[IMAGE 1 — replace with the corresponding image from the PDF]
From Feed to Plenary
the debate on regulating digital influencers
in the National Congress
About Reglab
Reglab is a think tank specialized in research and consultancy which assists companies, associations and policymakers with data-driven planning and impact analysis. We focus on making responsible and strategic decisions, unraveling the regulatory challenges of the media and technology sector.
About the Radar Series
The series Radar from Reglab presents visual reports that combine qualitative and quantitative data, offering a contextualized view of phenomena
specific. Radar seeks to synthesize complex information in an accessible way, facilitating the understanding of emerging trends and agendas using
visual resources and graphic design.
Engage.hub is Reglab’s applied research hub that investigates the social, economic and regulatory impacts of influencer marketing and digital creative. Our objective is to qualify the market and public policies with more data and evidence.
[IMAGE 2 — replace with the corresponding image from the PDF]
Executive Director
Pedro Henrique Ramos
SUGGESTED QUOTE, P. H. R.; GARROTE, M.; BROMBINE, G.; SOUZA, S. From Feed to Plenary: the debate on the regulation of Digital influencers in the National Congress. Radar Reglab. n. 2.São Paulo: Reglab, 2025.
Research Coordinator
Marina Garrote
Authors
Pedro Henrique Ramos, Marina Garrote, Giulia Brombine and Stephanie Mathias de Souza
Researchers
Giulia Brombine, Stephanie Mathias de Souza and Vinicius Pimenta
Final Layout
Stephanie Mathias de Souza and Pedro Henrique Ramos
Congress regulates influencers more for what they post than for what they represent
We analyze 88 bills on digital influencers (2015-2025), and we see a fragmented and reactive legislative field, marked by vague definitions and focus on content control, with most proposals ignoring the socioeconomic dimension of the activity. The definitions of “influencer” are broad and imprecise, and few PLs establish clear requirements or guarantee concrete rights to the category.
Civil law rules predominate, but criminal liability surprises
Obligations related to content and advertising stand out among the subthemes of the projects, with a significant number of projects establishing criminal liability for agents in the influencer marketing sector
the influencer is recognized in theory, but portrayed in practice as a social risk
The analysis of the PLs’ justifications reveals an ambiguous construction: recognized at times as a legitimate professional, but mostly described as social risk.The texts emphasize negative actions, such as fraud, exploitation, and addiction, and erase archetypes of
legitimacy and social function.
[IMAGE 3 — replace with the corresponding image from the PDF]
introduction
Brazil is the country with the most digital influencers in the world. There are 3.8 million content creators – almost 16% of all influencers on the planet. To get an idea of the magnitude of this phenomenon: there are more influential professionals in Brazil than doctors, lawyers or engineers with active professional registration. This is not just a curious fact, but the portrait of a profound transformation in society.
This influence is not limited to social media. Between 2015 and 2025, the National Congress received 88 bills to regulate activity – none of them approved. The Felca case, in 2025, accelerated the debate, but did not create the problem: the discussion had been accumulating for years, reflecting the difficulty in legally framing a phenomenon that changes all the time. Even ECA Digital, presented as a direct response to the episode, does not explicitly mention influencers.
What these projects reveal goes beyond specific responses to controversies. They show how Parliament, and part of society, sees digital influencers: sometimes as legitimate professionals and engines of the digital economy; other times as a social and cultural threat that needs to be contained. This tension between legitimation and distrust permeates the texts of the proposals and the parliamentarians’ justifications.
This study focuses on this dynamic. We systematically analyzed the content and discourse of the 88 bills, we map patterns, classify approaches and identify the meanings that legislators attribute to digital influencers.The objective is to qualify the debate: to offer evidence that helps companies, platforms, content creators and policymakers to better understand the scenario in which they operate.
Source: Influencer Marketing Benchmark Report (2025).
Who are digital influencers?
Who, after all, are Brazilian digital influencers? Contrary to the popular image of young people in their 20s, the majority are in their 30s. Cisgender women largely dominate the sector, and ethnic diversity also shows up in the numbers. In terms of interaction, nano-influencers (1K-10K followers) engage more than twice as much as large profiles, and in Brazil we have the highest global purchase rate based on recommendations from influencers.
It is a 20 billion reais market, which grew by around 43% in the last year.
