The absence of an advantage from a supplier in violation does not justify

messi22

In the dosimetry of the penalty for infringements of consumer rights, applied based on article 57 of the CDC, the absence of an advantage received by the supplier is not a justification for its reduction. With this understanding, the 10th Chamber of Public Law of the Court of Justice of São Paulo denied HSBC bank's appeal and maintained a fine of R$211,000 for making telemarketing calls to customers who had asked not to receive these calls. The decision is due in February. State Law 13,226/2008 allows people to stop receiving telemarketing calls.

To do this, it is necessary to express this Iran Telegram Number Data desire to Procon. The company that still calls these people acts abusively and is subject to fines. HSBC was fined by Procon for disrespecting state Law 13,226/2008 and continuing to make telemarketing calls to consumers who had already asked not to receive these calls. The entity imposed a fine of R$211,000 on the bank. The financial institution went to court, but had its request denied in the first instance. On appeal, he claimed that there was no proof that he made the calls and that the penalty was disproportionate. However, the case's rapporteur, judge Teresa Ramos Marques, refuted these arguments.



She pointed out that Procon presented recordings of the calls and reported who they were made to, the dates of the calls and which phones they came from. Furthermore, the judge highlighted that the fact that the bank did not gain an advantage from the connections is not a factor that justifies the reduction of her sentence – which she did not consider disproportionate. Furthermore, neither the author nor her late husband had their names included in the credit protection bodies, a fact that could give rise to credit restrictions and constitute the alleged moral damage.