insights.freddoa.com

Categoria: Mídia & Digital

  • Domain and Trademark Registration Scams in China

    Domain and Trademark Registration Scams in China

    Companies with international operations frequently receive emails from China warning that third parties are about to register their corporate name. These messages typically come from purported domain registrars or Chinese intellectual property firms, stating that another company wishes to use your name in local domain extensions or as a trademark.

    While some trademark notices do identify real filings with authentic deadlines, the vast majority of these communications are fraudulent pitches or aggressive sales tactics. Understanding the mechanics of these emails is crucial to protecting company assets without incurring unnecessary costs.

    How the Scheme Works

    The domain-focused model has circulated for more than two decades. The sender usually claims that a company has applied to register your corporate name, product name, or brand under Chinese domain extensions, such as .cn or .中国. In some versions, the emails also include additional Asian domains, such as .hk.

    The purported registrar claims to have uncovered a conflict with your existing name and asks whether the applicant is a distributor, business partner, or authorized representative of your company. The message suggests that there is only a brief window to block the registration. If the foreign company objects, the sender offers to register the domains on its behalf, often quoting inflated prices or demanding multi-year financial commitments.

    Other versions of the message claim that the domains have already been registered and offer to transfer ownership for a fee. Historically, a pattern emerged where some of these emails arrived one or two weeks after executives returned from business trips to China, suggesting potential targeted distribution of the messages.

    The Reality of Domain Registrations in China

    These emails are essentially commercial sales pitches disguised as brand-protection warnings. Standard domain registration is not a trademark clearance process in which the registrar must obtain permission from all companies that might hold rights to a similar name.

    The China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC), the responsible governing body, generally operates .cn registrations on a first-come, first-served basis, subject to applicable registration requirements and restrictions. An unknown entity’s claim that it must consult your company before processing a third party’s application is not standard procedure, which undercuts the credibility of the alleged inquiry.

    Furthermore, bundling multiple extensions in the same message is typically a tactic to heighten perceived urgency. The .cn extension belongs to mainland China’s domain system, whereas .hk is Hong Kong’s country-code domain, operating under entirely separate rules. Listing them together does not establish a genuine application.

    Risks and Financial Consequences

    Companies that chose to pay the senders of these messages reported expenses ranging from US$ 500 to US$ 3,500. The outcomes of these payments illustrate the risks involved:

    • Approximately one-third of the companies were simply ignored after payment, with no service provided.
    • Another third was initially ignored and, a few weeks later, faced extortion attempts where third parties demanded ransoms to release the trademark, typically in amounts of US$ 10,000 or more.
    • Only the final third paid an actual law firm or trademark agency, which opposed the filing as promised and then submitted a formal trademark application on behalf of the company.

    Practical Recommendations

    Upon receiving emails warning about domain or trademark registrations in China, the primary recommendation is not to reply to the sender and not to make any payment. Companies should adopt an analytical approach and independently verify the veracity of the claim.

    It is possible to verify domain registration status or have the trademark claim reviewed by trusted professionals. Above all, the situation should serve as a reminder for the company to proactively assess whether its business operations require formal intellectual property protection in the Chinese market, anticipating real issues.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • 中国域名与商标注册欺诈防范

    中国域名与商标注册欺诈防范

    从事跨国业务的企业经常会收到来自中国的电子邮件，警告称有第三方正准备注册该公司的名称。这些邮件通常来自自称的中国域名注册服务商或知识产权代理机构，称有另一家公司希望将您的公司名称用于本地域名后缀或申请注册为商标。

    尽管某些关于商标的通知确实涉及真实的申请和法定答辩期限，但此类联络中的绝大多数都属于欺诈性手法或激进的推销策略。了解这些邮件的运作机制对于保护企业资产且避免不必要的支出至关重要。

    此类手法的运作模式

    针对域名的欺诈模式已存在二十余年。发件人通常声称有某家公司已申请在.cn或.中国等中国域名后缀下注册您的公司、产品或品牌名称。在某些版本中，邮件还会列入其他亚洲域名，例如.hk。

    所谓的注册商声称发现了与您现有名称的冲突，并询问申请人是否为贵公司的经销商、商业伙伴或授权代表。邮件暗示阻止该注册的时间非常有限。如果外国企业表示反对，发件人便会提出由其代为注册这些域名，并通常收取虚高的价格或要求长达数年的资金承诺。