Sources: Census of Creators (Squid, 2023); Hypeauditor (2025); Influencer Marketing Benchmark Report (2025).
* In this report, we chose to use the term “influencers” in the masculine, according to the predominant nomenclature in the PLs analyzed. Although its use reflects adherence to primary sources, we recognize that this choice can reproduce the gender asymmetry present in legislative texts and, therefore, should not be understood as neutral, and it is also necessary to problematize how normative language can reinforce invisibility. Because of this, we chose to alternate the use of masculine and feminine in the sections of the report that involve analysis and comments.
the researched universe
BILLS
87 of the Chamber and
2015 until August 2025
* The almost absolute concentration of PLs in the Chamber (when, in general, around 80% of proposals originate there) draws attention. Two hypotheses deserve investigation: (i) whether media and consumer issues tend to be more concentrated in the Chamber, as they are more responsive to local pressures; and (ii) whether the Senate only engages when the debates reach greater maturity.
despite the constant trend,
parliamentary activity is quite reactive
Between 2015 and 2023, legislative initiatives were punctual,with an average of 1 to 2 projects per year, but consistent, without prolonged hiatuses that would indicate parliamentary disinterest in the topic.
From 2024 onwards, the pattern changes: production increases rapidly, with 2025 registering more proposals than 2015 to 2022 combined.
Proposals per month (2016-2025)
Virginia’s testimony at the Bets CPI and the Felca case had a direct impact on the volume of PLs
This shows how Congress reacts not only to topics of interest and media repercussion, but also to digital influencers themselves.
PUBLICATION OF
total of propositions (2023-2025)
FELCA VIDEO
Betting regulation — Protection of children and adolescents — Total PLs
PLs cross different political spectrums and mobilize almost all parties
proposals by party (2015-2025)
UNION — 5%
The bills are presented by parliamentarians from different political parties, demonstrating that the matter transcends specific ideological positions. The party distribution does not show any relevant deviation in relation to the composition of Congress itself.
RJ stands out as the state that most proposes rules to regulate digital influencers
Rio de Janeiro leads the ranking of bills on digital influencers: there were 16 proposals between 2015 and 2025, followed by Goiás (9), São Paulo (8), Minas Gerais
(6) and Ceará, Pernambuco and Bahia (5 each). But the highlight goes beyond the absolute volume. But, when we consider the relationship between the number of proposals and the state bench, Goiás stands out: there are approximately two deputies for each PL presented – proportion
much higher than that of other states, including Rio.
The national record holder is Marcos Tavares (PDT) from Rio de Janeiro, with 4 proposals, followed by Hugo Leal (PSD), Pedro Paulo (PSD) and Talíria Petrone (PSOL), all from Rio and with 2 each. Furthermore, 62% of Rio’s proposals deal with content regulation, more than double the national average.
PLs per deputy (states)
more than 1/5 of PLs seek to create criminal rules for influencers, in the wake of the Felca Case
PLs by legislative nature (2015-2025)
Civil — Criminal
Although the majority of bills deal with civil law issues, the number of proposals in the criminal sphere is impressive: of the 21 bills presented, 12 were presented in 2025 and 9 of them deal with the protection of children and adolescents, indicating a direct relationship with the YouTuber Felca’s video in parliamentarians’ concern with criminalizing conduct committed against minors.
Labor/pension – Consumerist
Tax — Other
The themes of the projects are diverse…
PLs by topic(2015-2025)
Regulation of digital platforms associated with influencer activity
Implementation of measures in government and institutionsOther
…but interest in these topics has varied over the last 10 years
The tone of legislative activity has transformed over time. The proposals initially sought to recognize digital influence as a profession and structure its legal bases. In recent years, however, the debate shifted to content regulation and platform control. This turn signals a change of perspective: from a potential engine of economic and social development to an object of distrust and state control.
proposals per year, according to theme (2015-2025)
Recognition of influence as a profession
Content, advertising and digital marketing rules Regulation of digital platforms
Measures in government and institutions
Regulation of child influencers
Economic aspects of the activity
Others
restrictions on activity and content stand out among the subthemes of the projects
Among the projects analyzed, 17 (19.3%) mention the creation of inspection and compliance mechanisms: although they deal with influencers, they directly regulate digital platforms.
