Skip to main content
NOPE
Medium reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing

Brasília labour court orders iFood to pay delivery worker who says its face check flagged his own photos as another person and got him banned; iFood appeals

A delivery worker in Brazil's Federal District who had worked for the iFood app for about three years says he was banned from the platform in April 2024 shortly after completing the app's daily facial recognition check. iFood support told him another person had tried to access his account; when he asked to see that person's photos, they were his own. G1 reports that the only difference from his registration photo was his hair, which he was growing out. In a judgment reported in June 2025, a Brasília labour judge, applying a default because iFood had not filed a defence in time, accepted as true that the contract was suspended through iFood's fault, that he suffered financial and psychological losses, and that the facial recognition tool had a racist failure, and ordered iFood to pay R$60,000 in moral damages. iFood denies that its facial recognition procedure analyses racial characteristics and has appealed. The account was restored during the case. No appeal ruling has been reported.

AI system
iFood facial recognition check
Occurred
30 Apr 2024
Reported
11 June 2025
Event location
Brazil
What the AI did
Made a decision about the person
Reported harm
Financial LossProfessional HarmPsychological Distress
Whose AI use
An institution’s AI use
Setting
Work · Justice
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources
7 claims: 7 reported. 5 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: The facial recognition check in the iFood courier app, which requires delivery workers to submit a photo every day before or during deliveries to prevent fraud and account takeover; the provider of the underlying technology is not named

What Happened

The check. According to G1, the iFood courier app requires delivery workers to send a photo for facial recognition every day, before deliveries or during work, to prevent fraud and account takeover.

The ban. The worker told Terra that on 30 April 2024 he completed the facial check and went to collect an order; a few hundred metres after leaving the restaurant a message said he was banned for breaking the platform's rules. iFood later told him the reason was that another person had repeatedly tried to access the app. He asked to see who; the photo was of him. He told G1 he had lost a significant income he counted on every week to pay his bills. His lawyer's case, as quoted by Estadão, was that both photos showed the same person, and G1's summary of the defence is that the app stopped recognising his face after he changed his hairstyle.

The judgment. A Brasília labour judge, Charbel Chater, ordered iFood to pay R$60,000 in moral damages. Because iFood did not file its defence in time, the judge applied a default under which the worker's allegations are treated as true, and wrote that he recognised as true the suspension of the employment contract through iFood's exclusive fault, the worker's financial and psychological losses, and a racist failure in the tool used for facial recognition. G1 and Estadão give different numbers for the labour court that heard the case.

iFood's position. iFood told TV Globo and Estadão that there is no analysis of racial characteristics in its facial recognition procedure and that it would appeal; Terra reported that it had appealed. iFood restored the worker's account during the case and he returned to delivering through the app.

What is not known. Whether any person reviewed the facial check result before the ban, how long the account stayed blocked, which company supplies the recognition technology, and how the appeal ends.

Reported harm

A delivery worker says he was banned from the iFood app after its facial recognition check flagged his own photos as another person and lost income he relied on; a labour court, ruling by default, recognised his financial and psychological losses and awarded R$60,000. iFood denies racial analysis and has appealed.

How Harm Occurred

The app's facial recognition check reported that someone other than the account holder was using the account, and the platform banned him; the photos it cited were his own. He lost delivery income until the account was restored during the lawsuit, and the court (by default) recognised financial and psychological losses.

Outcome

Ongoing

A first-instance labour court in Brasília, within the 10th Region labour courts, ordered iFood to pay R$60,000 in moral damages, as reported from 11 June 2025. The judge applied a default (confissão ficta) because iFood did not file its defence in time. iFood said it would appeal, and Terra reported on 1 July 2025 that it had appealed. No appeal ruling was found in news searches on 2026-10-27.

What remains unknown

  • Whether any person reviewed the facial check result before the ban, or whether the ban was fully automated.
  • How long the account stayed blocked before iFood restored it.
  • Which company supplies the facial recognition technology.
  • Which Brasília labour court heard the case (G1 says the 22nd, Estadão the 8th).
  • How the appeal ends.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. The iFood app runs a daily facial recognition check on delivery workers' photos (G1). The worker says that after he completed it the platform banned him, iFood support said another person had tried to access his account, and the photos it showed as that person were his own (Terra, G1); his lawyer's case was that both photos show the same person (Estadão). The labour judge, applying a default because iFood filed no defence, recognised as true a racist failure in the tool used for facial recognition (G1, Estadão). The connection between the system's output and the ban is the worker's account, accepted by default; iFood denies racial analysis but no source reports it disputing the ban sequence. Whether a person reviewed the result before the ban is not stated.

