EFF to Brazil’s ANPD: Data Privacy and Free Expression Must Underpin Platform Regulations (www.eff.org)

by rss-bot · 1 week ago · 0 comments

<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden"><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even">The Brazilian National Data Protection Agency (ANPD) plays a pivotal role in the regulation of digital platforms according to new legislation approved in Brazil. Throughout this year, EFF has presented comments, filed submissions, and met with the agency to emphasize crucial guardrails that the enforcement of new regulations should ensure. 
ANPD is responsible for detailing and applying obligations set in Law n. 15.211/2025, which established rules for the protection of children and adolescents in the digital space. While some provisions establish important privacy safeguards, like prohibiting advertising based on profiling of underage users, the law created mandatory age assurance mechanisms for accessing digital products and services. 
We have <a href="https://www.eff.org/issues/age-verification">raised alarms</a> on the privacy and free expression issues around age-gating the internet. Age verification technology is often <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/face-scans-estimate-our-age-creepy-af-and-harmful">inaccurate</a> and <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/06/hack-age-verification-company-shows-privacy-danger-social-media-laws">privacy-invasive</a>. <a href="https://www.blocked.org.uk/reported-sites">Examples also show</a> how it’s prone to enforcement overreach, resulting in sites blocked beyond legal requirements. In the UK, providers disproportionately restricted <a href="https://www.blocked.org.uk/reported-sites?category=Counselling,+Support,+and+Mental+Health">several</a> counseling, support and mental health sites under the Online Safety Act. Current age assurance methods risk wrongly walling off adults with <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/10/when-no-id-means-no-internet-age-verification-and-right-access-information">no valid IDs</a>, <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/when-face-recognition-doesnt-know-your-face-is-a-face/">facial differences</a>, <a href="https://arxiv.org/html/2604.28166v1">physical disabilities</a>, among others. 
We highlighted these concerns in our <a href="https://www.eff.org/document/comentarios-da-electronic-frontier-foundation-regulamentacao-da-lei-152112025">comments</a> and <a href="https://www.eff.org/document/contribuicao-da-eff-tomada-de-subsidios-da-anpd-sobre-o-guia-orientativo-mecanismos-de">submissions</a> underscoring that ANPD should avoid a blanket approach to age assurance obligations. Following the legislation, restrictions should apply only to products and services that are inadequate or prohibited to children and adolescents according to categories already set in regulation, with robust protections against subjective and overbroad interpretations. Guarantees such as access to information, freedom to participate in society and meaningful access to technologies also compound what constitutes the best interests of the child. 
Moreover, we stressed that <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/07/zero-knowledge-proofs-alone-are-not-digital-id-solution-protecting-user-privacy">zero knowledge proofs</a> alone fail to ensure strong user privacy, including safeguards that the law itself sought to secure. Our submission explains why other requirements, such as <a href="https://www.edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/statements/statement-12025-age-assurance_en">unlinkability, selective disclosure, batch issuance</a> and processing on device, are crucial for achieving greater levels of protection and mitigating privacy harms. Minimum information being shared to the verifier and <a href="https://github.com/w3c/credential-considerations/blob/main/credentials-considerations.md#no-phoning-home">no “phoning home”</a> to the issuer of a user’s accepted credentials are conditions that prevent actions like collusion and data sharing about the user. 
We also shared <a href="https://www.eff.org/document/comentarios-da-eff-ao-guia-orientativo-da-anpd-sobre-escopo-do-eca-digital">inputs</a> about the scope of the law, asking more clarity on which providers are covered by its obligations and the importance of treating differently non-dominant players like federated networks and free software applications. Without that clarity, this could negatively impact beyond gaming and major platforms that are the main target of these regulations. We elaborated on the agency’s regulation of prevention duties, the relevance of modulating them according to the type and structure of providers, and alerted them that their interpretation should not result in general monitoring obligations. 
On another but related front, we sent <a href="https://www.eff.org/document/comentarios-da-eff-tomada-de-subsidios-sobre-o-marco-civil-da-internet">comments</a> regarding Brazil’s <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/08/intermediary-liability-brazil-intricate-path-ahead">new internet intermediary rules</a>. Here too, ANPD has a critical regulatory role after a <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/major-setback-intermediary-liability-brazil-risks-and-blind-spots">Supreme Court’s decision</a> and presidential decrees changed the liability regime initially set in the law known as “Marco Civil.” 
With the turn to notice and takedown mechanisms and duty of care obligations, we emphasized measures to prevent censorship of protected content. These involve ensuring solid means for appeals of restricted posts, avoiding overreliance on <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/07/part-1-automated-moderation-here-stay">AI-based content moderation</a>, strictly tailoring the application of concepts like duty of care and systemic failure, and not normalizing the blocking of platforms and websites. 
We raised concerns about a trend reflected in the new regulation requiring platforms to proactively report user to authorities with unclear guarantees. Finally, we urged the agency to advance essential transparency and accountability measures for enabling greater public oversight over the application of the new regime. 
As we <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/08/intermediary-liability-brazil-intricate-path-ahead">said</a> before, platform accountability under the new rules ultimately hinges on how accountable its enforcement will be by platforms and state institutions. Rigorous commitment to fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, privacy and data protection, is required so that intended protections don’t instead lead to harms. ANPD must uphold this commitment and make sure that new regulations don’t backfire. 

</div></div></div>

AI News

EFF to Brazil’s ANPD: Data Privacy and Free Expression Must Underpin Platform Regulations (www.eff.org)

Comments