    该邮件的另一种版本则声称相关域名已被注册，并提出可通过支付一笔费用来办理所有权转移。从以往情况来看，存在一种规律，即部分此类邮件会在企业高管结束中国商务差旅回国后的一两周内送达，表明此类邮件可能具有一定针对性。

    中国域名注册的实际规则

    这些邮件本质上是伪装成商标保护通知的商业推销。普通的域名注册并非商标审查程序，注册服务机构无需在注册前获得所有可能对类似名称享有权利的企业的许可。

    中国互联网络信息中心（CNNIC）作为主管机构，通常基于“先申请先得”原则开展.cn后缀的注册业务，并受相关注册要求和限制的约束。一家不知名的机构声称在处理第三方申请前必须先咨询贵公司，这并不是标准程序，因而该说法的真实性存疑。

    此外，在同一封邮件中列出多个后缀通常是为了夸大威胁程度。.cn后缀属于中国大陆的域名体系，而.hk则是香港特别行政区的地区顶级域名，遵循完全独立的规则。将它们列在一起并不能证明存在真实的申请。

    风险与财务后果

    选择向此类邮件发件人付款的企业表示，其支出从500美元到3500美元不等。这些付款的结果反映了其中的潜在风险：

    • 约三分之一的企业在付款后直接被发件人忽视，未获得任何实际服务。
    • 另有三分之一的企业最初被忽视，但数周后遭遇勒索企图，第三方要求支付赎金以释放商标，索要金额通常在10,000美元或以上。
    • 仅有最后三分之一的企业实际付款给了真实的律师事务所或商标代理机构，后者按承诺对申请提出了异议，并随后为该企业提交了正式的商标申请。

    实操建议

    收到提醒关于中国域名或商标即将被注册的邮件时，首要建议是不予回复发件人，也不要进行任何付款。企业应采取审慎分析的态度，独立核实相关说法的真实性。

    企业可以核查域名的注册状态，或交由值得信赖的专业人士对商标主张进行分析。最重要的是，此类事件应当作为一个提醒，促使企业主动评估其业务是否需要在中国市场获得正式的知识产权保护，从而防患于未然。

    本内容仅供参考，不构成法律意见。如需针对具体情况的指导，请咨询专业律师。

  • STJ afasta responsabilidade automática do Reclame Aqui

    A Terceira Turma do Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) proferiu uma decisão relevante sobre a responsabilidade de plataformas digitais por conteúdos gerados por terceiros. No julgamento do Recurso Especial (REsp) 2.225.111, a corte estabeleceu que o site Reclame Aqui não pode ser responsabilizado de forma automática por avaliações negativas e reclamações publicadas por consumidores.

    O caso teve origem quando uma empresa acionou a Justiça contra o administrador do portal. O objetivo da ação era excluir publicações que a companhia considerava ofensivas à sua imagem institucional, além de solicitar a remoção completa de seu cadastro na plataforma. A empresa argumentou que as postagens violavam os termos de uso do site e atingiam seus direitos de personalidade jurídica, como nome e imagem, independentemente de haver intenção difamatória por parte dos usuários.

    Tanto o juízo de primeiro grau quanto o Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo (TJSP) negaram o pedido. O entendimento foi de que não houve demonstração de ato ilícito por parte da plataforma, mas apenas o exercício regular da liberdade de expressão pelos consumidores. O STJ manteve essa compreensão, detalhando os limites da responsabilidade civil no ambiente digital.

    Provedor de aplicação e a vedação à censura prévia

    O ministro relator, Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva, esclareceu que o Reclame Aqui atua juridicamente como um provedor de aplicação de internet. Sua função principal é servir como um canal para o recebimento e a divulgação de experiências de consumo. Embora a plataforma não seja totalmente passiva — já que permite o envio de respostas pelas empresas, realiza moderação de conteúdo e utiliza filtros automáticos contra mensagens ofensivas —, ela não tem a obrigação legal de realizar um controle prévio de tudo o que é postado.

    Segundo a decisão do STJ, exigir que o site verifique a veracidade de cada relato antes de sua publicação equivaleria a impor uma censura prévia. Essa exigência inviabilizaria a prestação do serviço e prejudicaria o propósito central da plataforma, que é reunir consumidores para a troca de informações sobre fornecedores. O tribunal destacou que, nestes casos, prevalecem a liberdade de expressão, o direito à informação e o direito de crítica.