7 claims: 7 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported The iFood courier app requires delivery workers to send a photo for facial recognition every day, before deliveries or during work, to prevent fraud and account takeover.

Causal attribution. Description of the system; no causal claim.

  • g1.globo.com(opens in new tab) supports · Portuguese
    'O aplicativo do iFood exige que, todos os dias, os entregadores enviem uma foto como reconhecimento facial, antes das entregas ou durante o trabalho. O objetivo é evitar fraudes e invasão à conta.'
Reported The worker says that on 30 April 2024, after completing the facial check, he received a message that he was banned for breaking the rules; iFood later said another person had repeatedly tried to access the account, and the photo it showed was of him.

Causal attribution. The worker's account (one witness, interviewed by two outlets); accepted as true by the court by default.

  • terra.com.br(opens in new tab) supports · Portuguese
    'O caso ocorreu em 30 de abril de 2024' ... 'apareceu a mensagem dizendo que eu estava banido da plataforma por descumprir as normas' ... 'o motivo do banimento foi por conta de que outra pessoa tentou acessar inúmeras vezes o aplicativo e isso é proibido' ... 'era eu na foto'
  • g1.globo.com(opens in new tab) supports · Portuguese
    'Pedi que enviassem a foto de quem estava tentando acessar. E para minha surpresa, a pessoa na foto era eu.'
Reported The worker says the ban took away a significant income he relied on every week to pay his bills.

Causal attribution. The worker's account of the consequence.

  • g1.globo.com(opens in new tab) supports · Portuguese
    'me tiraram uma renda bem significativa, contava com esse dinheiro toda semana pra pagar minhas contas'
Reported A Brasília labour judge ordered iFood to pay R$60,000 in moral damages, applying a default because iFood did not file a defence in time, and recognised as true the suspension of the contract through iFood's fault, the worker's financial and psychological losses and a racist failure in the facial recognition tool.

Causal attribution. First-instance judgment as quoted by two outlets (one underlying document); findings rest on a procedural default and are under appeal.

  • g1.globo.com(opens in new tab) supports · Portuguese
    'condenou o iFood a pagar R$ 60 mil como indenização por danos morais' ... 'reconheço como verdadeiros: a suspensão do contrato de trabalho por culpa exclusiva da Reclamada; os prejuízos financeiros e psicológicos sofridos pelo Reclamante em razão da impossibilidade de laborar em favor da Reclamada; e a falha racista na ferramenta utilizada para reconhecimento facial' ... 'o iFood não cumpriu o prazo para apresentar a defesa'
  • estadao.com.br(opens in new tab) supports · Portuguese
    'O iFood não apresentou defesa, segundo o magistrado.'
Reported iFood says there is no analysis of racial characteristics in its facial recognition procedure, and it has appealed the judgment.

Causal attribution. iFood's statement and the appeal; contrary evidence on the racial-bias finding.

Reported iFood restored the account during the case, and the worker returned to delivering through the app.

Causal attribution. Outcome for the worker before judgment.

Reported The worker's lawyer argued that both photos iFood cited show the same person, the worker, and that he had worked for iFood for about three years when he was blocked over the supposed access by another person.

Causal attribution. The worker's pleading as reported by Estadão.

  • estadao.com.br(opens in new tab) supports · Portuguese
    'Em ambas as fotos está a mesma pessoa: o reclamante (entregador)' ... 'o entregador trabalhava havia três anos para o iFood quando foi bloqueado na plataforma por suposto acesso de outra pessoa na conta'

Sources

3 sources inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in Portuguese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-27 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. G1 report by TV Globo Brasília, read in full. Applies to s1.

Read in Portuguese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-27 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Estadão column report, read in full; it gives the court as the 8th Labour Court, where G1 gives the 22nd. Applies to s2.

Read in Portuguese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-27 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Terra report based on its own interview with the worker, read in full. Applies to s3.

Event countries: Brazil. Affected-person countries: Brazil. Court countries: Brazil.

G1 describes the worker as a delivery worker of the Federal District (DF) and the ban happened while he was making deliveries there, so the event and the affected person are in Brazil; the case was heard by a labour court in Brasília.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-27: Published as a contextual case (made_decision_about): a delivery worker says the iFood app's facial recognition check flagged his own photos as another person and the platform banned him, costing income; a Brasília labour court, ruling by default, recognised a racist failure in the facial recognition tool and awarded R$60,000. iFood denies racial analysis and has appealed. No private name appears in the public record.

