04/09/2025
On July 31, 2025, the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ) rendered a unanimous decision in Special Appeal No. 2.210.341/CE (2023/0446847-1), holding that a foreign choice-of-forum clause inserted into an adhesion contract may be deemed null and void if it creates an obstacle to the Brazilian consumer’s access to justice.
The ruling was based on the understanding that requiring a Brazilian consumer to litigate in a foreign jurisdiction – particularly in disputes arising from consumer relationships governed by online adhesion contracts – places an excessive burden on the weaker party due to “language barriers, procedural differences, high costs, and geographic distance.”
Case Background:
The case was brought by a consumer resident in Limoeiro do Norte, in the state of Ceará, who requested that the defendant company (based in Gibraltar, a British overseas territory) provide proof of a bet placed through its website.
In its defense, the company pointed to the existence of a choice-of-forum clause in the contract, which stipulated that any dispute should be solved exclusively in the courts of Gibraltar.
In the lower court, the forum selection clause was declared null, and jurisdiction was recognized in the consumer’s domicile. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the defendant filed an interlocutory appeal seeking to challenge the validity of the clause.
Legal Grounds for the Decision
In analyzing the case, the reporting Justice, Antonio Carlos Ferreira, noted that the prerogative established in Article 25 of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) maybe relativized, since paragraph 2 of the same article mandates the subsidiary application of paragraphs 1 through 4 of Article 63 of the CPC, particularly in instances where the clause is deemed abusive.
Ferreira emphasized that three requirements must be met in order to declare a forum selection clause null:
- a) The clause must be included in an adhesion contract;
- b) The consumer must be proven to be in a position of vulnerability (whether technical, economic, or legal);
- c) The clause must effectively hinder access to justice.
Implications Of The Decision
This decision serves as an important signal for the handling of disputes arising from consumer relationships in virtual environments. It highlights the need to reinterpret traditional concepts of jurisdiction and competence, especially in cases involving companies headquartered abroad that nevertheless target the Brazilian market, through language, currency, or other localization features.
In such contexts, the conduct of the defendant company establishes a legal connection with Brazil, justifying the submission of disputes to the Brazilian judiciary.
Our Dispute Resolution team is fully available to clarify any questions regarding the subject.
Authored by:Isabela Oliveira Vale
