The message is clear: consumer protection should not be confused with an absolute exemption from demonstrating the facts
The consumption process is no longer a comfortable space for generic allegations and unsupported stories. This change did not come about by chance, nor does it represent a weakening of consumer protection. It is a direct consequence of a system pressured by an excess of standardized demands and the need to separate real conflicts from purely opportunistic strategies.
For a long time, the prevailing logic was simple. All that was needed was to report an alleged failure and the process would move forward. The test was for later, when it was. This model worked as long as the volume was manageable. In mass litigation, however, it has become unsustainable.
The Judiciary began to react. Not with speeches, but with decisions. And the message is clear: consumer protection cannot be confused with an absolute exemption from demonstrating the facts.
What has changed in the practice of the consumption process
The so-called minimum proof of the constitutive fact began to occupy a central place in the analysis of consumer actions. The idea is simple and quite intuitive. Anyone who states a problem needs to bring, from the beginning, some concrete element that connects the narrative to a real fact.
Complete proof or exhaustive production is not required. What is expected is something basic and reasonable. A document, a record, a protocol, a communication, a contract or any element that indicates that the alleged fact actually existed.
The facilitation of testing, provided for in consumer legislation, remains valid. It continues to be essential in asymmetric relationships. What the Judiciary has been saying is that facilitating is not replacing. Reversing the burden of proof does not transform the initial petition into an exercise of automatic presumption.
Without this minimum starting point, the process stops being an instrument for resolving conflicts and starts functioning as a bet. And betting, when it becomes systemic, distorts the system.
The distortions that drove the jurisprudential turn
Consumer litigation has been experiencing recurring problems for years. Actions without essential documents. Generic narratives, replicated on a large scale. Allegations that do not individualize facts, dates or circumstances. In many cases, the process is used as a means of economic pressure, not as a response to a concrete violation.
This model produces predictable effects. Companies start to provision artificial risks. The Judiciary is overburdened with fragile demands. Consumers with legitimate claims face a congested system, in which their case is diluted among thousands of similar actions.
The institutional response came through filtering. The more consistent use of preliminary injunctions and the rejection of initials without minimum support began to function as a rationalization mechanism. This is not about closing doors, but about demanding that they be opened with a basis.
This filtering has a direct impact on market behavior. When the empty narrative stops generating results, the economic incentive for opportunistic litigation decreases. The process is once again used to resolve real conflicts, not to test probabilities.
Concrete impacts for companies and the system
From a business perspective, this evolution also strengthens legal governance. The minimum proof requirement reduces artificial asymmetries, improves the quality of information that reaches the Judiciary and allows companies to structure their defense strategies, provisions and agreements based on real risk, and not on a volume inflated by fragile demands. This does not represent privilege, but rationality. A predictable procedural environment protects the legitimate consumer, preserves the company that operates regularly and contributes to a more balanced and functional system.
For companies, the effects are immediate. Reducing artificial liabilities improves financial predictability and the quality of provisions. Defense strategies are now designed based on facts and data, not on scenarios inflated by fragile actions.
The legal environment becomes more predictable. Decisions now follow clearer standards. The risk is no longer diffuse and becomes manageable. This favors more rational agreements, more consistent defenses and more efficient investments in evidence and prevention.
The justice system also benefits. Less time spent on unfeasible demands means more space to analyze relevant cases. Jurisprudence stabilizes. The systemic cost of litigation decreases.
There is also a less visible effect, but equally relevant. The minimum proof requirement values the serious consumer. Those who have actually suffered a loss find themselves in a more attentive environment, less saturated by artificial demands.
Demanding facts is not weakening rights. It’s protecting them.
Consumer Law thus enters a phase of greater maturity. The minimum proof requirement does not represent regression, but institutional evolution. A system that demands procedural responsibility from all actors becomes more predictable, fairer and more functional.
When the Judiciary begins to say “no” to empty narratives, it does not close the doors of Justice. He gives them meaning back.
*This text does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Jovem Pan.