People described

An adult delivery worker in the Federal District of Brazil, described by the reporting as a Black man, who had worked through the iFood app for about three years and relied on its income

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

One delivery worker, the plaintiff. No other affected person is described.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#facial-recognition#identity-verification#gig-work#delivery-workers#account-ban#labour-court#brazil

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Brasília labour court orders iFood to pay delivery worker who says its face check flagged his own photos as another person and got him banned; iFood appeals. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2024-brasilia-labour-court-orders-ifood-to-compensate-delivery-worker-banned-after-its-face-check-flagged-his-own-photos

BibTeX

@misc{2024_brasilia_labour_court_orders_ifood_to_compensate_delivery_worker_banned_after_its_face_check_flagged_his_own_photos,
  title = {Brasília labour court orders iFood to pay delivery worker who says its face check flagged his own photos as another person and got him banned; iFood appeals},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2024-brasilia-labour-court-orders-ifood-to-compensate-delivery-worker-banned-after-its-face-check-flagged-his-own-photos}
}

Related cases

Medium NiCE workforce management

LanguageLine interpreters say AI scheduling software cut and fragmented their shifts and imposed unpaid time off at short notice

Interpreters at LanguageLine Solutions told NPR (May 2026) and Capital & Main (September 2026) that after the company adopted NiCE workforce management software in 2025, which LanguageLine says forecasts volume and determines schedules and which, according to Capital & Main's account of a company spokesperson's email, is AI software, their hours were cut, shifts were split into fragments and unpaid involuntary time off arrived with little notice. NPR reports that one interpreter's LanguageLine income fell 18% from 2024 to 2025. LanguageLine attributes the disruption mainly to lower demand, acknowledged that schedules had been more unpredictable than normal, and says operations are back to normal.

Medium Unidentified AI tool

Ninth Circuit fines and suspends two immigration lawyers over briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and denials of AI use; immigration board follows

On 3 June 2026 the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit fined immigration attorneys Mike Singh Sethi and William Rounds $2,500 each and suspended both from practice before the court for six months. Briefs filed in an asylum petition for review cited two cases that do not exist and attributed quotations to opinions that do not contain them. In a motion to correct, the attorneys called the errors typographical, and at oral argument Rounds twice said AI was not used. In their response to the court's order to show cause, they conceded that the errors were probably the product of unauthorised AI use by the firm's unlicensed brief writers and a failure to check citations. The court said the suspension was owed to their repeated failure of candour. The Board of Immigration Appeals then suspended Sethi from practice before the Board, the immigration courts and the Department of Homeland Security for six months, effective 13 June 2026, and designated that decision as a precedent on 1 October 2026.

Low Unidentified AI drafting tool

Paraíba, Brazil: judge fines a lawyer R$32,800 over hidden AI commands in a petition, G1 reports; state bar later suspends two lawyers in such cases

A judge of the 5th Mixed Court of Sousa, Paraíba, found hidden instructions aimed at artificial intelligence tools spread over seven pages of a lawyer's motion for clarification in a public-competition case in June 2026, including an order to ignore impartiality and a note calling it a test of whether the judge used only AI to decide. The judge fined the lawyer two penalties of R$16,400 (R$32,800 in total) for bad-faith litigation and contempt of the court's dignity, and referred the case to the Paraíba bar (OAB-PB) and the state prosecutors, G1 reports. The defence said the commands were not inserted deliberately and blamed an error in exporting a file prepared with AI support. An appeal judge refused to suspend the fines on 30 June, the trial judge kept them on reconsideration, and in July, G1 reports, the OAB-PB preventively suspended two lawyers after opening procedures into two hidden-command cases, one of them the Sousa case.

Medium Galileu

Pará labour court fines two lawyers about R$84,000 over hidden instruction aimed at the court's Galileu AI; the lawyers deny manipulating the decision

In May 2026 a judge of the 3rd Labour Court of Parauapebas, in the Brazilian state of Pará, fined two lawyers about R$84,000 after text in white font on a white background was found in a document they filed for a worker in a labour claim. According to the sentence as reported by G1, the hidden text was detected while the judgment was being drafted with Galileu, a generative AI tool the labour courts use to help judges and staff draft sentences, and its evident intention was to make the AI produce a superficial defence or a compromised draft judgment. The judge called the technique prompt injection. The lawyers said they disagreed with the decision and that there was never any command to manipulate the judge's decision, describing the text as an attempt to protect their client from the AI; one of them said she did not work on labour cases. In October 2026 the regional labour court announced that a Connecticut Superior Court judge had cited the decision when sanctioning a litigant for misuse of AI.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents