BR LGPD ECA Digital Arts. 6, 8(II)-(III), 28-30 - prevention, child-rights notices and appeals

Where this comes from

Who it applies to

What engineering work it implies

Evidence an auditor expects

• Assessment documentDocument review

  ECA Digital scoped safeguards and conditional Article 39 assessment

  Assess Lei 15.211/2025 Article 39's service-specific modulation and conditional dispensation. Record the exact eligible editorial-control or previously licensed-content provider class and every cumulative §1 condition: applicable classification rules (or required alternative age adequacy and harmful-content signalling), transparent age classification, accessible parental mediation restricting age-based content, personal data processed, interaction with other users and commercial transactions, and accessible reporting channels for misclassified or rights-violating content. A generic service label, a single safeguard or an asserted exemption is insufficient. Do not extend relief beyond the listed provisions, actual provider/service scope and established conditions. Record qualified review of current implementing criteria; synthetic checks and minimized records must preserve replacement safeguards and unresolved gaps. Record the assessed Brazilian child/adolescent product scope and actual Articles 6, 8(II)-(III) and 28-30 requirements; missing messaging, public profiles or an existing incident does not remove preventive duties. Design and test reasonable safeguards for Article 6 risks and Article 8 age classification, plus accessible, free, effective and widely publicized reporting mechanisms; do not prescribe indiscriminate scanning. Route Article 29 notices by specific technical content identification, notifier identity and qualifying capacity. Verify victim/representative, Ministério Público, competent police or currently eligible entity status under Decree Arts. 43-44/52. Give qualifying notices prioritized immediate removal without a court order; anonymous notices are invalid for this procedure but may still raise concerns through other paths. Keep the Article 29 journalistic/editorial-content exclusion limited to that removal procedure; it is not a blanket exemption from prevention or Article 27 serious-violation reporting. Give affected publishers removal notification, reasons and legal basis, human or automated identification information, and an accessible appeal mechanism with defined submission/response deadlines. Verify current implementing requirements without inventing numeric periods. Route qualifying serious violations under the separate Article 27 process. Decree Art. 42 automated referral must prevent dissemination of violating content and fragmentation of investigations; assess Articles 31-33 transparency and abusive-reporting controls separately. Use synthetic notices to exercise valid, incomplete, anonymous, editorial, malicious and appealed cases. Keep illegal material, victim identities and raw communications out of ordinary task attachments, exports and general logs; preserve scoped process evidence and only opaque authorized case references.

Questions people ask

Does BR LGPD ECA Digital Arts. 6, 8(II)-(III), 28-30 - prevention, child-rights no… apply to my service?

It applies when Brazil ECA Digital assessed fact Q_BR_ECA_CHILD_ACCESS: YES.

From when does this apply?

BR LGPD ECA Digital Arts. 6, 8(II)-(III), 28-30 - prevention, child-rights no… applies from 17 March 2026. Its current status is: in force.

What evidence does an auditor expect?

ECA Digital scoped safeguards and conditional Article 39 assessment.