The Rise of the Digital Professional

The growth of the digital market has transformed influencers and content creators into significant protagonists of the economy, with a direct impact on both consumer behavior and the shaping of public debate. Despite this relevance, their activities remained, for a long time, outside a clear and systematic legal framework. Law No. 15,325/2026, enacted in January of this year, represents the first Brazilian legislative attempt to address this gap by establishing the formalization of the multimedia professional and, at the same time, recognizing the digital influencer as a professional linked to this field.

Functional Equivalence and Classification

At the outset, it is worth noting that Article 3 sets forth a non-exhaustive and non-cumulative list of duties for purposes of classification within this professional category. In other words, there is no requirement that all listed activities be performed in full or simultaneously.

As a result, the term “digital influencer” does not appear expressly in the statute but is indirectly encompassed by the broader category of the multimedia professional, by functional equivalence. In practice, the influencer falls within the scope of the law when engaging in activities such as creating content, editing or directing their own videos, publishing and disseminating material, managing social media accounts, and similar tasks. These activities are primarily addressed in subsections I, II, VIII, and IX of Article 3.

In this sense, the influencer is not recognized as an autonomous legal category, but rather as an informal subset within a much broader statutory concept. Even so, the law introduces a new paradigm by treating the influencer’s activity as a professional occupation equivalent to that of a multimedia professional, breaking with the notion that digital content production is merely an informal exercise of individual expression.

Structural Weaknesses and Education Requirements

The statute’s primary innovation is therefore symbolic in nature: it grants legal recognition to an activity that already existed in practice. This classification tends to increase contractual predictability, strengthen the professionalization of the sector, and expand the protection of workers’ rights. Nevertheless, Law No. 15,325/2026 presents structural weaknesses that call into question its ability to provide effective responses to the complexities of the digital market.

Pursuant to Article 2, the multimedia professional is defined as a multifunctional professional, with technical or higher education credentials, qualified to perform activities involving the creation, production, capture, editing, planning, management, programming, publication, and dissemination of content on digital media. The first weakness arises precisely from the requirement of technical or higher education, which fails to reflect the informal nature of the Brazilian digital market. Many content creators, in practice, perform the activities described in the statute but are excluded from its legal framework due to the absence of such formal educational credentials.

Normative Ambiguity and Oversight

Another sensitive issue lies in Article 3, which sets forth a broad list of duties. Subsection II authorizes the professional to engage in the “collection, research, evaluation, selection, interpretation, and organization of sources.” This language unduly expands the scope of activity of these professionals and may serve as a basis to produce content on sensitive subjects without the corresponding technical qualifications.

The law fails to establish objective criteria capable of distinguishing legitimate informational activity from the unauthorized practice of regulated professions, thereby opening the door to the dissemination of information produced by communicators who lack adequate expertise in the subjects they address. The normative ambiguity is further exacerbated by Article 5, which allows professionals from other occupational categories, through a contractual amendment and with the employer’s consent, to request exclusive classification under the legal regime applicable to multimedia professionals.

This scenario is aggravated by the absence of specific oversight mechanisms. The law does not establish a professional licensing board or regulatory authority, does not require mandatory registration or minimum eligibility criteria, and does not set forth a specific code of duties and sanctions. Oversight of the activity remains diffuse, relying on the application of general legal norms and the subsequent intervention of other authorities.

Conclusion

The statute also fails to address the central issue currently straining the digital market: the point at which content ceases to be entertainment and begins to influence sensitive public decisions. In sum, Law No. 15,325/2026 represents a step forward in light of Brazil’s digital reality. However, as currently drafted, the statute appears more capable of organizing the legislative discourse than of being truly effective in providing concrete answers to the sector’s regulatory tensions.