    Aplicação do Marco Civil da Internet e do Tema 987 do STF

    A decisão da Terceira Turma reforçou a aplicação do artigo 19 do Marco Civil da Internet para situações que envolvem suposto conteúdo difamatório relacionado à atividade empresarial. A regra geral estabelece que a plataforma só pode ser responsabilizada civilmente se, após eventual descumprimento de ordem judicial específica para remoção, mantiver o conteúdo ofensivo gerado por terceiros.

    O julgamento também aplicou as diretrizes do Tema 987 do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF). Conforme o Supremo, um provedor de internet pode ser responsabilizado diretamente quando o dano resulta de condutas adotadas pela própria plataforma. O ministro relator listou os atos que geram essa responsabilização direta:

    • Falhas sistêmicas na prestação do serviço;
    • Moderação deficiente de conteúdo;
    • Associação incorreta ou falsa de reclamações;
    • Divulgação indevida de dados pessoais;
    • Manutenção deliberada de conteúdo ilícito.

    No caso analisado, o STJ concluiu que nenhuma dessas falhas foi identificada nos autos. Além disso, o STF estabelece como dever adicional dos provedores a criação de normas de autorregulação e canais de atendimento. O tribunal reconheceu que a plataforma cumpre esse requisito, pois disponibiliza ferramentas de moderação, notificação extrajudicial e garante o direito de resposta na própria página.

    Conclusão prática para as empresas

    A decisão do STJ consolida o entendimento de que não há obrigação legal de controle prévio das informações postadas pelos consumidores. Como não há responsabilidade automática do provedor e a remoção judicial de conteúdo depende de critérios estritos, as companhias devem utilizar os mecanismos de autorregulação do ambiente digital.

    O uso dos canais de resposta e das ferramentas de notificação oferecidas nos termos de uso dessas plataformas é o caminho inicial apontado pelo tribunal para resolver conflitos. A responsabilização do provedor de aplicação fica reservada para casos em que há descumprimento de ordens judiciais de remoção ou quando a própria plataforma comete falhas sistêmicas, conforme os limites do Marco Civil da Internet.

    Este conteúdo tem caráter meramente informativo e não constitui aconselhamento jurídico. Para orientação sobre casos concretos, consulte um advogado.

  • STJ Rules Out Automatic Liability for Consumer Review Platform Reclame Aqui

    The Third Panel of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ, Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice) issued a significant ruling regarding the liability of digital platforms for third-party content. In Special Appeal (REsp) 2.225.111, the court established that the consumer review website Reclame Aqui cannot be held automatically liable for negative reviews and complaints posted by consumers.

    The lawsuit began when a company took legal action against the platform’s operator. The lawsuit sought to remove posts that the company deemed harmful to its corporate image, as well as the complete removal of its company profile from the platform. The company argued that the posts violated the website’s terms of service and infringed upon its corporate personality rights, such as trade name and reputation, regardless of whether users intended to defame the business.

    Both the trial court and the Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo (TJSP, the São Paulo State Court of Appeals) rejected the claims. The courts found that the platform committed no unlawful act, but merely facilitated the lawful exercise of freedom of expression by consumers. The STJ upheld this ruling, outlining the boundaries of civil liability in digital environments.

    Application Providers and the Prohibition of Prior Censorship

    Reporting Justice Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva clarified that Reclame Aqui functions legally as an internet application provider. Its primary role is to serve as an avenue for receiving and publishing consumer experiences. Although the platform is not entirely passive — as it allows companies to respond, moderates content, and uses automated filters against abusive messages —, it has no legal obligation to perform prior review of all posted content.

    According to the STJ ruling, requiring the website to verify the truthfulness of every report before publication would amount to prior censorship. Such a requirement would make the service unfeasible and undermine the core purpose of the platform, which is to bring consumers together to share information about suppliers. The court underscored that, in such cases, freedom of expression, the right to information, and the right to criticize must prevail.

    Application of the Marco Civil da Internet and STF Topic 987

    The Third Panel’s decision reinforced the application of Article 19 of the Marco Civil da Internet (Brazil’s Civil Rights Framework for the Internet) to disputes involving alleged defamatory content related to business operations. The general statutory rule establishes that platforms may only be held civilly liable for third-party content if they fail to comply with a specific court order mandating its removal.

