Brazilian President Delays Applicability of LGPD Sanctions, but Other Provisions Remain Uncertain
Time 1 Minute Read
Categories: International

On June 12, 2020, the Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro approved Law #14,010/2020 (the “Law”). This Law was created to establish an urgent legal framework for the private sector in the context of the COVID-19 crisis. Among other topics, it delays until August 1, 2021 the applicability of the provisions relating to sanctions for non-compliance with the new Brazilian data protection law (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais, “LGPD”).

As we previously reported, the remaining LGPD requirements have been provisionally postponed until May 3, 2021. This was done via Provisional Measure #959/2020 (“Provisional Measure”), a measure issued by the President that only becomes permanently valid if approved by the Congress within a maximum period of 120 days. The Congress has until August 27, 2020, to approve this Provisional Measure. If the Congress does not vote or rejects the Provisional Measure, the LGPD becomes applicable from August 2020, while its sanctions become applicable from August 2021.

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 2 Minute Read

On April 1, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the 2024 amendment to Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act, limiting damages, applies retroactively to pending cases.

Time 3 Minute Read

The Connecticut Attorney General recently issued a legal memorandum regarding the application of existing Connecticut laws, such as the Connecticut Data Privacy Act, to the use of artificial intelligence.

Time 1 Minute Read

As reported on the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives blog, SB 574 is a California bill that would set specific duties for attorneys who use generative artificial intelligence and would restrict how arbitrators may use such tools in decision-making.

Time 3 Minute Read

SB 574 is a California bill that would set specific duties for attorneys who use generative artificial intelligence and would restrict how arbitrators may use such tools in decision-making. It would amend provisions in the Business and Professions Code and the Code of Civil Procedure to address confidentiality, accuracy, bias, and citation verification for attorneys, and to prohibit delegation of arbitral decision-making to AI while adding disclosure and responsibility requirements for arbitrators.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Archives

Jump to Page