A data subject can ask the controller to confirm processing, provide access, correct data, restrict unlawful or excessive processing, and exercise the other rights in Articles 18 and 20.
Only confirmation and access have Article 19's immediate simplified or 15-day complete-response choices. Other rights must follow their own conditions and applicable regulation.
Identify the right under Brazil's Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais (LGPD), Law 13.709/2018, before starting the clock. Article 18 covers confirmation, access, correction, anonymisation, blocking or deletion of unnecessary, excessive, or unlawful data, portability, deletion of consent-based data, sharing information, information about refusing consent, revocation, and objection to unlawful non-consent processing. Article 20 separately covers review of decisions made solely through automated processing that affect the person's interests; the Agência Nacional de Proteção de Dados (ANPD) issues binding procedures and public guidance on exercising these rights.
1
Section 1
What should teams decide about Data Subject Rights under the Brazil LGPD?
For confirmation or access, allows an immediate simplified response or a clear and complete declaration within 15 days. The complete declaration identifies the data's origin, lack of a record where applicable, criteria used, and processing purpose, subject to commercial and industrial secrets.
The controller must not promise every requested deletion. Article 18(IV) applies to unnecessary, excessive, or unlawful data; Article 18(VI) applies to consent-based data, subject to . Those grounds are compliance with a legal or regulatory obligation, research by a research body with anonymisation where possible, transfer to a third party that meets the LGPD, or the controller's exclusive use with access by third parties prohibited and data anonymised. Portability is subject to ANPD regulation and commercial and industrial secrets and excludes data already anonymised.
The data subject exercises these rights by express request and without charge. Use the 15-day period only for 's complete confirmation or access declaration; do not invent the same deadline for correction, deletion, objection, portability, consent, or automated-decision requests.
Classify the request under Article 18, Article 20, or another applicable law; do not apply the 15-day rule to every request automatically.
Verify identity proportionately without collecting more data than necessary, and preserve an authorised representative's authority where relevant.
Search every system, operator, archive, and recipient needed for the response or action, while protecting other people and commercial or industrial secrets.
If immediate action is impossible, state the factual or legal reason or, where the recipient is not the processing agent, identify the agent when possible.
Who should own Data Subject Rights, and what evidence should prove the decision?
The controller owns the response. The encarregado or published privacy channel coordinates intake; system owners locate and act on data; operators assist under the controller's instructions; privacy or legal reviews limitations, secrets, competing rights, and .
When data has been shared, the responsible agent must immediately inform the other processing agents of a correction, deletion, anonymisation, or blocking so they repeat the action, unless communication is proven impossible or requires disproportionate effort.
Name one accountable owner and one reviewer for the Data Subject Rights workflow.
Keep the request record, reply text, supporting tickets, and approval notes together.
Keep the request, identity check, right and data scope, search record, decision, response, delivery date, system actions, recipient notifications, exception, reviewer, and closure evidence.
Do not disclose another person's data or authentication secrets in an access response. Record any redaction and the reason.
Revoking consent stops future reliance on that consent; it does not make earlier lawful processing retroactively unlawful. If another legal basis is proposed for continued processing, verify that it genuinely fits the purpose and explain the resulting processing transparently.
A person may object to processing based on a consent exemption when the processing violates the LGPD. applies only to decisions made solely through automated processing that affect the person's interests; the controller must also provide clear and adequate information about the criteria and procedures when requested, subject to protected secrets.
For public bodies, use the specific procedures and periods referenced in Article 23, including the Habeas Data, administrative-process, and access-to-information laws.
Eligible small processing agents have specified differentiated periods under Resolution 2/2022; confirm eligibility and the exact request type before using them.
A data subject generally must first present the request to the controller before petitioning the ANPD and should retain proof of that attempt.
Consumer-protection bodies may also receive rights complaints when processing occurs in a consumer relationship.
Log the request, acknowledge the channel, verify identity proportionately, classify the right, locate the controller and systems, assign actions, apply the correct period, review the response, deliver it securely, and preserve closure evidence.
For correction, deletion, anonymisation, or blocking, verify execution in active systems and downstream recipients. For a refusal or limitation, give the factual or legal reason in plain language and preserve the decision record.
Publish an easy-to-find channel and make support staff able to recognise and route rights requests regardless of wording.
Keep confirmation or access response templates separate from correction, deletion, objection, portability, consent, and automated-decision workflows.
Test the workflow across backups, analytics, support tools, vendors, and shared-data recipients rather than only the primary account database.
Use request trends to fix notices, retention, product controls, and data quality.