Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
5 min of reading 
0 comments 
The Dismissals at Itaú for “Low Productivity” Rekindled the Debate About the Limits of Electronic Monitoring at Work and the Risks of Legal and Administrative Sanctions Amid the Expansion of Remote Work and Digital Surveillance Tools.
The layoffs of Itaú employees on the grounds of “low productivity” in remote work prompted the Public Prosecutor’s Office Labor (MPT) to initiate a procedure to investigate the dismissals and the criteria used by the bank.
The case, disclosed in September, reignited the debate about the legal limits of electronic monitoring of workers and the situations in which this practice can lead to administrative fines and compensation in Labor Court.
Itaú confirmed the dismissals and denied mass layoffs.
-
Supermarket giant buys 12 stores, Distribution Center, and two chains and accelerates expansion
-
There are only four days left until the Income Tax deadline, and the Federal Revenue Service is still awaiting over 13 million returns. Those who miss the 11:59 PM deadline on May 29 will incur a minimum fine of R$ 165.74 with no discount.
-
More than 220 Brazilian industries have already fled towards Paraguay and no one seems to be paying attention. The small neighbor is growing three times faster than Brazil and attracting billions in foreign investments while the South American giant remains stagnant.
-
Government prepares billion-dollar discount on electricity bills: Aneel will return R$ 5.5 billion to consumers in the North, Northeast, Mato Grosso, Minas Gerais, and Espírito Santo in the form of reduced energy tariffs.
In a statement, it informed that the decisions resulted from a “careful review of conduct related to remote work and time recording,” without detailing numbers.
Following the repercussions, unions requested transparency regarding the use of tools that track activity on corporate computers.
The discussion broadened and began to involve the role of data protection authorities and courts in regulating digital surveillance.
ANPD and LGPD: Limits and Sanctions for Data Control
In the administrative realm, the National Data Protection Authority (ANPD) established, in 2023, the Regulation of Dosimetry and Application of Sanctions, which details how the penalties prescribed in the General Data Protection Law (LGPD) are calculated.
According to the authority, the definition of sanctions observes principles such as purpose, necessity, and transparency in the processing of personal data, including in employment relationships.
The LGPD stipulates, in Article 52, sanctions that range from warnings to a fine of up to 2% of revenue, limited to R$ 50 million per offense, in addition to publicizing the violation, blocking, and deleting data.
Experts recall that, since 2023, the ANPD has already imposed monetary penalties, signaling that the sanctioning regime is operational.
In 2024, the ANPD published the Regulatory Agenda 2025–2026 and, in September 2025, presented the first execution report, which pointed to the progress of inspection and regulation actions on sensitive data protection issues.
The document shows that monitoring workers remains a priority for the authority, according to privacy analysts’ assessments.
Labor Court Decisions Draw Boundaries
In the Judiciary, recent decisions help delineate what is considered legitimate control and what constitutes an invasion of privacy.
The Superior Labour Court (TST) understands that the use of cameras in collective environments is permitted when aimed at security or monitoring activities, provided that there is no violation of intimacy.
On the other hand, the installation of equipment in bathrooms and locker rooms has been deemed illegal, with convictions for moral damages.
In 2023, a company was convicted for monitoring a staff locker room, a case that solidified the court’s position.
Geolocation and electronic time records have also been accepted as means of evidence, as long as procedural limits are respected.
Additionally, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) recognizes that access to corporate emails provided by the company is lawful when concerning a work tool, not being equated to personal correspondence.
Legal experts explain that these decisions indicate a trend of acceptance of control over professional instruments, but reject practices that reach the employee’s intimate sphere.
The Itaú Case and MPT’s Investigation
The MPT’s procedure seeks to clarify how productivity metrics were applied and whether there was adherence to transparency, proportionality, and due process in the dismissals.
According to information obtained by the press, part of the evaluations was allegedly based on telemetry from corporate machines, which records usage time and periods of inactivity.
Sources linked to the authority state that the objective is to verify whether the monitoring met legal requirements and if the bank previously informed employees about the methods used.
Labor lawyers point out that a lack of clear communication regarding data collection may represent a violation of the LGPD and generate challenges in both the labor and administrative spheres.
Moreover, according to specialists, companies that handle employee data are subject to ANPD sanctions regardless of any decisions from the Labor Court.
This means that the same conduct can lead to administrative fines and legal damages, depending on the harm and proof of damage.
Acceptable Monitoring and Best Practices
According to attorneys and data protection consultants, legal risks increase when there is excessive collection of information, lack of transparency, or use of tools that capture content unrelated to work.
Situations such as recording audio or video at home without explicit consent or a solid legal basis are likely to be considered invasive.
On the other hand, practices that tend to be accepted by courts include limiting monitoring to corporate equipment, formalizing clear internal policies, documenting the employee’s acknowledgment, and documenting the legal basis used.
These elements help demonstrate proportionality and legitimate purpose in potential audits or legal actions.
The adoption of understandable privacy policies, provision of equipment by the company, and respect for the right to access personal data (ensured by Article 18 of the LGPD) are also indicated as preventive measures.
According to specialists, maintaining data protection impact reports is another recommended practice in cases of intensive productivity metrics usage.
Digital Surveillance Under Scrutiny
Privacy and labor law analysts assess that the trend is toward greater oversight of the use of monitoring technologies, especially when high-impact decisions — such as performance evaluations or dismissals — are based on automated data.
With the MPT monitoring the case and the ANPD equipped with specific regulations, companies are advised to review internal policies and objectively justify the need for each data collected concerning the stated purpose.
For legal experts consulted by the report, the regulatory scenario indicates that productivity control can coexist with respect for privacy, provided the measures adopted are proportional and transparent.
If not, monitoring may be interpreted as abuse and result in administrative and judicial penalties.
The investigation into the Itaú case has become, according to industry evaluators, an example of how data-driven management decisions can have legal repercussions in multiple spheres.
In an environment where the boundaries between efficiency and privacy are becoming increasingly thin, how do Brazilian companies intend to demonstrate from now on that the use of data to measure productivity respects workers’ rights and data protection rules?
Be the first to react!