    The ruling also applied the legal standards set under Topic 987 of the Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF, Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court). According to the Supreme Court, an internet provider can be held directly liable when harm arises from acts committed by the platform itself. The reporting justice highlighted the specific circumstances triggering direct liability:

    • Systemic failures in providing the service;
    • Deficient content moderation;
    • Incorrect or false attribution of consumer complaints;
    • Improper disclosure of personal data;
    • Deliberate retention of unlawful content.

    In this case, the STJ concluded that none of these failures were present in the record. Furthermore, the STF requires providers to implement self-regulatory policies and effective customer support channels. The court recognized that the platform meets this standard by offering moderation tools, extrajudicial notice mechanisms, and a dedicated right of reply directly on the page.

    Practical Takeaways for Businesses

    The STJ ruling consolidates the principle that platforms have no legal duty to conduct prior verification of consumer-posted feedback. Because platform liability is not automatic and judicial removal of content requires meeting strict legal standards, companies operating in Brazil should prioritize using available digital self-regulation mechanisms.

    Utilizing reply channels and reporting mechanisms provided under platform terms of service is the primary course of action endorsed by the judiciary to address grievances. Liability for application providers remains strictly limited to non-compliance with judicial removal orders or cases involving systemic failures by the platform, in accordance with the Marco Civil da Internet.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • STJ（巴西高等司法法院）排除Reclame Aqui平台的自动民事责任

    Superior Tribunal de Justiça（STJ，巴西高等司法法院）第三审判庭就数字平台对第三方生成内容的法律责任作出了一项重要裁决。在特殊上诉案（REsp 2.225.111）的审理中，法院认定消费者投诉网站Reclame Aqui不能对消费者发布的负面评价和投诉自动承担法律责任。

    该案起因于一家企业向法院起诉该网站的管理者。该诉讼旨在删除该企业认为损害其企业声誉的帖子，并要求彻底注销其在该平台上的企业注册信息。该企业主张，相关发布内容违反了网站的服务条款，并侵犯了其作为法人的名称权和商誉等合法权益，无论用户是否存在主观诽谤意图。

    一审法院以及Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo（TJSP，圣保罗州法院）均驳回了原告的诉求。法院认定没有证据表明平台存在违法行为，消费者的行为仅属于正当行使言论自由权。STJ维持了该认定，并进一步明确了网络环境下的民事责任边界。

    网络应用提供者与禁止事先审查

    主审法官Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva阐明，Reclame Aqui在法律层面上属于网络应用提供者（provedor de aplicação de internet）。其主要功能是充当接收和传播消费体验的渠道。尽管该平台并非完全被动——因为其允许企业提交回复、进行内容审核并使用自动过滤器拦截攻击性言论——但它在法律上并无义务对所有发布的内容进行事先审查。

    根据STJ的裁决，要求该网站在发布前核实每项陈述的真实性，无异于施加事先审查。这种要求将使服务难以正常运行，并损害平台汇集消费者以交流供应商信息的核心目的。法院强调，在此类案件中，言论自由、知情权和批评权优先适用。

    《巴西民事互联网框架法》与STF主题987的适用

    第三审判庭的裁决强化了《巴西民事互联网框架法》（Marco Civil da Internet）第19条在涉及企业经营相关涉嫌诽谤内容时的适用。该通用规则确立：平台只有在违反法院关于删除内容的专门司法命令、继续保留第三方侵权内容的情况下，才承担民事赔偿责任。

    该判决还适用了Supremo Tribunal Federal（STF，巴西联邦最高法院）主题987（Tema 987）确定的指导原则。根据最高法院的意见，当损害是由平台自身行为所导致时，互联网提供者可被直接追责。主审法官列举了引发此类直接责任的行为：

    • 服务提供过程中的系统性缺陷；
    • 内容审核失职；
    • 错误或虚假关联投诉；
    • 不当泄露个人数据；
    • 故意保留非法内容。

    在审理的具体案件中，STJ认定案卷记录中并未发现上述任何缺陷。此外，STF将制定自律规则和服务支持渠道作为网络服务提供者的附加法定义务。法院确认该平台符合该项要求，因为其提供了内容审核机制、庭外通知渠道，并保障了在同一页面上的抗辩与回复权。

