Skip to content
BR LGPD · BR-ECA-DIGITAL-APP-STORE-OS

BR LGPD Art. 12

Provide privacy-preserving store and operating-system age assurance and parental authorization

CRITICALRequirementAge assuranceBinding regulationIn forceApplies from 17 March 2026

Where this comes from

Provision: Art. 12; Decree Art. 25 - app stores and operating systems

Instrument: ECA Digital (Lei nº 15.211/2025), Decreto nº 12.880/2026

Citation: Lei nº 15.211/2025, Art. 12 caput/I-III/§§1-3 and Art. 13; Decreto nº 12.880/2026, Arts. 24-25, 27 and 54; Lei nº 15.352/2026, Art. 1

Text version: Lei nº 15.211/2025, texto compilado; Lei nº 15.352/2026 Art. 1; Decreto nº 12.880/2026, DOU extra 18 March 2026

Checked against the source: 6 September 2026

Read the official text ↗

Who it applies to

It applies when all of these are true:

  • Brazil ECA Digital assessed fact Q_BR_ECA_APP_STORE_OS_ROLE: YES

What engineering work it implies

Sample acceptance criteria Landfall generates for this obligation:

  • Assess whether the actual provider supplies an internet application store or terminal operating system available in Brazil. Statutory Article 12 attaches to these roles; operating an ordinary app, integrating an SDK, lacking child-directed branding or having no current parental-control feature does not decide the role.
  • Take proportionate, auditable and technically secure steps to assess users' age or age range under LGPD principles. Decree Article 25 §2 requires an age/age-range declaration at account creation plus assurance using a reliable method under current ANPD criteria, preferably verifiable credentials. A declaration alone is not the complete process. Allow contests and correction through additional evidence with a reasoned decision within a reasonable period, and address multiple-account and other bypass tactics without imposing unnecessary identity collection.
  • Enable parents/legal guardians to configure voluntary parental-supervision mechanisms and actively supervise child/adolescent app/content access. Distinguish configuring these tools from the separate authorization required for downloads and installations.
  • Before a child's/adolescent's app download or installation, obtain the required free and informed parent/legal-guardian authorization, respect progressive autonomy and disclose the app's assigned age classification before authorization. Statutory Article 12 §2 forbids presuming authorization from a guardian's silence or absence. Do not substitute an age signal for that authorization.
  • Provide age signals to service suppliers free of charge through a secure API designed for privacy by default, exclusively for the law's purposes with appropriate safeguards. Statutory Article 12 and Decree Article 25 limit signals to strictly necessary minimum-age confirmation and prohibit exact birth date, civil identity and profiling-data transmission, as well as continuous, automated and unrestricted personal-data sharing.

Evidence an auditor expects

  • Assessment documentDocument review

    Provide privacy-preserving store and operating-system age assurance and parental authorization — scoped assessment evidence

