In a segment where each unoccupied seat represents a direct loss and where margins are narrow, the regulatory design needs to dialogue with the complexity of the operation
The tension between the Consumer Protection Code and Anac Resolution 400 returned to the center of the debate after resuming the analysis of the application of the right to repentance when purchasing online. The trial is still ongoing, but it is already rekindling a larger discussion: how to balance consumer protection and operational viability in a highly regulated sector sensitive to variations in demand.
The dispute reached the STJ after a state decision that recognized the right to withdraw within seven days, in accordance with article 49 of the CDC. The rapporteur, Minister Marco Buzzi, voted to apply this deadline also to tickets purchased online, while the trial was suspended following a request for a review by Minister Antonio Carlos Ferreira. The scenario requires attention because the definition of the applicable deadline is not just legal; it impacts network planning, pricing, inventory management models and predictability of the entire airline service chain.
In a segment where each unoccupied seat represents a direct loss and where margins are narrow, the regulatory design needs to dialogue with the complexity of the operation. It is this point that makes the topic so sensitive for the sector.
Case timeline
The controversy began with a decision that recognized the right to cancel with a full refund after purchasing online. The airline and the intermediary appealed, arguing that the appropriate period would be the 24 hours provided for in Resolution 400 of , a standard constructed based on technical characteristics of the sector, such as fare volatility, seasonality of demand and the need for high precision in occupancy planning.
When voting for the application of the CDC, the rapporteur highlighted that digital contracting could be interpreted as purchasing outside the establishment. The process was suspended due to a request for review, and the definitive understanding remains open.
The central legal dispute
The debate involves two distinct regulatory pillars. On the one hand, Resolution 400 was designed by Anac to guarantee a balance between passenger rights, company sustainability and tariff predictability. On the other hand, it establishes general consumer protection standards, which need to be interpreted in a way that is compatible with regulated sectors.
The discussion is not limited to normative hierarchy; deals with the degree of flexibility that the legal system must allow for markets that operate with finite capacity, instantaneous price variations and routes whose economic balance depends on minimum occupancy margins. In particular, legal security has a direct impact on marginal routes and the internalization of the network: any increase in regulatory uncertainty tends to concentrate supply on the most profitable routes, reducing connectivity in medium and small cities. Therefore, the definition of which framework prevails not only affects a dispute, but the rationality of the system.
Impacts on the market
The eventual consolidation of the application of the seven-day period would have relevant effects on the entire airline and digital chain.
For airlines
- Unpredictable increase in cancellations within a wide window.
- Loss of accuracy in occupancy planning.
- Greater tariff volatility and pass-through of systemic costs.
- Need to review revenue models and marginal routes.
- Pressure on accounting provisions in accordance with CPC 25, requiring recalibration of contingencies.
Companies work with dynamic inventories, calibrated minute by minute. The extension of the no-cost withdrawal period directly affects this financial engineering.
For digital platforms
- Adjustments to communication and cancellation flows.
- Need for more precise parameterization on tariff rules.
- Greater exposure to disputes if there is no regulatory alignment.
- Increased operational and financial reconciliation costs.
For the system as a whole
- Potential impacts on average prices.
- Risk of reduced supply in stretches of low demand.
- Direct effect on the internalization of the network and sustainability of marginal routes.
- Need for firmer alignment between sectoral regulation and jurisprudence.
- Pressure for regulatory revisions to ensure predictability.
The airline sector operates in one of the most regulated and delicate environments in the economy. Any legal uncertainty, even if well-intentioned, has a direct impact on costs, supply and quality of service.
Regulatory debate
The resumption of the trial at the STJ should rekindle the discussion about updating Resolution 400 and greater harmonization between Anac, Senacon and the Judiciary. Institutional convergence is fundamental for a market that depends on regulatory consistency to operate efficiently.
Aviation requires clear, stable rules that are compatible with its economic logic. When general consumption standards meet sectoral standards, the solution cannot just be formal; needs to consider systemic impact, financial sustainability, route organization and maintenance of the national air network.
The debate is not about removing rights, but about calibrating expectations and building a coherent framework that protects the consumer without compromising the continuity, quality and accessibility of services.
The STJ’s judgment goes beyond the discussion about deadlines. It highlights the need for a regulatory model that recognizes the specificity of commercial aviation and preserves the legal certainty essential for the sector to operate with tariff stability, investment capacity and adequate flight supply.
In markets so sensitive to variations in demand and regulation, predictability is not just a legal value; is operating condition. The future of the topic will require coordination between regulatory bodies, operators and public policy makers to ensure that consumer protection is effective and that the airline sector remains economically viable.
The balance between protection and operational sustainability will be the true barometer of the country’s regulatory maturity.
*This text does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Jovem Pan.
