Resisted Claim at the Center of the Debate: REsp 2.209.304/MG and the Urgent Need to Rebalance Access to Justice in Consumer Relations

The sumission of REsp 2.209.304/MG to the repetitive appeals procedure reignited a long-overdue debate on the limits of access to justice in consumer relations. This is not about preventing consumers from litigating, nor shielding suppliers. The real issue is the growing disconnect between consumer and supplier even before a conflict arises. In practice, the “resisted claim,” a classic requirement for standing, has been turned into a procedural fiction: the supplier is often unaware of the individual problem before being surprised by a judicial summons.

This dynamic creates distortions for both sides. When consumers file lawsuits without any prior attempt at resolution, they turn the Judiciary into a primary customer service channel, overloading it with issues that could be resolved in minutes. Suppliers, in turn, are treated as resistant by presumption, even when there was no refusal, delay, or failure—simply because there was no prior contact. It is precisely this gap that the STJ, by submitting REsp 2.209.304/MG, now seeks to address.

Access to justice does not mean immediate access to the Judiciary, but rather effective access to conflict resolution. The Judiciary cannot become a first administrative instance, practically a consultative body. Ensuring access to a fair solution means guaranteeing that consumers have an efficient, simple, and proportional path to resolve their problems.

The current paradox is evident: we have increasingly sophisticated extrajudicial mechanisms (customer service centers, ombudsmen, consumidor.gov, Procons, digital platforms, mediation) and, at the same time, unprecedented judicialization of trivial issues such as legitimate service cancellations, contractual doubts, renegotiations, refunds, and minor failures that could be resolved in seconds.

Initial dialogue has been replaced by an initial petition that represents the first chapter of a conflict, rather than the last resort. And the resisted claim, once a fundamental requirement to justify standing, is now meaningless, forcing judges nationwide to deal with mass claims that do not represent a real conflict but rather a communication failure—and worse, wasting public time and resources on avoidable litigation.

All because procedural prerequisites, which should act as rational filters for lawsuits, have been viewed for decades as restrictive barriers and, contrary to law, ignored by parties and courts. Now, the discussion before the STJ seeks to restore the effectiveness of this procedural rule: should prior contact be considered a prerequisite for consumer service-related lawsuits?

From the suppliers’ perspective, the answer tends to be affirmative—not for corporate interest, but for institutional rationality. First, because suppliers need the opportunity to resolve the issue before being deemed “resistant” in the procedural sense; second, because extrajudicial resolution is faster, less costly, and more efficient than litigation; and third, because the Judiciary should not be the entry point for routine and consultative matters.

An empirical observation: Brazilian companies, especially in finance, telecom, and retail, have invested heavily in modernized customer service systems integrated with ombudsmen, chatbots, and specialized teams for quick solutions. Yet most lawsuits do not even mention these channels, turning the Judiciary into a massive state-subsidized customer service center at society’s expense.

Requiring prior attempts would not prevent necessary lawsuits; on the contrary, it would qualify them. Consumers would approach the Judiciary with protocols and clear evidence of noncompliance, making judges’ work more effective and accurate. More importantly, it would not reduce access to justice but would reduce access to the Judiciary, which is only one possible means of conflict resolution.

In conclusion, without exhausting the topic, REsp 2.209.304/MG represents an opportunity to redefine the contours of access to justice in mass consumer relations without harming consumers or overburdening the system—simply by restoring the effectiveness of the rule requiring a resisted claim, allowing the Judiciary to cease being the entry point for consumer conflicts and resume its role as the exit door.