    Assess whether the actual provider supplies an internet application store or terminal operating system available in Brazil. Statutory Article 12 attaches to these roles; operating an ordinary app, integrating an SDK, lacking child-directed branding or having no current parental-control feature does not decide the role. Take proportionate, auditable and technically secure steps to assess users' age or age range under LGPD principles. Decree Article 25 §2 requires an age/age-range declaration at account creation plus assurance using a reliable method under current ANPD criteria, preferably verifiable credentials. A declaration alone is not the complete process. Allow contests and correction through additional evidence with a reasoned decision within a reasonable period, and address multiple-account and other bypass tactics without imposing unnecessary identity collection. Enable parents/legal guardians to configure voluntary parental-supervision mechanisms and actively supervise child/adolescent app/content access. Distinguish configuring these tools from the separate authorization required for downloads and installations. Before a child's/adolescent's app download or installation, obtain the required free and informed parent/legal-guardian authorization, respect progressive autonomy and disclose the app's assigned age classification before authorization. Statutory Article 12 §2 forbids presuming authorization from a guardian's silence or absence. Do not substitute an age signal for that authorization. Provide age signals to service suppliers free of charge through a secure API designed for privacy by default, exclusively for the law's purposes with appropriate safeguards. Statutory Article 12 and Decree Article 25 limit signals to strictly necessary minimum-age confirmation and prohibit exact birth date, civil identity and profiling-data transmission, as well as continuous, automated and unrestricted personal-data sharing. Where age assurance is performed, apply Decree Article 24's risk proportionality, accuracy/robustness/reliability, data minimization, privacy/security, inclusion/non-discrimination, interoperability, transparency and auditability. Prohibit continuous, automated and unrestricted personal-data sharing and identity, access, request and verification-history traceability. For document-based checks, extract only necessary age or age-range information and immediately and irreversibly delete document images/copies and excess source information. Decree Article 24 also prohibits using age-assurance data for another purpose, including behavioral profiling. Under statutory Article 13, data collected to verify children's/adolescents' ages is limited to that purpose, including no behavioral profiling. Use synthetic users and sanitized signals to test the assessed scope, authorization failures, conflicting/absent signals, bypass and dispute paths. Keep necessary protocol/configuration/test/review records and unresolved gaps; exclude real child identities, exact birth dates, raw credentials/documents/biometrics, access histories and raw dispute evidence from ordinary task attachments, exports and general logs. These are engineering evidence-minimization safeguards, not a prescribed fixed log schema or retention period. Verify current ANPD method, security, transparency and interoperability criteria and qualified Portuguese review. Statutory Article 12 commenced on 17 March 2026; Decree Article 25's elaborations commenced on 18 March 2026. Keep ordinary service-supplier duties, parental supervision and any other legal basis separately assessed; this is not an operational integration or a full-law approval.

Questions people ask

Does BR LGPD Art. 12 apply to my service?
It applies when Brazil ECA Digital assessed fact Q_BR_ECA_APP_STORE_OS_ROLE: YES.
From when does this apply?
BR LGPD Art. 12 applies from 17 March 2026. Its current status is: in force.
What evidence does an auditor expect?
Provide privacy-preserving store and operating-system age assurance and parental authorization — scoped assessment evidence.

Find out whether this one lands on you

Landfall's pre-scan answers the applicability question above for your product in minutes, then turns every obligation that applies into traceable engineering tickets with a citation chain your auditors can follow.

Not legal advice. Landfall maps regulatory obligations to engineering work for planning purposes. Its verdicts are not legal advice and create no attorney-client relationship — verify with qualified counsel before relying on them.

What Landfall Is NOT

Critical Boundaries

Understanding these boundaries is essential before using this product. Misuse of this tool for purposes outside its scope may create legal, regulatory, or commercial risk for your organization.

NOT Legal Advice

This product does not provide legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Interpretations are informational analysis, not legal counsel. Always consult qualified legal professionals for compliance decisions.

NOT a Risk Score

We do not quantify, calculate, or certify your compliance risk level.

No numerical risk rating, compliance percentage, or safety score. Risk assessment requires human judgment about your specific context.

NOT Runtime Enforcement

This is a planning and mapping tool, not a runtime enforcement system.

Does not integrate with your production systems. Does not block, filter, or enforce compliance in real-time. Implementation is your responsibility.

NOT Regulatory Approval

Using this tool does not mean you are compliant with any regulation.

No certification, seal of approval, or compliance guarantee. Regulators will evaluate your actual implementation, not your use of this tool.

NOT Authoritative Interpretation

Our interpretations are not binding and may differ from regulatory guidance.

Only regulators and courts provide authoritative interpretation. Our analysis reflects our reading of requirements, which may be incomplete or incorrect.

NOT a Safe Harbor

This tool does not shield you from enforcement actions or liability.

Documentation of your process is valuable, but does not constitute a legal defense. Compliance is ultimately your organization's responsibility.

NOT an AI Compliance Agent

AI features assist analysis but do not make compliance decisions for you.

AI-generated interpretations require human review and approval. Automated suggestions are starting points, not final answers.

NOT Complete Coverage

We do not cover all regulations, all obligations, or all jurisdictions.

Regulatory landscape is vast and evolving. Gaps in our coverage do not mean those requirements don't apply to you.

What This Tool IS:

  • A structured workflow for mapping regulatory requirements to implementation tasks
  • A documentation system for compliance decisions (audit trail)
  • A collaboration platform for compliance, legal, and engineering teams
  • An informational resource for understanding regulatory obligations