Furthermore, betting-related projects stand out:
Of the 12 proposals that mention responsibility for removing specific content,
5 of them are about betting.
Among all the texts analyzed, most of the proposals for legislative changes were presented in 2025 and focused on
child and youth protection.
As for the Marco Civil da Internet, 6 of the 12 changes (50%) followed in the same direction; and, finally, the only change proposed to the LGPD during the period analyzed also focused on child and youth protection in the digital environment.
A Betting Law, in turn, had 4 of its 6 amendment proposals concentrated in 2025, reflecting a legislative reaction to the repercussion of the CPI das Bets events.
Legislation modified by PLs
ECA (8,069/1990)
Civil Rights Framework for the Internet (12,965/2014)
Bets Law (14,790/2023)
Penal Code (2,848/1940)
CDC (8,078/1990)
LGPD (13,709/2018)
bills seek to define what an influencer is – and there is no consensus
Of the projects analyzed,40% propose definitions for digital influencer. However, the most cited characteristics – use of a digital platform, sharing of information and creation and publication of content – can be associated with any social media user.
This generic approach creates a problem: most projects do not distinguish professional influencers from ordinary users.
other projects seek to create specific requirements
– in general, in a generic and scattered way
15% of PLs analyzed establish requirements to exercise the profession of digital influencer.
However, only three requirements are mentioned in two proposals each: higher education in the area of activity, nationality or regularized documentation and guarantee of the rights of the child.
Art. 3 The exercise of the professions referred to in items I and I of the previous article is exclusive to Brazilians graduated from higher education institutions with a degree in journalism or Social Communication with a recognized qualification in journalism.
The dispersion of criteria suggests that Congress is still unable to clearly say what is necessary to be a digital influencer.
projects are more focused on creating obligations than guaranteeing rights
Although there are 22 mentions of the topic of recognizing influence as a profession, rights for influencers are less present in the texts, and only 16 (18%) provide specific rights for digital influencers. The most cited are:
- fundamental rights (5 mentions)
“Art. 1 This Law regulates the activities of children and adolescents as digital influencers on digital platforms, with the aim of protecting their fundamental rights, guaranteeing their physical integrity (…)” – PL 2310/2025
- limitation to working hours (3 mentions)
“Art. 11. The normal working duration of Professional Youtubers will not exceed c (six) hours per day and 30 (thirty) hours
weekly (…)” – PL 10S38/2018
- prohibition of harmful works (3 mentions)
“The exposure of children and adolescents to digital content, with or without monetization purposes, is prohibited when such exposure (…)” – PL 387c/2025
PLs about influencers are also used to hold digital platforms responsible
Despite the bills addressing the issue of influencers, the responsibility often falls on
digital platforms. The influencer is the second most cited person responsible.
civil liability for responsible agent (2015-2025)
digital platforms
generic offender
influencer
sponsors or
advertisers
examples of accountability
Art. 5 The creator of digital content is responsible for the damages caused to third parties, both in civil and criminal spheres, resulting from their publications.
Art. 8 Digital platforms that monetize content from child influencers will be co-responsible for the direct transfer of income to the account mentioned in art. 7th, under penalty of fine and suspension of activities in Brazil.
Art. 4 Failure to comply with the provisions of this law will subject violators to the following penalties, without prejudice to other applicable sanctions: I – Administrative fine in the amount of up to R$ 100,000.00 (one hundred thousand reais) for companies; II – Administrative fine in the amount of up to R$50,000.00 (fifty thousand reais) for individuals, including digital influencers (…)
25 of the projects analyzed provide for criminal liability. Among these,
21 provide for a prison sentence…
participation of children in audiovisual recordings without judicial authorization (criminalized in 1 text)
The behaviors that influencers can lead
dissemination and exploitation of games and gambling by digital influencers (criminalized in 5 texts) Among these, 1 PL prohibits the promotion of private doctor activities, aesthetic procedures and smoking, in addition to content about betting.
to confinement include…
and what do parliamentarians think about influencers?
To answer this question, we use the discourse analysis, a technique that studies language in its social context. We analyze the Justifications of the 87 Bills, identifying how its authors characterize and qualify influencers. The objective is to reveal the constructions of meaning and the social effects of discourse on the regulation of digital influencers.
semantic fields
Recognition and Professionalization Popularity, Reach and Influence
Commodification and the Economy of Influence Vulnerability and Precarity
Social, Moral and Cultural Risk Criminalization and Fraud
Congress constructs the influencer between legitimation and social threat
[IMAGE 4 — replace with the corresponding image from the PDF]
The data shows thatdiscourses of professionalization and relevance coexist with narratives of vulnerability and risk.
