Retail, banks and airlines can reduce stock by aligning decision-making, operations and governance to correct flaws in the customer journey
Consumer litigation is experiencing a silent expansion. On the one hand, portfolios that grow continuously. On the other, decisions by the STF and the STJ that redefine civil liability, repentance periods, market practices and regulatory balance. In this scenario, retail, airlines, telecom, banks and digital platforms deal with more informed customers, more complex journeys and channels that do not always communicate.
The increase in stock does not just reveal a legal problem. It’s an engineering problem: repetition, operational failures, noise between channels and fragmented decisions that accumulate until they form a financial and reputational liability. Reducing the portfolio requires less defense energy and more design intelligence.
The central thesis is straightforward. Reducing processes does not depend on more analysts, more offices or isolated automation. It depends on method, governance and the ability to align legal, operations and customer experience under the same logic.
The new paradigm of mass judicialization
Consumer litigation is no longer the consequence of a specific non-compliance, but rather a reflection of inconsistencies in the customer journey. The action arises when the lived experience distances itself from the promise made by the company. The most frequent causes appear in any large volume operation:
- Differences between app and SAC
- Returns not recognized due to integration failures
- Chargeback routes that require multiple contacts
- Inaccurate communication about refund deadlines
- Regional clusters with predictable court patterns
These are discrete events, but with great capacity for scale. In intensive operations, a single systemic failure can generate thousands of actions in weeks. The result is an aging portfolio, an increase in provisions (CPC 25), an impact on cash flow and increasing pressure on legal and operations.
The turning point: legal efficiency as a corporate project
Reducing inventory requires institutional decision. Litigation needs to be treated as part of the company’s strategy. When legal leads a systemic review, the company gains predictability and measurably reduces costs.
The effects of this integrated approach appear quickly:
- Drop in provisions
- Improved aging with parameterized agreements
- OPEX reduction
- Advancement of ESG-S indicators
- Strengthening governance through unified standards
The 5 actions to reduce 25% of your portfolio in 180 days
Before detailing the actions, it is worth explaining why the 25% target is plausible. In sample analyzes of companies with a high volume of consumer actions, reductions between 18% and 32% in stock were observed when four mechanisms acted simultaneously: elimination of repetitive flows, correction of critical microprocesses, parameterized agreements and regional adjustments guided by the behavior of courts and clusters. These mechanisms affect the origin, recurrence, rate of decline and prevention of new processes. The 25% percentage is not a promise, but a consistent range observed when there is method and institutional alignment.
The 180-day horizon arises from this dynamic. The first 60 days focus on diagnosis, decision-making matrix and correction of the main microprocesses. Between the third and fourth month, the company already notices a drop in recidivism and an acceleration in closures. The last 60 days are marked by the stabilization of flows, regional adjustments and consolidation of indicators. It is a continuous cycle, with a real capacity to transform the stock in six months when there is institutional coordination.
Below are the five actions:
1. Single decision-making matrix
Consumer companies often have different answers to the same problem depending on the channel or area. The decision-making matrix works like a “single brain”: it defines criteria, eliminates contradictions, reduces risk and standardizes responses to repetitive topics.
In practice, this immediately reduces:
- Loss due to foreseeable convictions
- Inconsistencies that generate a doubling of the value of the conviction
- Internal disagreements that fuel unnecessary actions
2. Review of critical customer journey microprocesses
Litigation arises in the details. By reviewing essential microprocesses, the company identifies invisible disruptions, such as:
- Cancellation in the app that does not replicate in the CRM
- SAC with deadlines longer than regulatory ones
- Marketplaces with different policies for sellers and buyers
- Chatbot that misinterprets non-standard tickets
- Divergence between commercial policy and operational flow
These points, when corrected, have a direct impact on reducing shares within 60 days.
3. Operational Precedent Dashboard
Most companies only look at traditional case law. But consumer litigation is strongly influenced by:
- Regional clusters
- Behavior of special courts
- Sentence variations by square
- Author office standards
Combining jurimetrics with operational analysis allows you to calibrate agreements, guide representatives, adjust policies and anticipate repetitive movements.
4. Contract reengineering and policy updates
Cancellation, chargeback, refund, reverse logistics and marketplace clauses need to reflect the real journey and the functioning of the channels. When policies do not communicate with operations, ambiguities become thousands of actions.
Contractual adjustments aligned with the service flow reduce friction, avoid conflicting interpretations and reduce preventive judicialization. Clear policies that adhere to customer behavior reduce actions and eliminate noise before the Judiciary.
5. Smart Deals Conveyor with Automation
Smart agreements accelerate the write-off of inventory with a direct impact on aging and provisions. A well-designed treadmill includes:
- Parameterized criteria
- Low-complexity automatic responses
- Scalable agreements by risk range
- Integrations with CRM, digital representative and legal BI
The result is the rapid closure of mature cases and a focus on strategic litigation.
Connection with governance, risk and corporate strategy
The reduction in litigation is reflected in governance. Audits record a drop in provisions, councils notice greater predictability and risk areas adjust their indicators. The company now operates with less noise and more regulatory security.
Companies that treat litigation as an engineering project reduce litigation, stabilize operations and increase their ability to compete safely and efficiently. Reducing your portfolio by 25% in 180 days is not a promise. It’s method.
*This text does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Jovem Pan.
