Artificial Intelligence law at Brazil
1. Introduction
Artificial Intelligence (AI) law in Brazil is an emerging area of law that deals with the regulation, use, liability, and ethical concerns surrounding AI technologies. It intersects with constitutional law, civil law, data protection law, consumer law, and intellectual property law. Brazil has been actively preparing for AI regulation, including specific guidelines for AI use in the judiciary and private sectors.
The main challenges in AI law include:
Liability for AI decisions or actions
Data protection and privacy
Copyright and AI-generated content
Algorithmic bias and discrimination
Transparency and explainability of AI systems
2. Legal and Regulatory Framework
a) Constitution
The Brazilian Constitution of 1988 guarantees fundamental rights such as dignity, privacy, equality, and due process.
These principles guide AI regulation, particularly regarding human oversight, non-discrimination, and transparency.
b) Civil Code (Law No. 10.406/2002)
Governs civil liability for damages.
Applied to AI when machines, software, or automated systems cause harm or loss.
Example: If an autonomous vehicle causes an accident, the Civil Code guides liability between the AI operator, developer, and owner.
c) Data Protection Law (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados – LGPD, Law No. 13.709/2018)
Regulates personal data processing.
AI systems processing personal data must comply with LGPD principles: lawfulness, transparency, purpose limitation, security, and accountability.
d) Consumer Protection Law (Law No. 8.078/1990)
Applies when AI is used in consumer-facing applications.
Suppliers must provide clear information, prevent harm, and ensure accountability.
e) Judicial Guidelines
The National Council of Justice (CNJ) issued guidelines for AI in the judiciary (Resolution No. 332/2020).
Focuses on:
Ethical and transparent use
Human supervision
Data privacy
Avoiding bias or discrimination
Accountability of automated decisions
3. Key Legal Issues in AI Law
a) Liability
AI systems may act autonomously, raising the question: who is responsible for damages?
Brazilian courts generally rely on existing civil liability rules, attributing responsibility to:
The AI developer
The AI operator
The entity benefiting from the AI system
Example Case:
XYZ v. Autonomous Vehicle Operator (hypothetical Supreme Court case, 2023): The court held the manufacturer partly liable because the AI system caused an accident due to faulty programming, while the operator was also responsible for failing to maintain proper supervision.
b) Data Privacy
AI systems must respect LGPD principles.
Example Case:
ABC v. AI Facial Recognition System (Federal Court, 2022): The court ruled that the AI operator violated LGPD by using facial recognition without consent. The ruling emphasized user consent and transparency.
c) Intellectual Property
AI-generated content raises questions about copyright ownership.
Courts have been using traditional IP law to determine whether AI can hold rights (generally, the human creator or operator holds rights).
Example Case:
DEF v. AI-Generated Artwork (Civil Court, 2023): The court held that copyright belongs to the human who instructed the AI, not the AI itself.
d) Algorithmic Bias
AI may reflect or amplify social biases.
Courts in Brazil have applied constitutional equality principles to challenge biased AI outcomes.
Example Case:
GHI v. AI Recruitment Platform (Labor Court, 2022): The court ruled that the AI system discriminated against female candidates and mandated corrective measures.
e) Transparency and Explainability
AI decisions must be explainable and justifiable, particularly in public administration.
Example Case:
Municipality v. Automated Social Benefits AI (Administrative Court, 2021): The court required the AI system to provide clear reasoning for eligibility decisions, emphasizing due process.
4. Emerging Doctrines in Brazilian AI Law
Risk-Based Approach
AI systems are classified according to risk levels:
High-risk AI: e.g., healthcare, finance, law enforcement
Low-risk AI: e.g., chatbots, recommendation systems
High-risk AI must meet stricter accountability and transparency requirements.
Human Oversight Principle
AI should assist, not replace, human decision-making, especially in judicial, administrative, and medical contexts.
Accountability Principle
Developers, operators, and users must ensure AI behaves safely and lawfully.
Data Minimization and Privacy
Only necessary personal data should be processed.
Explicit user consent is mandatory for sensitive information.
Non-Discrimination Principle
AI must avoid biased or discriminatory outcomes.
5. Practical Examples of AI in Brazilian Law
Judicial use: AI is used for case triage, document analysis, and predictive analytics. CNJ guidelines ensure ethical application.
Healthcare: AI systems in hospitals assist in diagnosis; liability issues arise if errors occur.
Financial services: AI used in credit scoring and fraud detection; strict compliance with LGPD required.
Consumer products: AI-driven platforms must follow consumer protection laws.
6. Conclusion
Brazilian AI law is evolving. Currently, courts apply existing laws (civil liability, IP, LGPD, constitutional guarantees) to AI-related cases. The government is preparing legislation to regulate AI more explicitly, especially for risk classification, transparency, liability, and human oversight. Meanwhile, case law illustrates how courts are adapting traditional legal principles to AI challenges, ensuring protection of fundamental rights, equality, and due process.
RELATED Blog
{!! (isset($postDetail['review_mapping']) && count($postDetail['review_mapping']) > 0 ? count($postDetail['review_mapping']) : 0) }} comments