Post by account_disabled on Jan 30, 2024 5:52:09 GMT -5
Running a promotion in which consumers could exchange packaging for products such as jelly and cake for animal backpacks will be costly for a food giant. The 10th Chamber of Public Law of the Court of Justice of São Paulo sentenced Dr. Oetker to pay a Procon fine of R$ 105 thousand for having made a commercial ( see below ) for the promotion that "encourages excessive consumption" in children. The decision of the São Paulo Court considered article 37, paragraph 2, of the Consumer Protection Code and Resolution 163 of the National Council for the Rights of Children and Adolescents (Conanda), which deal with the abusive nature of advertising targeting children. . The representation against the advertising was made by the Alana Institute, which combats advertising aimed at children.
For judge Antonio Celso Aguilar Cortez, rapporteur of the Buy Phone Number List case, it is not the type of promotion that is abusive, but the advertising carried out. The judge described the alleged harmfulness of the video: “The children are happy when faced with a table full of sweets, sad when reminded that they won't be able to eat everything and happy again when they deceive the 'guardian' of the temple and leave. with their backpacks full of sweets. This sequence is unambiguous in encouraging excess,” he wrote. Such conduct, according to her, violates article 765 of the Consumer Protection Code (Law 8,078/90). Under the provision, the insured and insurer are obliged to maintain, in the conclusion and execution of the contract, the strictest good faith and veracity, both regarding the object and the circumstances and statements concerning it.
Alteration of the air transport contract by the passenger The possibility for consumers to give up air tickets free of charge as long as they are purchased seven days or more in advance of the boarding date, communicating their purpose within a period of up to 24 hours, the counting from the receipt of your receipt, prima facie , it seems to be a benefit achieved with Resolution 400/2016. However, the tariff freedom reiterated by article 2 of this set of regulations will enable air transport companies to set exorbitant fines for cases in which the passenger withdraws within a period of less than a week, as is already observed in the concrete field. Even if the consumer presents a plausible reason for canceling the ticket or for a no show , they will suffer penalties that characterize an exaggerated advantage prohibited by article.
For judge Antonio Celso Aguilar Cortez, rapporteur of the Buy Phone Number List case, it is not the type of promotion that is abusive, but the advertising carried out. The judge described the alleged harmfulness of the video: “The children are happy when faced with a table full of sweets, sad when reminded that they won't be able to eat everything and happy again when they deceive the 'guardian' of the temple and leave. with their backpacks full of sweets. This sequence is unambiguous in encouraging excess,” he wrote. Such conduct, according to her, violates article 765 of the Consumer Protection Code (Law 8,078/90). Under the provision, the insured and insurer are obliged to maintain, in the conclusion and execution of the contract, the strictest good faith and veracity, both regarding the object and the circumstances and statements concerning it.
Alteration of the air transport contract by the passenger The possibility for consumers to give up air tickets free of charge as long as they are purchased seven days or more in advance of the boarding date, communicating their purpose within a period of up to 24 hours, the counting from the receipt of your receipt, prima facie , it seems to be a benefit achieved with Resolution 400/2016. However, the tariff freedom reiterated by article 2 of this set of regulations will enable air transport companies to set exorbitant fines for cases in which the passenger withdraws within a period of less than a week, as is already observed in the concrete field. Even if the consumer presents a plausible reason for canceling the ticket or for a no show , they will suffer penalties that characterize an exaggerated advantage prohibited by article.
