The Fourth Class of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) reached a unanimous decision on October 24, 2023.
The Consumer Protection Code does not cover loan agreements used by business entities for conducting or expanding their business operations.
Resp 1.497.574-SC, decision by Min. Raul Araújo on 24/10/23, unanimously approved, published on DJe 03/11/23 (Info 795 – STJ).
The choice was made as a result of a legal case initiated by the Public Prosecutor of Santa Catarina against the State Bank of Rio Grande do Sul S/A. This case questioned clauses and banking fees seen as unfair in agreements with clients.
The Bank argues that the Consumer Protection Code does not cover agreements where the customer acts as a middleman, particularly in contracts aimed at supporting the operational activities of businesses. It also challenges the validity of the contract terms that were disapproved in previous rulings on these grounds.
The STJ’s case law states that the CDC does not cover loan agreements made by companies for their business activities, as per the Finalist Theory, as argued by Rapporteur Minister Raul Araújo.
Exceptions may be made in certain situations involving technical, legal, or economic challenges faced by the company. An example of this was provided by a judge who pointed out that the Consumer Defense Code may not apply to banking contracts used by companies to secure funding.
Other comparable instances also back up this explanation.
The details were acquired from the STJ procedural tracking page and the case law edition number 795 | STJ.
How important are your procedural components?
The ruling sets a significant example for future court decisions in cases involving CDC and Corporate Law.
Lawyers dealing with banking and consumer disputes must carefully assess the importance of the Consumer Defense Code in their legal filings.
Learn more about
STJ details regarding the ruling
