Portuguese 
Spanish 
Data leakage prevention: what is the company’s responsibility according to the LGPD?
Brazil has become one of the most targeted countries by digital criminals in the world. According to Check Point Research, released in May 2026, Brazilian organizations suffered on average more than 4,000 cyberattacks per week at the beginning of this year — a 46% increase compared to the previous year, a number well above the global average. For companies in the oil and gas sector, which operate critical infrastructure and handle large volumes of data from employees, contractors, and partners, information protection is more than a matter of regulatory compliance: it is a matter of operational survival.
The General Data Protection Law (Law No. 13.709/2018, the LGPD), in effect since September 2020, not only imposed new obligations on Brazilian organizations but also significantly redistributed responsibility and legal risk. Today, when a data breach occurs, it is not just the security of the operation that is at stake — it is the very financial, reputational, and legal structure of the company.
-
Few realize it, but those metal circles on the wooden handle of the knife are not there by chance: understand how the rivets hold the structure, prevent gaps, and help maintain a firm cut.
-
Brazilian billionaire lives in Bermuda, accumulates a fortune of R$ 6.7 billion, controls 11% of a holding company linked to the owner of Ambev, is the 9th richest woman in Brazil, and has ties to the Monaco royalty.
-
Pilot who saved 155 people on the Hudson River faces a new challenge at 75, reveals early-stage Alzheimer’s diagnosis and says that courage also means speaking openly about the disease, so that other families can face memory, future, and care without isolation or silence.
-
Woman who worked as a domestic worker in her teenage years enters Medicine, graduates at 24, receives distinction in Dermatology, and begins an internship at two public hospitals in Johannesburg, combining professional experience, academic performance, and clinical training in a journey recognized by the South African university where she studied.
But what exactly is a company’s responsibility when a leak happens? What does the law require? And how can energy organizations prepare to meet these requirements?
What is LGPD and why it changes everything for sensitive data
The LGPD is Brazil’s data protection framework, analogous to the European GDPR. Its scope is broad: according to the text of the Law No. 13.709/2018, it applies to any data processing operation of individuals carried out in the national territory or aimed at offering goods and services to individuals located in Brazil, regardless of where the company is based.
For the oil and gas sector, this means that data from:
- Employees (personal records, locations, communications)
- Contractors and third parties
- Customers and business partners
- Even visitors in facilities
…are all under the protection of the law.
But there is an important nuance: the LGPD distinguishes between personal data and sensitive data. Article 5 of the law defines as sensitive, among others, data related to health and biometric data — common categories in the routine of an energy operator, which maintains records of occupational health and biometric access controls to restricted areas. The processing of this data requires specific consent or one of the legal bases provided in article 11, and the penalties for violation are severe.
The company’s responsibility: it’s not just “doing your best”
Here is the critical point that many organizations have not yet fully understood: the LGPD does not require the company to have “perfect” security. Article 46 of the law determines that data processing agents adopt “security measures, technical and administrative, capable of protecting personal data” — that is, security adequate to the risk, and the ability to demonstrate this.
In practice, the law and its regulations establish four fronts of obligation:
1. Technical and administrative measures. Access controls, encryption, data segregation, activity monitoring — not as differentiators, but as demonstrable obligations. The company needs to document which measures it has implemented and why.
2. Incident Response Plan. Article 48 of the LGPD requires the controller to notify the National Data Protection Authority (ANPD) and the data subject of a security incident that may pose a significant risk or harm. And the deadline is short: according to the ANPD’s incident communication regulation (Resolution CD/ANPD No. 15, dated April 24, 2024), the notification must be made within 3 business days from the knowledge that the incident affected personal data. More importantly: the company needs to have detected the leak. If it does not know that its data has been compromised, it will not be able to meet the deadline — and will be held accountable for it.
3. Maintenance of records (audit trail). The company must be able to track who accessed which data, when, and why. This requirement is often overlooked, but it is central: without auditable access logs, the company cannot prove compliance nor reconstruct an incident for the notification required by the ANPD. Implementing a robust monitoring and compliance program is essential to meet this requirement, as detailed in the methodologies described in LGPD and Monitoring.
4. Data Protection Impact Report. For processing operations that may pose high risks, the ANPD may require the preparation of an impact report (the RIPD, provided for in Article 38 of the law). This means: the company must have mapped the risk scenarios and protection measures before the problem occurs.
Where Leaks Happen: Realities of the Energy Sector
The energy sector is in the crosshairs. Check Point Research itself documented 1,162 cyberattacks against utility companies in 2024, a 70% increase compared to the previous year, according to a survey reported by Forescout. And, in the routine of companies, incidents rarely occur due to “cinematic hacker invasions.” The most common scenarios are much more prosaic:
- Unauthorized access by employees: a project manager accesses data from an operational plant without necessity. Without proper logging, no one discovers until it’s too late.