    对企业的务实结论

    STJ的裁决巩固了既有司法观点，即平台在法律上没有对消费者发布的信息进行事先把关的义务。由于服务提供者不承担自动责任，且司法程序下删除内容须遵循严格标准，企业应充分利用数字环境下的自律机制。

    法院指出，解决争议的首要途径是使用平台服务条款中提供的回复渠道和通知工具。根据《巴西民事互联网框架法》的限定，网络应用提供者的民事责任仅在不执行法院删除令或平台自身存在系统性故障的情形下才会产生。

    本内容仅供参考，不构成法律意见。如需针对具体情况的指导，请咨询专业律师。

  • Ecad对酒店的版权费征收必须依据实际入住率

    STJ关于Ecad版权费征收的裁决

    巴西高等司法法院（STJ）第三审判庭确立裁判规则：中央征集与分配办公室（Ecad，负责巴西音乐版权集中管理的机构）不得单方面且无正当理由，以通用市场调研数据替代酒店申报的入住率。该项裁决认定该做法违法且构成权利滥用，系在审理特别上诉（REsp）第2.284.318号案中作出。

    该案起因于Ecad对位于马塞约市的一家酒店提起的追索诉讼，指称该酒店自2023年9月起存在欠费。该机构要求支付约2.4万雷亚尔的版权费，理由是客房内配置了音响设备——即在房间内提供了电视机和收音机等设备。

    为计算欠费金额，Ecad采用了巴西民意与统计调查所（Ibope）发布的该地区酒店平均入住率。收费机构的理由是，酒店自身申报的入住率过低，且该机构有权自主核查相左的信息。

    酒店业收费规则与标准

    STJ在既定判例（重复性争议裁判规则第1.066号，一种统一相同争议案件审理尺度的机制）中已明确，在酒店客房内提供传播音乐及视听作品的设备，构成Ecad收取版权费的法定事由。然而，收费计算方式必须遵循严格规则，不得任意裁量。

    本案主审大法官里卡多·维拉斯·博阿斯·奎瓦（Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva）指出，版权集体管理受第9.574/2018号法令规范。依据该项法规，Ecad自身制定了收费准则，确定了酒店行业许可费用的核定标准。该计算必须综合考量三个主要因素：

    • 设施的客房数量；
    • 酒店所处的社会经济区域；
    • 酒店的实际入住率。

    根据Ecad内部管理规定，获取入住率数据存在明确的先后顺位。首要规则要求数据须由酒店提供，即由企业会计师或管理者出具正式申报。使用市场平均水平（如Ibope调研数据）仅为补充性规则——即仅在酒店未按要求提交会计资料时方可适用。

    真实性推定与举证责任

    在审理上诉时，STJ认定酒店出具的申报具有相对真实性推定（一项法律概念，指在提出相反证据之前，该信息应被推定为真实）。若要推翻该推定，Ecad必须就用户所提供文件的无效性或不可用性提出具体证据。

    “该推定仅在Ecad提出异议或抗辩时方可推翻，且Ecad必须承担举证责任，证明用户提交的文件无效或不具备证明力，”大法官里卡多·维拉斯·博阿斯·奎瓦表示。

    法院认为，在缺乏证据支持的情况下，仅凭声称酒店申报的入住率微不足道，不能作为变更计费基准的理由。大法官强调，收费准则是对双方均具有约束力的法律文件。Ecad忽视自身的内部规程，违背了经营主体基于实际数据接受收费的合理预期。根据法院评估，该行为构成违背诚信，导致该收费行为丧失合法性。

    酒店业治理的实务考量

    STJ的此项裁决带来了法律确定性，并强化了文件档案管理对酒店业企业及行业投资者的重要性。通过保持准确的运营记录，并提交由专业会计师或管理人员合规签署的入住率申报，酒店能够确保版权费征收反映其业务的真实财务状况。

    该裁决防止了通用市场预估对酒店运营造成不当负担。Ecad若要排除酒店的申报，必须通过法定途径并就文件不符之处提出确凿证据，不得单方面变更计费标准。

    本内容仅供参考，不构成法律意见。如需针对具体情况的指导，请咨询专业律师。

  • Ecad Royalties on Hotels Must Follow Actual Occupancy Rates

    The STJ Ruling on Ecad Royalties

    The Third Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ, one of Brazil’s highest appellate courts) established that the Central Bureau for Collection and Distribution (Ecad, the entity responsible for collecting music royalties in Brazil) cannot unilaterally and without valid justification replace the occupancy rate reported by a hotel with generic market research data. The decision, which considered the practice illegal and abusive, was issued during the trial of Special Appeal (REsp) 2,284,318.

