This business practice, far from arbitrary, finds solid legal support, clear contractual protection and favorable jurisprudence
The judicialization of the right of regret in digital consumption has placed in check integer economic models. One of the most recurring targets is the sales platforms, which have been questioned for retaining the so -called convenience rate in cases of purchase cancellation. Amid assessments of administrative bodies and isolated court decisions, what is at stake goes far beyond residual values. It is the very viability of a digital ecosystem that sustains thousands of events and fosters access to in Brazil.
This business practice, far from being arbitrary, finds solid legal support, clear contractual protection and favorable jurisprudence. Attempting to equate admission and convenience rate as a same consumer, to be returned in block, disregards autonomy and distinct nature from the services provided. It is time to separate the populist discourse from legal analysis and return rationality to the debate.
The service was provided. The risk is to reverse the logic of contractual provision
The convenience rate is the remuneration for a service actually provided. Intermediation, support, technology, anti -fraud security, payment management and remote access through digital platforms form a complex value chain, supported by companies that invest heavily in innovation and infrastructure. These services make it possible from large festivals to small community events, allowing decentralized access to culture and inclusion of producers from all sizes.
To ignore the autonomous nature of this service is to apply in a distorted manner of the consumer’s Code of Protection Code. The regret provided for in this provision concerns the contract as a whole, but does not erase the fact that there was a consummate service. Just as the brokerage commission is due even if there is later withdrawal from the buying part, the convenience rate is consolidated when the consumer chooses to purchase the ticket via digital platform, with prior science of the amount charged.
This analogy has been recognized by equating the convenience fee to the intermediation committee, validating its collection and retention even in case of cancellation, provided that the amount is previously informed and clearly highlighted to the consumer. There are recent decisions that recognize the exhaustion of the supplier’s obligation after the issuance of the ticket and the processing of the purchase, preventing full refund as if the service had not been performed.
Right of regret cannot be used as an instrument of imbalance
This posture compromises the balance of contractual relations, encourages the strategic use of repentance and imposes on companies a disproportionate burden, incompatible with objective good faith and the social function of the contract. The legality of partial retention is not only defensible, but necessary for the economic sustainability of the platforms, the continuity of small events and the protection of the entire cultural sector that depends directly on these services.
It is not a matter of relativizing consumer rights, but of recognizing that legal protection must be applied with technique, reasonableness and legal certainty. The instrumental use of repentance to demand the return of a service already provided, when informed clearly and previously highlighted, distorts the very grounds of the Consumer Protection Code.
From a strategic point of view, the role of legal departments should be to anticipate risks, reinforce contractual transparency clauses, record the effective delivery of the service and align service practices focused on legal certainty. Companies in the events of events, culture, education, tourism and sports are directly exposed. Those that do not adopt appropriate preventive measures become easy targets for administrative sanctions and disputes with significant economic impact.
Without legal certainty, there is no access, innovation or culture
Retention of the convenience rate is no exception, but the legal rule applicable to a digital service already provided. The automatic return of this value, on the grounds of the right of repentance, ignores contractual grounds, consolidated jurisprudence and the constitution itself, which recognizes free initiative as one of the pillars of the economic order.
The firm defense of this practice is not just legitimate. It is indispensable to preserve an ecosystem that guarantees access, inclusion and dynamism to thousands of events across the country. When the Legal retreats in the face of the interpretative pressure of the administrative bodies, there is room for the weakening of business that support culture, leisure and the creative economy in Brazil.
Right of repentance is not an automatic annulment clause, but an equilibrium instrument that cannot serve to disrupt valid contracts or nullify services already provided. Convenience rate is service, not penalty, and service rate is not free, it is operating cost.
*This text does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the young Pan.