However, this duality must be interpreted with caution: although the bills open space to legitimize influencers, the greater emphasis
concerns its potential harmfulness
and need for regulation.
In discursive terms, the construction is more punitive and restrictive than celebratory, seeking to frame the
influencer as an actor to be controlled.
what influencers are…
The diversity of codes of “being” indicates that the influencer’s identity is discursively disputed: it can be legitimate professional, opinion leader or relevant social actor, but
also irresponsible, manipulative or exploitative.
Parliament projects multiple meanings about who is the influencer, oscillating between institutional recognition and moral disqualification.
…it’s different from what influencers do (in Congress’ view)
In codes that indicate active action, negative meanings prevail, describing them as risk producers, based on actions that “promote fraud”, “conduct abusive advertising”, “exploit minors” or “encourage addiction”.Even though the identity is multiple, the practices are constructed as harmful.
AspectIdentityActionsDiscursive DiversityMultiple: different discursive fieldsMore homogeneous: majority describes negative actionsPositive FeelingsProfessional recognition, social relevance, economic roleEconomic focus: selling products, attracting brands, changing behaviorsNegative Feelingsirresponsible and manipulativeExploitation, crime, fraud, social risks
Discourse criticism allows us to interpret this asymmetry between identity and actions as a mechanism of practical delegitimization: the influencer may even be recognized in the abstract, but their actions are repeatedly framed as a social danger to be regulated.
Missing archetypes show what Congress rarely recognizes
By combining discourse analysis with Mark and Pearson’s (2003) marketing archetypes, we were able to see which archetypes are systematically erased.
In the justifications of bills, the influencer is rarely constructed as Sage, Ruler or Caregiver – that is, he is rarely recognized as a legitimate source of knowledge, social leadership, or as someone capable of protecting or caring.
By delimiting the field of possibilities of what an influencer “might be,” the vision of Congress’s bills obliges it deprives of the archetypes that would confer legitimacy and power.
Creator
Ruler
Caregiver
Jester of the Court
Lover
Innocent
Ordinary Guy
Explorer
wise
Hero
Rebel
Wizard
analysis and comments
This section analyzes the survey data through
from the lens of the author of this work.
Reactive logic as a legislative standard
The data reveals a pattern: the high concentration of bills in 2025, responding directly to specific media events — such as the CPI das Bets and the Felca case — shows that, on the topic of digital influencers, the legislator operates by crisis triggers, not by regulatory planning. Although this is a recurring pattern in communication and consumption issues in Brazil, it is essential to question how this reactive approach compromises the quality of regulation, which proves to be true in the discussion about who the digital influence professional is in the view of the bills.
The mismatch between socioeconomic weight and legal treatment
The digital marketing sector moves billions of reais and occupies a central position in Brazilian advertising. However, only two tax bills have been introduced in the last decade. This gap may have a gender dimension: in a sector in which 75% are women, economic invisibility in Congress reflects historical patterns of devaluation of activities in which the female presence is relevant.
This lack of recognition extends to other areas: debate about the role of
influencers in education and health, at the same time that content control proposals multiply. The paradox becomes clear: the legislator prefers to regulate the content (control what they say) than structuring economic activity (recognize and organize what they do).
The discursive construction of “risk profession”
Discourse analysis of the bills reveals a revealing contradiction: even when the influencer is recognized as a legitimate actor, the actions attributed to him are predominantly negative — fraud, exploitation, induction into addiction. It is an ambiguous status of legitimacy: recognized in theory, disqualified in practice. This framing as a “risky profession” is connected to the advancement of the customs agenda in the National Congress, which increasingly occupies the center of legislative activity.
The difficulty in understanding recent phenomena of digital culture ends up being filled by a logic of control, with influencers, central figures of this culture, being privileged targets of this distrust.
conclusion
The analysis of the 88 bills presented between 2015 and 2025 reveals a regulatory field still under construction, marked by vague definitions, lack of objective criteria and emphasis on restrictive responses
Legislative action was reactive to high-profile events, prioritizing customs and focusing efforts on regulating content, while maintaining limited attention to the economic and social dimension of the activity
This distancing of content creators from institutional arenas has direct consequences: in the absence of greater sectoral engagement, the activity may become regulated with less dialogue and collective construction.
