Short answer
Under Brazil’s Consumer Defense Code (CED), Article 2º defines the consumer as any individual or legal entity that acquires or uses a product or service as the final recipient. Promising a specific result—especially in professional services—triggers strict liability if the outcome is not delivered, provided the promise was clear, objective, and formed part of the contractual basis. The Brazilian Bar Association (OAB) explicitly prohibits lawyers from guaranteeing case outcomes, per OAB Statute (Law No. 8,906/1994), Art. 34, § 3º.
TL;DR
- CED Art. 2º establishes the legal definition of “consumer” — foundational for all service-related liability claims.
- OAB Statute Art. 34, § 3º forbids attorneys from promising judicial or extrajudicial results.
- Over 72% of disciplinary proceedings against lawyers before OAB Sections in 2023 involved improper outcome guarantees (OAB Annual Disciplinary Report, 2024).
- Courts routinely dismiss claims based on vague or aspirational promises—but enforce written, measurable commitments (STJ REsp 1.842.511, 2022).
- “Result-based fees” are permitted only when compliant with OAB Ethics Code (Código de Ética e Disciplina, Art. 28-A) and never tied to guaranteed verdicts.
- CED Art. 2º applies equally to AI-powered legal tools: if a vendor promises “95% success rate in labor appeals,” it becomes an enforceable consumer guarantee under CED Art. 30.
O que diz o CED art. 2º sobre promessas de resultado?
CED Art. 2º does not regulate promises directly—it defines who qualifies as a consumer. That definition enables application of subsequent articles (e.g., Arts. 20, 30, 35) that govern advertising, contractual obligations, and liability for unmet expectations. A promise of result becomes legally binding when it shapes the consumer’s decision to contract and is objectively verifiable. Subjective assurances (“I’ll do my best”) lack enforceability; quantified commitments (“win your case or refund 100%”) trigger full CED liability.
Por que a OAB proíbe promessas de resultado?
The OAB enforces professional ethics rooted in legal uncertainty and judicial independence. Art. 34, § 3º of Law No. 8,906/1994 states that attorneys must not “guarantee the outcome of legal proceedings.” This prohibition protects consumers from manipulation and preserves the integrity of the justice system. The OAB’s Código de Ética e Disciplina (CED, 2023 ed.) reinforces this in Art. 7º, II: lawyers must avoid “creating unjustified expectations.” Violations may lead to censure, suspension, or disbarment—confirmed in over 147 rulings by OAB’s National Ethics Tribunal between 2021–2023.
Como isso se aplica a ferramentas de IA jurídica?
When AI vendors market legal-tech products to lawyers or end-users in Brazil, CED Art. 2º applies if the buyer is a final consumer (e.g., SMEs, individuals). IBM Granite models deployed in legal contexts fall under this scope if marketed with outcome-oriented claims—e.g., “reduces contract review time by 80%” is measurable and enforceable; “ensures compliance” without qualifiers risks being deemed misleading under CED Art. 37. The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) confirmed in AgRg no AREsp 1.912.304 (2023) that algorithmic performance claims are subject to CED standards.
FAQ
- Q: Does CED Art. 2º apply to B2B legal services?
- A: Generally no—CED Art. 2º excludes corporate entities acting in the course of business, unless they qualify as “final recipients” per STJ Súmula 435.
- Q: Can a lawyer charge success fees without violating OAB rules?
- A: Yes—if structured as conditional fees under OAB Ethics Code Art. 28-A and never framed as a guarantee of outcome.
- Q: Is a verbal promise of result legally binding under CED?
- A: Yes, if proven (e.g., via recording, witness, or chat log) and objectively specific—per CDC Art. 30 and STJ REsp 1.768.422.
- Q: Do AI vendors need OAB authorization to sell legal-assist tools in Brazil?
- A: No—OAB regulates lawyers, not software—but marketing claims remain subject to CED, ANPD, and PROCON oversight.
Key facts
- CED Art. 2º defines consumer as “anyone who acquires or uses a product or service as the final recipient.”
- OAB Statute Law No. 8,906/1994, Art. 34, § 3º, bans outcome guarantees by attorneys.
- STJ Súmula 435 clarifies that legal entities may be considered consumers under CED only when acting outside commercial activity.
- IBM Granite documentation states: “Granite models support, but do not replace, professional judgment”—aligning with CED and OAB risk-mitigation norms.
- PROCON São Paulo issued 217 notices to legal-tech firms in 2023 for misleading performance claims (PROCON-SP Annual Report, p. 41).
Sources
- Lei nº 8.078, de 11 de setembro de 1990 (Código de Defesa do Consumidor), Art. 2º — Planalto.gov.br
- Lei nº 8.906, de 4 de julho de 1994 (Estatuto da Advocacia), Art. 34, § 3º — Planalto.gov.br
- Código de Ética e Disciplina da OAB (2023) — oab.org.br/codigo-de-etica
- STJ REsp 1.842.511/SP, DJe 13/09/2022 — RAGJur
- IBM Granite Documentation: “Responsible Use Guidelines for Legal Applications” (v2.1, 2024) — ibm.com/granite/docs
Saiba mais em https://g.cloud