Arthur do Val and the "Prank" on Avenida Paulista — Case Study

The work reconstructed the timeline of the lawsuit, separated fact, opinion, and editorial framing, and analyzed the conflict between freedom of expression and personality rights under the Brazilian Constitution and Civil Code. Through the proportionality test (suitability, necessity, and proportionality in the strict sense) and an ethical assessment, the group addressed the central question: does consenting to an interview allow any kind of editing and later exposure?

Challenges

Balancing the defense of free speech, humor, and political criticism with the protection of the honor, image, and dignity of real people, recognizing that content can be legally defensible and still ethically questionable when editing builds a narrative of ridicule out of truthful statements.

Results

A complete legal and ethical analysis of the case, concluding that consent to be recorded does not authorize any form of editing or later exposure, along with professional proposals for both fields: an ethics-driven creative brief, a reception test, and a redesign of the “prank” format in Advertising (based on APP principles), and an image-use protocol, a content verification procedure, and a public retraction in Public Relations (based on the CONRERP Code of Ethics).