This asymmetry is explained, to a large extent, by the still timid participation of actors from the digital marketing sector in legislative arenas, and solid market data rarely reaches parliamentarians
Forinfluencers, distancing is even more complex: it is a sensitive topic in a highly polarized environment, where positioning yourself publicly can compromise your image and contracts.
directions for future studies
Based on the results and discussions of this work, as well as its methodological limitations, we highlight the following directions for new studies, which can continue to improve this research:
This study focused on the analysis of content and discourse present only in legislative proposals. However, the positions and statements of influencers, digital platforms and sectoral entities during the legislative process were not analyzed.
Studies that aim to evaluate correlations between the arguments of the bills and the public demonstrations of these actors can reveal relevant patterns of influence, resistance and agenda alignment. This analysis can shed light on how certain propositions gain greater support, are modified in response to sectoral pressures, or receive interpretations aligned with specific interests.
This work did not compare proposals for regulating influencers with how Congress regulates other professions or sectors. Future studies could identify whether this regulatory tone is specific to influencers or if it reflects a recurring trait in the Brazilian legislature.
The research was limited to the period from 2015 to 2025 and to the federal scope. Future studies can
expand the temporal scope and include state and municipal propositions, allowing a more comprehensive understanding of regulatory dynamics in different spheres of government and identifying possible patterns of diffusion of public policies on the topic.
This work did not examine the practical effectiveness of the few regulations on digital influencers already approved in Brazil. Future research can assess the real impact of these regulations, analyzing its compliance, application by competent bodies and effects on the behavior of influencers and digital platforms.
R A D A R R E and L A B
From Feed to Plenary: the debate on regulating influencers in the National Congress
A N E X O D E M E T O D O L O and I A
From Feed to Plenary:
the debate on regulating influencers in the National Congress
Methodology
general information
Reglab research adheres to strict methodological standards to ensure objectivity and transparency. All data and findings are available for independent verification, reinforcing the credibility of our studies.
Collection and analysis took place from August 21st to September 23rd, 2025, with double validation to reduce bias, and use of software to organize the results.
- Data Collection
- Data Analysis
- Bias Reduction Procedures
- Other information
- Ethical Guidelines
Job Title
From Feed to Plenary: the debate on regulating influencers in the National Congress
Research Question
How did the Brazilian Congress formulate proposals and seek to legislate on digital influencers between 2015 and 2025?
Methodology Summary
This study analyzes legislative proposals in the Brazilian Congress involving digital influencers. The methodology is qualitative, deductive and descriptive, mapping how bills address the topic of influencers. Data collection used documentary research, specifically (i) the entire content of the PL and (ii) its statement of reasons/justification, whenever present.
Content analysis applied descriptive coding, based on previously defined classifications. Discourse analysis applied linguistic coding.
A N E X O D E M E T O D O L O and I A
From Feed to Plenary:
the debate on regulating influencers in the National Congress
Data collection
Data collection was carried out through the theme of documentary research, on the website of Federal Senate and in Portal of the Chamber of Deputies. The collection covered all proposals presented between 2015 and 2025 satisfy both of the following conditions:
Documents removed from the sample – Methodological CaveatDuring this stage, 143 bills were collected. Of these, 55 would be part of the sample universe, in principle, as they satisfied the conditions described below. However, after reading these documents, it was realized that they only touched on the object of this research, as they mentioned influencers in an accessory way or as an example in the statement of reasons or justification of the PL, without the bill discussing a topic actually related to influencers. Despite formally being part of the set of PLs captured in the collection, such documents were excluded from the sample, which resulted in 88 bills. For example: “This Bill aims to clarify Brazilian legislation in the sense that people with Autism Spectrum Disorder – ASD are guaranteed the use of special vacancies in public and private establishments. Recently, a digital influencer used her social networks to demonstrate indignation regarding the reservation of vacancies for autistic people, mocking this preferential right. Unfortunately, many people are unaware of the priority of service (…)” – Justification of PL 1727/2022
- It is a search result on the Federal Senate website or on the Chamber of Deputies Portal for the following terms: (i) digital influencers; (ii) digital influencer; (iii) digital influencers; (iv)digital influencer; (v) YouTubers; (vi) bloggers; (vii) vloggers; (viii) content creator; (ix) content creators.
- The proposal falls into one of the following categories: (i) bill; (ii) complementary bill; (iii) substitute; and (iv) replacement adopted by the Commission.
Collection period August 21st to September 3rd, 2025.
KARPPINEN, K; MOE, H. Texts as Data I: Document Analysis. In VAN DEN BULCK, H. et al. (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Methods for Media Policy
Research. Palgrave Macmillan: London, 2019.
A N E X O D E M E T O D O L O and I A
Data analysis
From Feed to Plenary:
the debate on regulating influencers in the National Congress
Data evaluation was carried out in two parts: the first, using the content analysis, and the second, through the technique of discourse analysis.
Content analysis
Content analysis, with a descriptive approach, focused exclusively on the provisions present in the articles of the bills, without examining the statement of reasons/justification of the proposal or possible intentions of the legislator, which allowed a more objective systematization, adapting to the purpose of the study.
To organize the data and identify the main axes of discussion, the aspects of the PLs referring to the author, party, federative unit, date of presentation, forecast of new legislation and identification of laws changed by the PL were categorized using basic descriptive codes, defined deductively. The other codes, presented below, were defined inductively, based on a preliminary analysis of the material, which, for transparency purposes, are detailed below:
Topics covered
Subthemes
Responsibility
Actor (responsibility)
Expected sanction
Definition of professional
Profession requirements
Rights and duties of the professional
A N E X O D E M E T O D O L O and I A
From Feed to Plenary:
the debate on regulating influencers in the National Congress
Data analysis
Topics covered
Assignment of up to two topics covered for each PL, focusing on the predominant ones. In cases where other
Topics were addressed very punctually or briefly, these were disregarded. For a better understanding of what each topic is about, each one is described below.
- Recognition of influence as a profession: encompasses proposals that seek to formalize the activity of digital influencer as a profession recognized by law, establishing specific rights and duties for those who exercise this occupation.
- Regulation of child influencer activity: refers to projects that establish standards for the participation of children and adolescents as digital influencers, with a focus on protecting rights, guarantees and limits of action.
- Economic aspects of (influencer) activity: deals with the regulation of financial issues linked to influence activities, including taxation, tax collection, allocation of profits and recognition of economic ties.
- Content, advertising and digital marketing rules: covers standards on transparency and responsibility in the dissemination of sponsored content, advertising on social networks and digital marketing practices, aiming to protect consumers or specific segments in digital media.
- Regulation of digital platforms associated with influencer activity: brings together proposals that address the obligations and responsibilities of digital platforms in their relationships with influencers, such as remuneration rules, content moderation and transparency mechanisms.
- Implementation of measures in government and institutions: includes initiatives that provide for the creation of bodies or programs aimed at regulating or monitoring the activity of influencers within the governmental or institutional structure.
- Other: residual category applied to PLs that do not fit directly into the previous themes, including proposals
which include influencers only occasionally or with specific and exceptional approaches.
A N E X O D E M E T O D O L O and I A
2.1 Data analysis
Subthemes
Up to two subtopics were assigned to each PL, bringing more nuance to the analysis. The subthemes created are arranged below, grouped according to the theme from which they are derived:
From Feed to Plenary:
the debate on regulating influencers in the National Congress
RECOGNITION OF INFLUENCE AS A PROFESSION
- Formalization as an employment relationship and associated rights;
- Definition of requirements for carrying out the activity;
- Social relevance of the profession;
- Remuneration rules for influencer activities;
- Social and pension security for influencers;
REGULATION OF MIRIM INFLUENCER ACTIVITY
- Rules for the participation and remuneration of child influencers;
- Protection measures against specific activities
by child influencers;
REGULATION OF ASSOCIATED DIGITAL PLATFORMS
- Mandatory algorithmic transparency;
- Responsibility for creating oversight and compliance mechanisms;
- Responsibility for removing specific content;
CONTENT, ADVERTISING AND DIGITAL MARKETING RULES
- Prohibition of content with a gambling theme;
- Restriction on advertising for user segments;
- Restriction on advertising of specific products;
- Restriction of content aimed at minors;
- Restriction of content portraying minors;
- Restriction of other specific content;
- Transparency rules in paid posts;
- Joint responsibility with brands and advertisers;
ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE ACTIVITY
- Formalization as a business activity;
- Tax issues associated with business activity as an influencer;
IMPLEMENTATION OF MEASURES IN GOVERNMENT AND INSTITUTIONS
- Creation of councils, commissions or regulatory bodies;
- Cooperation agreements/initiatives between the State, platforms and influencers;
- Influencer registration and certification procedures;
A N E X O D E M E T O D O L O and I A
2.1 Data analysis
Expected liability
From Feed to Plenary:
the debate on regulating influencers in the National Congress
Responsibility was coded independently on the axes civil, criminal and administrative liability, which could be:
- Yes, when the PL provided for that axis of responsibility in some part of the proposal; or
- No, when the bill did not foresee the existence of that axis of responsibility.