    The dispute arose from a collection lawsuit filed by Ecad against a hotel in the city of Maceió, alleging default since September 2023. The collection agency claimed approximately R$ 24,000 in copyright royalties for room audio systems—meaning the provision of television and radio sets inside guest rooms.

    To calculate the outstanding balance, Ecad applied regional average hotel occupancy rates published by the Brazilian Institute of Public Opinion and Statistics (Ibope). Ecad justified this method by arguing that the occupancy rates declared by the hotel itself were negligible and that the bureau had the autonomy to rely on divergent external data.

    Regulation and Royalty Assessment Criteria in the Hotel Sector

    STJ case law, consolidated under Repetitive Theme 1,066—a mechanism that standardizes rulings across multiple appeals with identical legal questions—already recognizes that making television and audio equipment available in hotel rooms allows Ecad to collect copyright royalties. However, the structure of such assessments must strictly adhere to regulations, precluding arbitrary adjustments.

    The reporting justice, Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva, pointed out that collective copyright administration is governed by Decree 9,574/2018. Under this regulation, Ecad issued its own fee schedule and collection rules establishing criteria to determine licensing fees for the hospitality industry. The calculation must consider three primary factors:

    • The establishment’s total room inventory;
    • The socioeconomic region where the hotel is located;
    • The hotel’s actual occupancy rate.

    Under Ecad’s own internal rules, there is a clear hierarchy for obtaining occupancy rates. The primary rule requires the figure to be provided directly by the hotel via a formal statement submitted by its accountant or company manager. The use of market averages, such as those published by Ibope, is a subsidiary rule—meaning a fallback alternative applicable only when the establishment fails to present the required accounting documentation.

    The Presumption of Veracity and the Burden of Proof

    Upon reviewing the appeal, the STJ concluded that the declaration submitted by the hotel carries a relative presumption of veracity—a legal principle establishing that information must be treated as true until proven otherwise. To overcome this presumption, Ecad must provide concrete evidence showing that the documents submitted by the user are invalid or unsuitable.

    “Such a presumption can only be rebutted through an objection or challenge by Ecad, which must necessarily discharge the evidentiary burden of proving the invalidity or unsuitability of the documents submitted by users,” stated Justice Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva.

    The court held that a mere unsupported allegation that the hotel’s reported rates were insignificant does not justify altering the calculation base. The justice underscored that the collection regulation is a legal instrument that binds both parties. By ignoring its own internal rules, Ecad frustrated the hotel’s legitimate expectation of being assessed on its actual figures. In the court’s view, this conduct constitutes a breach of good faith, rendering the collection illegitimate.

    Practical Considerations for Hotel Governance

    This STJ decision provides legal certainty and highlights the critical role of document management for hospitality companies and real estate investors. By maintaining precise operational records and submitting occupancy declarations duly signed by certified accountants or managers, hotels ensure that copyright royalties reflect the financial reality of their operations.

    The ruling prevents generic market estimates from unduly burdening hotel operations. For Ecad to disregard a hotel’s formal declaration, it must pursue appropriate legal avenues and demonstrate concrete proof of documentary inconsistency, as unilateral changes to the billing methodology are not permitted.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • Cobrança do Ecad em hotéis deve seguir a taxa de ocupação real

    A Decisão do STJ sobre a Cobrança do Ecad

    A Terceira Turma do Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) firmou o entendimento de que o Escritório Central de Arrecadação e Distribuição (Ecad) não pode substituir, de forma unilateral e sem justificativa válida, a taxa de ocupação informada por um hotel por dados genéricos de pesquisa de mercado. A decisão, que considerou a prática ilegal e abusiva, ocorreu no julgamento do Recurso Especial (REsp) 2.284.318.

    O caso teve origem em uma ação de cobrança ajuizada pelo Ecad contra um hotel localizado na cidade de Maceió, sob a alegação de inadimplência desde setembro de 2023. A instituição exigia o pagamento de aproximadamente R$ 24 mil referentes a direitos autorais pela sonorização dos quartos — ou seja, pela disponibilização de aparelhos de televisão e rádio nos aposentos.

