Brazil published its Anti-Corruption Law - Law 12. 846, on August 1, 2013, whereby companies were committed to administrative and civil liability, with regard specifically to acts related to corruption, fraud in tenders and creating impeding circumstances for investigation or inspection. Unfortunately, the Brazilian legislator missed a great opportunity to criminalize companies’ operation and conduct, as is already the case in some countries.

‍

The National Data Protection Authority (ANPD) released a Guidance Guide for the Definitions of Personal Data Processing Agents and the Data Protection Officer on May 27, 2021.

‍

The Senate news agency reported on May 28, 2021 that the president finally signed Bill 4554/2020, passing Law 14,155 of May 27, 2021, which modified the penal code to specifically deliberate on cybercrime, focusing on:

‍

There are many definitions out there for cookies, but the one I like the most is found on the Positivo website, as well as some other websites, which clarifies that cookies are simple text files sent by the website to the browser the first time you visit it. A simple and effective definition. It’s there so that when the user visits the website again, their browser sends the data collected by the cookie, depending on its goal.

‍

A seemingly simple question, but appearances can be deceiving!

The question is much more complex than it seems. After all, it is illusory to compare different matters under the same prism.

More than a year after news of the spread of the pandemic in Brazil broke, and despite the death of more than 350 thousand people in the country, media coverage continues to focus on the irresponsibility of individuals: those attending indoor parties, the stubbornness of others in not wearing a mask and the selfishness of many who seem to care little for the life of others, a close relative or not.

Public civil actions were endorsed by Article 129, III of the  Federal Constitution of 1988 and have become one of the Federal Prosecution Officer’s (MP) institutional functions, regulated by Law No. 7,347 / 85.  They target diffuse, collective, and homogeneous individual rights.  They are intended to prevent and prosecute violations to collective interests such as the environment, consumers, historical or cultural heritage, including administrative impropriety, economic order, urban order.

‍

When WhatsApp informed its users a few months ago that their data could be shared with Facebook, this fact generated alarm among many users who imagined that part of their WhatsApp dialogues would appear on their Facebook pages. However, WhatsApp denied that this was going to happen.

‍

The Russian anti-corruption law, federal law No. 273, dated December 25, 2008, was enacted during the term of the president and jurist, Dmitri Anatolievitch Medvedev, whose term lasted from 2008 to 2012.  The law was designed to curb potential shady relationships between the private sector and the Russian government.

On October 22, 2020, the US Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) announced the largest reward payment ever made to a whistleblower in the United States, of US$ 114 million, more than R$ 650 million at current values. Much more than the often dreamed of mega-sena lottery in Brazil. Since its first award, the SEC has paid $ 676 million to 108 whistleblowers.

On the afternoon of April 22, the webinar ‘Data Leaks and first decisions’ was presented by partner Douglas Leite and Attorneys at Law and data protection specialists Flávio Buzanovsky and Angela Fonseca.

‍

With the development of digital marketing, many commercial initiatives have adopted forms of e-mail promotion, using a mailing list, but without observing any of the restrictions imposed by anti-spam legislation.

‍

On the afternoon of April 8th, the webinar ‘FCPA Review 2020 – Hot Cases’ was presented by partner Alexandre Dalmasso.

‍

President Jair Messias Bolsonaro just signed the new Government Procurement Act into law, converting the Bill (PL) 4.253 / 2020 into Law 14.133 of April 1, 2021.

‍

‍

‍

Recently, the Federal Supreme Court (STF) positioned itself against the right to be forgotten versus the media's right to report certain facts. In this specific case, the STF ended up endorsing the thesis recognizing a right to be forgotten would be an act of censorship, given the media's right to report news for society's knowledge accurately.

‍