Takeaway: The Special Court of Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice (STJ), has held that consumers who are unduly charged may receive a double refund of the amounts paid even without proving the supplier's bad faith, provided that the charge amounts to conduct contrary to objective good faith.
The Consumer Protection Code provides that consumers may have the right to recover twice the amount unduly charged and paid in excess. The issue submitted to the STJ was whether the application of this penalty requires proof of bad faith on the part of the supplier. To settle it, the STJ submitted the issue to the repetitive appeals regime, a procedure in which the Court selects representative cases to establish a rule that lower judges and courts must follow, and registered it as Theme 929.
The case involved deductions from a consumer’s retirement benefits based on a payroll-deductible loan that the financial institution failed to prove had been entered into. The state court had ordered a single refund. Upon concluding the judgment on September 15, 2026, the Special Court established the rule that will guide other cases.
According to the STJ: (i) the supplier bears the burden of demonstrating the existence of a justifiable mistake, assessed in light of objective good faith, in order to avoid a double refund; and (ii) a justifiable mistake, which precludes a double refund, may exist, for instance, when there are conflicting judicial decisions regarding the subject matter of the charge or when the contractual clause on which the charge was based is subsequently declared null and void.
To access the precedents and materials related to Theme 929, click here.
This precedent may influence the review of billing practices, consumer service procedures, and litigation strategies in disputes involving the issue. The MAC Advogados team is available to assist clients in evaluating its implications.