AI Regulation Tracker  /  Enforcement referral

Brazil's Justice Ministry refers AI smart toys to regulators for investigation

Brazil's Ministry of Justice issued Technical Note 24/2026 (Nota Tecnica no 24/2026/DSPRAD-SEDIGI/SEDIGI/MJ) on seven AI smart toys sold in the country and referred the matter to consumer authority Senacon and the data protection authority ANPD to investigate. No violation has been determined and no enforcement action has been taken as of publication.

By Anthony Guerriero  ·  The Leveraged Years Regulatory Research  ·  Published July 13, 2026  ·  Last updated July 13, 2026

Brazil passed a children's digital-rights law, the ECA Digital, and a decree that fills in its rules. This is one of the first times a government body has picked a concrete product category and put it in front of the enforcers. On July 7, 2026, SEDIGI, the digital-rights secretariat inside the Ministry of Justice, published Technical Note 24/2026. The note looked at AI smart toys, the kind of connected robots and companion devices marketed to children, and asked whether the way they collect data and build emotional bonds lines up with Brazilian law. Its answer was not a verdict. It was a recommendation to investigate.

What the technical note actually does

The note examined six smart toys available to Brazilian buyers: Loona, EMO, Miko 3, Aibi, the Amazon Fire HD 10 Kids Pro, and Vector. It noted these are sold through the makers' own sites and through marketplaces that operate in or are reachable from Brazil, naming Amazon, Mercado Livre, Shopee, AliExpress, Magazine Luiza, eBay, and Casas Bahia. SEDIGI reviewed each product against the Consumer Defense Code, arts. 7, 22 and 26 of the ECA Digital (Lei no 15.211/2025), and arts. 11 and 50 of Decreto no 12.880/2026. These are the subjects the note referred for investigation. No violation has been determined and no enforcement action has been taken as of publication.

SEDIGI was explicit about the limits of the exercise. It described the work as preliminary and a mapping effort, drawing on public information and a technical consultancy, without exhausting the evidence or prejudging the merits. In its own words, the conduct it flagged amounts to indications that call for formal investigation by the competent authorities, with the parties involved guaranteed the right to a defense. That is the ceiling on what this document does.

What the note flagged

The concerns fall into a few buckets. The note flagged that the systemic design of these toys can encourage intense emotional bonds in a child's interaction with the device, which raises questions about psychological dependence. It pointed to continuous capture of voice and facial biometrics in the home, and asked whether the products meet the ECA Digital's requirement to run at the highest level of data protection by default. It raised behavioral profiling, since arts. 22 and 26 of Lei no 15.211/2025 restrict profiling children for advertising and the building of individual behavioral profiles. And it questioned whether foreign makers keep a legal representative in Brazil, as art. 40 of the ECA Digital requires. On the sales side, the note treated marketplaces as jointly responsible under the Consumer Defense Code for listings that do not carry the required warnings.

A referral is not a finding

This is the distinction that matters. SEDIGI does not adjudicate these questions. Its recommendation was that Senacon, the national consumer secretariat, assess the mapped concerns under the Consumer Defense Code, and that the ANPD assess the data-protection questions under the LGPD and the ECA Digital. Both bodies decide on their own whether to open a case, what to request, and what, if anything, to conclude. Anyone describing this as a ban, a recall, or a ruling that a specific toy is illegal is reading something into the document that is not there. As of publication no product has been found in violation and no enforcement action has been taken.

Why a US professional should track this

The direct audience is any company that makes or sells AI-enabled products for children into Brazil, including US toy, robotics, and consumer-electronics firms that ship through international marketplaces. If that is you, the compliance runway starts now, because the note is a preview of the questions an investigator would ask: does the device default to the strongest data-protection settings, does it avoid profiling children, does the packaging and the sales page carry the mandated warning about internet access and parental supervision, and does the maker have a legal representative in the country. Marketplaces are on notice too, since the note reads the Consumer Defense Code to make them answerable alongside the maker.

There is a second reason to watch it. Brazil is one of the first large markets to operationalize a dedicated children's AI-and-data regime and then aim it at a named product category. How Senacon and the ANPD handle the referral will show other jurisdictions weighing similar rules what enforcement of a children's-digital-rights law looks like in practice.

Browse the full AI Regulation News tracker

Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.