mechanisms, and verifying whether the legal representation structure in Brazil meets the new requirements.

In addition, it is important to prepare local teams or partners to handle administrative requests and potential audits. Investing in privacy-preserving age verification technologies, such as age estimation or document-based verification without excessive data storage, can make a difference both in compliance and in the user experience.

Conclusion

In summary, the ECA Digital is not merely a symbolic law. It imposes concrete obligations, with adaptation deadlines that have already expired for many companies, and carries real risks of financial and operational sanctions. For law firms advising international clients, especially small and medium-sized practices in Europe and Asia, the moment has come to help these players turn compliance into a competitive advantage.

Those who manage to implement robust protection measures from the design stage of their products will not only avoid heavy fines but may also build greater trust with the Brazilian public and authorities.