- Sharing in unsecured communications: passwords, access keys, or sensitive information traveling via email, WhatsApp, or unencrypted corporate messengers.
- Employee offboarding: when a specialist leaves the company, their access is not immediately revoked, or data remains on personal devices.
- Contractors and subcontractors: external partners with access to the same networks but without the same security standards.
- Accidental exposure: a file shared with public permissions, a backup server accessible without authentication.
The common point in all these scenarios: the company had no visibility. It didn’t know who accessed what, when, or why.
The real consequences of non-compliance
The sanctions provided in article 52 of the LGPD are significant:
- Fine of up to 2% of the company’s revenue in its last fiscal year, limited to R$ 50 million per infraction.
- Blocking or deletion of personal data related to the infraction.
- Public disclosure of the infraction.
- In addition to administrative sanctions, individual and collective legal actions by affected data subjects.
But the consequences go beyond fines. An organization that suffers a breach without being prepared faces:
- Reputation damage: especially critical in sectors already facing regulatory and ESG pressure.
- Loss of partner trust: contractors and clients may review relationships if the company does not provide data protection assurances.
- Investigation and response costs: digital forensic analysis, notifications, victim support — all become extremely expensive when done in a rush.
- Operational disruption: an inadequate response to a breach can lead to the shutdown of critical systems.
How companies are preparing
Leading organizations in oil and gas are adopting a structured approach to implement these requirements. The most effective compliance programs combine technology, processes, and organizational culture.
Step 1: Data Inventory. Document which sensitive data is processed, where it is, who accesses it and why. It seems obvious, but many companies discover that they do not know.
Step 2: Risk Classification. Not all data has the same level of risk. Geolocation data of field employees has a different risk than occupational health data. The company should prioritize protection where the risk is higher.
Step 3: Implementation of Controls.
- Data encryption in transit and at rest
- Multi-factor authentication for access to critical systems
- Continuous monitoring of activities and accesses
- Segregation of networks and sensitive data
Step 4: Detection and Response. An incident plan is not useful if the company discovers the leak three months later — especially since the regulatory communication deadline is 3 business days. Real-time detection is essential. Modern security solutions allow identification of abnormal accesses, mass downloads or suspicious behaviors as they happen. More information on how to implement a robust monitoring and compliance program can be found at CleverControl LGPD Monitoring, a platform specialized in auditable audit trails and risk detection.
Step 5: Security Culture. Employee training, clear data access policies and known consequences for violations. Often, the weakest link is not technological, but human. A robust security culture combines clear policies with adequate monitoring and auditing tools, allowing the organization to maintain sustainable compliance with LGPD requirements and other data protection frameworks.
The Role of Continuous Visibility
A theme clearly emerges when analyzing successful compliance programs: visibility is compliance.
Companies that can demonstrate compliance with the LGPD are those that can quickly answer questions such as:
- “How many people accessed this file in the last 30 days?”
- “What was the last activity of this deactivated user?”
- “Is there any abnormal access to the employee database tonight?”
Without the ability to answer these questions with concrete data, the company not only fails in compliance — it also fails to detect breaches when they occur, and to meet the communication deadline required by the ANPD.
The implementation of adequate logging and monitoring is not just technical — it is a requirement that directly stems from articles 46 to 48 of the law. Modern security platforms have transformed this from an expensive infrastructure investment into an affordable and manageable solution. Specialized resources in data security and regulatory compliance, such as those provided by CleverControl, offer practical guides and solutions for Brazilian companies to implement data protection programs aligned with current legislation.
Conclusion: from responsibility to opportunity
The LGPD has clearly redistributed responsibility. But this is a disguised opportunity.
Companies that invest in compliance today not only avoid fines — they gain:
- Competitive advantage in bids (compliance is often a requirement)
- Trust from partners and investors (ESG is increasingly important)
- Safer operations (reliable data = better decision making)
- Stronger organizational culture (employees feel protected)
The oil and gas sector is highly regulated, and the LGPD is just one of many laws these companies must comply with. But, unlike purely punitive regulations, the LGPD, when implemented correctly, strengthens the operational security of the organization.
The question is no longer “do we need to be compliant?”. The question is “how do we implement compliance efficiently and sustainably?”. And, in a scenario where Brazilian companies suffer thousands of attacks per week, each day without a clear answer to this question is a day of risk.
About the Author
Julia Meyer is the Product Director at CleverControl, with over 12 years of experience in data security and regulatory compliance. She leads the development of solutions that help Brazilian companies comply with the LGPD and other data protection frameworks.
