In a scenario of growing concern about excessive debt in Brazil, with direct repercussions on the financial system and credit relations, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) rendered a decision of great importance. In line with the established understanding, the presence of the creditor at conciliation hearings, even without a formal settlement proposal, precludes the application of the penalties provided for in the Consumer Protection Code (CDC).
In this regard, it is worth analyzing the scope of this decision. In Special Appeal No. 2.191.259[1] (RS), the application of sanctions to a creditor who, although present at the conciliation hearing, did not submit a settlement proposal was questioned. Contrary to the ruling of the Court of Justice of Rio Grande do Sul (TJRS), which had upheld the punishment, the STJ reversed the decision.
In accordance with article 104-A of the CDC, the STJ established the understanding that the burden of presenting a payment plan proposal lies with the consumer. Furthermore, the presence of the creditor, duly represented with powers to compromise, already demonstrates the intention to negotiate in good faith. In the words of Justice Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva: “Although these principles also guide the pre-trial phase, the magistrate continued, it is the consumer who has the burden of initiating conciliation and must present a payment plan proposal.”
In face of the foregoing, the decision represents an important clarification for creditors, who now have greater clarity regarding their obligations in over-indebtedness hearings. Appropriate representation is a fundamental requirement for avoiding the penalties provided for in art. 104-A, § 2, of the CDC, allowing for individual analysis of each case without the imposition of unfavorable agreements.
Nevertheless, the STJ’s decision should not be interpreted as permission for inaction. Creditors must, in all circumstances, act in good faith, analyzing each case individually and seeking fair and balanced solutions. Transparency and willingness to negotiate are key elements in avoiding disputes and building a collaborative relationship with clients.
For an effective adaptation to the new scenario, it is recommended that creditors ensure that representatives with full powers to negotiate are present at all hearings, conduct careful analyses of each case considering the debtor’s ability to pay and the specificities of the contract, document in detail all stages of the negotiation, and invest in training to enable their employees to handle negotiations effectively and transparently.
In summary, the STJ’s decision on over-indebtedness represents an important step toward establishing the appropriate procedure for Law No. 14,181/2021. By guaranteeing legal certainty to creditors, the Superior Court also reinforces the importance of good faith and responsibility in negotiations. The challenge is to build a fairer and more transparent economic environment that protects consumers without compromising the soundness of credit relationships.
[1] Case Records in the STJ: https://processo.stj.jus.br/processo/pesquisa/?num_registro=202500013652&aplicacao=processos.ea
Appellate Decision REsp 2191259 (2025/0001365-2 of 04/04/2025):
Available in: https://www.migalhas.com.br/depeso/435805/decisao-do-stj-esclarece-procedimento-e-exige-boa-fe-nas-negociacoes
Autor: Renata de Cássia Moraes Nicodemos • email: renata.nicodemos@ernestoborges.com.br • Tel.: +55 67 99234 3888
