Abusive Practices Under Article 39 of Brazil’s CDC: Guide and Examples

This page is a translation of the original Portuguese text, provided for convenience. It deals with Brazilian law. If there is any discrepancy, the Portuguese version prevails. Read the original in Portuguese

Article 39 of the Consumer Defense Code lists the abusive practices that suppliers are forbidden to engage in, such as tying arrangements and sending products nobody ordered. It also guarantees that buyers have the right not to pay for something they never requested.

What the Consumer Defense Code treats as an abusive practice

An abusive practice is conduct by a supplier that takes advantage of the consumer relationship to impose a disadvantage, pressure, or improper cost on the buyer. Article 39 of the Consumer Defense Code, Law 8.078 of 1990, gathers the main prohibitions in this area and serves as a benchmark for spotting overreach in everyday commerce and services.

One key point is that this list is not closed. The statute prohibits the conduct it describes “among other abusive practices,” which means the list is illustrative rather than exhaustive. Conduct similar to what the law describes, even if it is not spelled out word for word, can also be considered abusive when it tips the relationship against the consumer.

Abusiveness does not depend on whether the supplier acted in good or bad faith. It is enough that the conduct falls within the statutory prohibition for the consumer to demand a correction, refuse an improper charge, or seek compensation. Understanding each scenario helps you recognize the problem at the moment it happens.

Tying arrangements: when buying one product is tied to buying another

The tying arrangement (venda casada) appears in item I of Article 39. The law prohibits making the supply of one product or service conditional on the supply of another, as well as imposing quantity limits without just cause. Put simply, a supplier cannot force you to take something you do not want in order to get what you actually want.

Common examples arise when a bank conditions a loan on buying insurance from the bank itself or from an insurer it designates, when a store sells a certain product only in a sealed bundle, or when an establishment requires a minimum purchase as a condition of service. In all of these situations, the forced link between separate purchases is what makes the conduct abusive.

This does not stop the market from offering bundles and good deals. The difference lies in freedom of choice. A joint offer is legitimate when the consumer can also buy each item separately. What the law rejects is imposition: the tie that removes your option to contract only for what you need.

The same logic applies to quantity limits imposed without just cause. Restricting how much each person may buy is acceptable only when there is a concrete reason, such as a genuine shortage of the item. Outside those cases, the restriction works as a disguised form of pressure and also falls under the prohibition in item I.

Products or services sent without a request: do you have to pay?

Item III of Article 39 prohibits sending or delivering any product to the consumer without a prior request, or providing any service that was not requested. Mailing a credit card nobody asked for, automatically adding a service to your bill, and sending surprise merchandise are typical examples of this prohibited conduct.

The legal consequence favors the person who receives the item. The sole paragraph of Article 39 treats products shipped and services provided without a request as free samples, so there is no obligation to pay. You may use the item as a free sample, and doing so creates no debt and authorizes no charge.

What arrives without a request is treated as a free sample, and the law removes any obligation to pay on the part of the person who received it.

In practice, if you receive a product you did not order, you are not required to return it at your own expense or to pay for it. If an improper charge arises from that shipment, the path is to refuse payment and file a complaint. Improper charges can also lead to a refund of double the amount, a subject tied to Article 42 of the Consumer Defense Code.

Other practices prohibited by Article 39

Beyond tying arrangements and unsolicited shipments, Article 39 describes a series of other prohibited conduct. Knowing the full set helps you see that abuse takes many forms in commerce and in the contracting of services.

• Refusing to meet consumers’ demands within the limits of available stock and customary practice.
• Taking advantage of a consumer’s weakness or lack of knowledge, considering age, health, education, or social standing, to push products or services.
• Demanding a manifestly excessive advantage from the person contracting.
• Performing services without a prior estimate and without the consumer’s express authorization.
• Raising the price of products or services without just cause.
• Failing to set a deadline for performing the obligation, or leaving the start date to the supplier’s sole discretion.

The list also includes refusing to sell to someone willing to pay in cash, except for intermediation regulated by law; spreading derogatory information about a consumer who exercises his or her rights; and placing products on the market that do not comply with official technical standards. The common thread in these prohibitions is protecting contractual balance and the dignity of the people who buy.

What to do when faced with an abusive practice

The first step is to gather evidence. Keeping contracts, bills, messages, advertisements, and receipts helps show what the supplier did. A well-organized record strengthens any complaint, whether filed through the company’s own customer service channel or with consumer protection agencies.

Next, it is worth filing a formal complaint with the supplier and, if necessary, turning to administrative consumer protection bodies such as Procon (Brazil’s state and municipal consumer protection agencies) or the public platform for resolving consumer disputes. Many cases are resolved at this stage, with the charge corrected or the imposed contract canceled.

When the harm continues, you can ask the courts to stop the practice, revise the contract, and seek compensation for the damages you suffered. Related topics, such as deceptive advertising by the supplier and the right of withdrawal in online purchases, often come up alongside discussions of abuse. Whether a claim is viable, and the best strategy, depend on the facts and documents of each specific situation.

It is also useful to watch the deadline. A claim for compensation over an abusive practice has its own nature and requires attention to the time limit that applies in each case, which is why refusing payment and filing the complaint should happen as soon as possible. Acting early preserves evidence, prevents the charge from becoming entrenched, and improves the chances of a solution without a drawn-out dispute.

Keep in mind that the protection of Article 39 covers in-person dealings as well as contracts made online, by phone, or through apps. The channel used does not defeat the prohibition. Suppliers of products and services, including financial institutions, are liable for the abusive conduct they engage in, whatever the channel of contact with the consumer.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a tying arrangement always prohibited?

What the law prohibits is the imposition. Item I of Article 39 forbids making the purchase of one product or service conditional on buying another. Joint offers remain valid when the consumer can also buy each item separately, which preserves freedom of choice.

I received a product I did not order. Do I have to pay for it or send it back?

You have no obligation to pay. The sole paragraph of Article 39 treats a product sent without a request as a free sample. If you receive one, you may treat it as a courtesy, without taking on any debt and without having to bear return costs for something you never requested.

Is the list of abusive practices in Article 39 closed?

No. The statute prohibits the conduct it describes “among other abusive practices,” which makes the list illustrative. Similar conduct, even without a literal provision, can be recognized as abusive when it tips the consumer relationship against the buyer.

As informações deste artigo são de caráter informativo e não substituem consulta jurídica individualizada. Cada caso possui particularidades que exigem análise específica.