Brazil’s Biggest Bank, Your Smallest Move: The Rise of Algorithmic Firing

When Itaú Unibanco dismissed more than a thousand employees earlier this year, it wasn’t because of poor performance in the traditional sense. Brazil’s largest private bank had just recorded R$ 40.2 billion in profits for 2024 — the highest in its history — and more than R$ 22 billion in the first half of 2025. The trigger for mass layoffs was something else: a new surveillance system that monitored digital “activity” on company laptops.

The program, known as xOne and developed by the company Arctica, logged metrics such as how long the monitor stayed lit, how frequently the mouse and keyboard were used, and which browser tabs remained open. Workers were not judged on deadlines met or projects completed, but on whether the software registered them as “active.”

Managers later acknowledged internally that the system was never a measure of productivity as such, but a proxy for machine use. Employees who read long documents, wrote code on personal devices, or simply paused to think risked being flagged as idle.

Surveillance without consent

Ten employees interviewed by The Intercept Brasil said they were never informed of the level of monitoring that was taking place. Contracts referenced general oversight of work tools but made no mention of detailed logging of keystrokes or browser activity. Even the bank workers’ union stated it had no prior knowledge of the depth of surveillance.

Itaú maintained in its response that monitoring was covered by internal policies signed by employees and agreed with unions. Arctica, the software vendor, said it was the responsibility of each company to define how and when workers were told about the monitoring.

A legal grey zone

Brazil’s General Data Protection Law requires clear communication about the collection and use of personal data. Legal experts argue that vague contractual language does not meet that standard. Workers must be told explicitly what is being tracked and for what purpose, otherwise companies risk violating the law.

Labor specialists also note that while supervision of remote work is legitimate in principle, it must be transparent. Without explicit rules, software that logs digital behavior can easily cross into unlawful territory.

From recognition to dismissal

The rollout of surveillance came just months after Itaú celebrated high-performing staff with its annual PRAD bonus program. Dozens of those recognized for excellence were later dismissed for insufficient “digital activity.” According to accounts gathered by The Intercept, many were given no warnings, no feedback, and no chance to explain.

The bank admitted to tracking keyboard and mouse use, though it insisted it did not capture screenshots, audio, or video. It stated that a minority of employees showed systematically low digital activity — in some cases only 20 percent of the workday — even while reporting overtime. The institution considered 75 percent activity the acceptable average. On this basis, dismissals included even employees who had previously received positive performance evaluations.

Profits and priorities

The contrast could hardly be starker. At the very moment more than a thousand remote workers were cut, Itaú’s financial results soared and its CEO was reported to receive nearly R$ 68 million annually, the highest compensation among Brazilian listed companies.

What emerges is a workplace where cursor movements carry more weight than loyalty or output, and where a machine’s definition of activity can erase careers overnight. The Itaú case signals the arrival of a new management model in Brazil’s white-collar economy — one where surveillance systems, not supervisors, decide who stays and who goes.

This comes at a moment when Brazil’s fintech sector is under scrutiny for money-laundering tied to the Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC), in the “Hidden Carbon” case where billions of reais reportedly flowed through cartel-linked fintechs and funds.

What if banks trained this level of vigilance on the flows that actually matter — on criminal networks and systemic fraud — instead of keystrokes and idle screens? Because looking at the news, that doesn’t seem to be the priority.