Responsibility actor
For each of the axes of responsibility, the actors to whom responsibility falls were coded. The codes are listed below. Any term used to refer to the content creator (Blogger, Youtuber, Influencer, etc.) was unified as “influencer”, just as terms describing any providers of internet applications, social networks or similar digital technologies were unified as “digital platforms”.
- generic offender (not detailed by the PL);
- influencer;
- digital platforms;
- sponsors or advertisers;
- sports betting and gambling companies;
- employer;
- parents or legal guardians;
- public agent;
- data controllers and operators;
- financial or payment institutions;
- artist.
A N E X O D E M E T O D O L O and I A
2.1 Data analysis
Expected sanction
The sanctions provided for the responsible actor (civil, criminal or administrative) were also coded and, to allow for a more in-depth analysis, the categories included not only the sanctions themselves, but also their aggravating factors, when these had a direct correlation with the research object, which was embodied in the following codes:
From Feed to Plenary:
the debate on regulating influencers in the National Congress
- suspension or blocking of activities;
- revocation of operating license;
- prison;
- fine;
- educational guidance;
- warning;
- seizure of goods, values or assets;
- suspension of profiles or content on social networks;
- prohibition of advertising;
- payment or compensation to the injured individual;
- prohibition of payment methods;
- prohibition of professional activity;
- only indication of responsibility;
- lack of responsibility;
- aggravated by the child/adolescent context;
- aggravated by digital influencer activity;
- aggravated by viralization;
- worsened by the use of digital media.
A N E X O D E M E T O D O L O and I A
2.1 Data analysis
Definition of professional
In each PL, the criteria used to create the definition of what an “influencer” is were mapped and categorized into the following codes:
From Feed to Plenary:
the debate on regulating influencers in the National Congress
- Use of digital platform
- Sharing information and opinions
- Use of video channels to convey information
- Use of images and texts to convey information
- Publication of journalistic material
- Habituality/regularity
- Content creation and publishing
- Influence on behavior, opinions
and decisions of third parties
- Reference to content already available on the internet
- Sale of goods and services of any nature
- Minimum age (young influencers)
- Monetization/economic purpose
- Physical or legal personality
- Promotion of brands, services or causes
- Relevant audience
- Volume of views
- Engagement with the public
A N E X O D E M E T O D O L O and I A
2.1 Data analysis
Profession requirements
Bills that established criteria for influence activity to be carried out were coded with one or more of the following terms:
From Feed to Plenary:
the debate on regulating influencers in the National Congress
- Active account on digital platform
- Brazilian nationality or regularized documentation
- Minimum age
- Completion of high school
- Higher education in the field of activity
- Degree in journalism or social communication
- Publication on your own or third party website
- Guarantee children’s rights
- Prove tax regularity
A N E X O D E M E T O D O L O and I A
2.1 Data analysis
Rights and duties of the professional
Likewise, codes were assigned to the rights and duties defined by the PLs for influence activity:
From Feed to Plenary:
the debate on regulating influencers in the National Congress
PROFESSIONAL RIGHTS
- Professional practice
- Professional registration as a journalist
- Creative and interpretative freedom
- Not carrying out harmful work
- Multiemployment (more than one employment contract
signed simultaneously)
- Limitation of working hours
- Paid overtime
- Additional risk
- MEI collection
- Transparent remuneration rules
- Asset protection (for young influencers)
- Due process in removing content
- Copyright
- Source secrecy
- Fundamental rights
- Best interests of the child and adolescent
(for young influencers)
- Non-exploitation of the child’s image
and teenager (for young influencers)
- Prohibiting unsupervised advertising
of responsible people (for young influencers)
- Right to digital oblivion
PROFESSIONAL DUTIES
- Identification of advertising content
- Respect for fundamental rights
- Respect for copyright and intellectual rights
- Protection of minors
- Respect for minoritized groups
- Veracity of content
- Ethics and responsibility in the exercise of the profession
- Hiring a journalist
- Collaborate with authorities to combat crime
- Public awareness of betting risks
- Do not disclose betting content
- Observe Brazilian legislation
- Refrain from inciting any violence
- Include indicative rating in the content produced
- Do not disclose health-related content
A N E X O D E M E T O D O L O and I A
Data analysis
2.2 Discourse analysis
From Feed to Plenary:
the debate on regulating influencers in the National Congress
This study uses the perspective of Critical Discourse Analysis (ACD), a methodology that understands discourse as a social practice and examines the relationship between language and ideological constructions. The choice of this approach arises from the need to transcend the mere counting of propositions to investigate how Parliament constructs and disputes meanings about the figure of the digital influencer.
In the analytical process, we extract 141 linguistic codes justifications for bills. These codes were developed from the identification of adjectives and adjectival phrases that qualify influencers, reflecting both attributes of identity (“are…”) and practice (“they do…”).
To enable a systematic interpretation, we grouped the codes into semantic dimensions (professionalization, popularity, commodification, vulnerability, social risk and criminalization). This method allows mapping the predominant discursive cores, their contradictions and absences, ensuring transparency in the transition from empirical data to critical interpretation.
ALI, C. Analyzing Talk and Text III: Discourse Analysis. In VAN DEN BULCK, H. et al. (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Methods for Media Policy Research.
Palgrave Macmillan: London, 2019.
A N E X O D E M E T O D O L O and I A
Bias reduction procedures
We recognize that all research, especially qualitative in nature, is subject to inherent biases and we seek, as best as possible, to exercise continuous reflexivity throughout the study, questioning possible influences from our own perspectives or understandings of the data. Furthermore, we adopted a series of measures to mitigate subjectivity in the interpretation and analysis of data:
From Feed to Plenary:
the debate on regulating influencers in the National Congress
Double Validation in Critical Stages
For the data analysis stages, a cross-validation process was adopted. Two researchers reviewed the
classifications and encodings of arguments, independently. In cases of disagreement, a third person was called to arbitrate and reach consensus.
Registration and Transparency in the Coding Process
During the coding stage, we kept detailed records of all file versions, preserving history and allowing for more systematic review.
Adoption of Predefined Criteria
The criteria for classifying item 2.1 were previously established, based on theoretical references. These criteria were shared among researchers before the actual classification began, and adjusted only in cases where deductive classifications were notably insufficient.
A N E X O D E M E T O D O L O and I A
From Feed to Plenary:
the debate on regulating influencers in the National Congress
Other methodological limitations
Temporal Range: The study is limited to documents publicly accessible until 08/31/25. New documents or versions
published after that date were not considered.
Personal data protection
This research did not directly involve the processing of personal data. The documents used consisted of
exclusively in bills, available on the Brazilian legislative websites.
Software use
A N E X O D E M E T O D O L O and I A
Ethical Guidelines
From Feed to Plenary:
Respect for Privacy and Confidentiality: The data used is in the public domain and was obtained from accessible sources, without violating the privacy or confidentiality of any individual or institution. Responsible Use of Public Data: Although the data analyzed is public, its use was made in a responsible and ethical manner, with the exclusive objective of independent research. Methodological Transparency: The research methodology was detailed to ensure transparency and replicability, contributing to scientific integrity and allowing the validation of results independently. Non-discrimination and Respect for Diversity: The research was conducted in a way that respects diversity and avoids any form of discrimination.
the debate on regulating influencers in the National Congress
This research was funded by YouTube Brasil Ltda. To ensure the integrity of this work, the authors developed, conducted and analyzed the study independently, without any contribution or interference from the company, which also did not influence or interfere in the interpretation of the results. The authors maintain full professional independence and responsibility for the content and conclusions of this work.