    Para calcular o valor da dívida, o Ecad utilizou a média de ocupação hoteleira da região divulgada pelo Instituto Brasileiro de Opinião Pública e Estatística (Ibope). A justificativa do órgão arrecadador foi a de que as taxas de ocupação declaradas pelo próprio hotel seriam irrisórias e que a instituição teria autonomia para apurar informações divergentes.

    Regulamentação e Critérios de Cobrança no Setor Hoteleiro

    A jurisprudência do STJ, consolidada no Tema Repetitivo 1.066 — um mecanismo que padroniza julgamentos de recursos com controvérsias idênticas —, já reconhece que a disponibilização de equipamentos para a transmissão de obras musicais e audiovisuais em quartos de hotel autoriza a cobrança de direitos autorais pelo Ecad. No entanto, a forma como essa cobrança é estruturada deve seguir regras estritas, não cabendo arbitrariedade.

    O ministro relator do caso, Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva, destacou que a gestão coletiva de direitos autorais é regulamentada pelo Decreto 9.574/2018. Com base nessa norma, o próprio Ecad editou um regulamento de arrecadação que estabelece os critérios para a definição do preço da licença para o segmento hoteleiro. O cálculo deve considerar três fatores principais:

    • A quantidade de aposentos do estabelecimento;
    • A região socioeconômica na qual o hotel está inserido;
    • A taxa de ocupação real do hotel.

    De acordo com o regulamento interno do Ecad, existe uma hierarquia clara para a obtenção da taxa de ocupação. A regra principal exige que o dado seja informado pelo hotel, por meio de uma declaração formal apresentada pelo contador ou pelo administrador da empresa. A utilização de médias de mercado, como as apuradas pelo Ibope, é uma regra subsidiária — ou seja, uma alternativa aplicável apenas quando o estabelecimento não apresenta as informações contábeis exigidas.

    A Presunção de Veracidade e o Ônus da Prova

    Ao analisar o recurso, o STJ concluiu que a declaração apresentada pelo hotel possui presunção relativa de veracidade, um conceito jurídico que determina que a informação deve ser considerada verdadeira até que se apresentem provas em contrário. Para afastar essa presunção, o Ecad precisa apresentar provas concretas da invalidade ou inutilidade dos documentos fornecidos pelo usuário.

    “Tal presunção somente pode ser afastada mediante impugnação ou oposição por parte do Ecad, que deve, obrigatoriamente, desincumbir-se do ônus probatório no sentido de comprovar a invalidade ou a inutilidade dos documentos que lhe forem apresentados pelos usuários”, declarou o ministro Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva.

    O tribunal considerou que a simples alegação, sem amparo em provas, de que as taxas informadas pelo hotel são insignificantes não justifica a alteração da base de cálculo. O ministro ressaltou que o regulamento de arrecadação é um instrumento jurídico que vincula ambas as partes. Ao desconsiderar sua própria normativa interna, o Ecad quebra a expectativa dos estabelecimentos de serem cobrados com base em seus dados reais. Na avaliação da Corte, essa atitude configura deslealdade, tornando a cobrança ilegítima.

    Considerações Práticas para a Governança Hoteleira

    Esta decisão do STJ traz segurança jurídica e reforça a importância da organização documental para empresas do setor hoteleiro e investidores da área. Ao manter registros operacionais precisos e apresentar as declarações de ocupação devidamente assinadas por profissionais contábeis ou administradores, os hotéis garantem que a cobrança de direitos autorais reflita a realidade financeira do seu negócio.

    A decisão impede que estimativas genéricas de mercado onerem indevidamente a operação hoteleira. Para que o Ecad possa desconsiderar a declaração do hotel, será necessário buscar meios legais e apresentar provas concretas de inconsistência documental, não sendo admitida a alteração unilateral da metodologia de cobrança.

    Este conteúdo tem caráter meramente informativo e não constitui aconselhamento jurídico. Para orientação sobre casos concretos, consulte um advogado.

  • New Customer Service Decree Affects Digital Platforms

    New Customer Service Decree Affects Digital Platforms

    A recent report published by the legal news portal Consultor Jurídico highlights an important change for technology and e-commerce companies in Brazil: a new decree regulating the Customer Service Service (SAC, Brazil’s customer service regulatory framework) ends self-regulation for digital platforms.

    What is self-regulation?

    In the corporate and digital environment, self-regulation occurs when an industry or group of companies establishes its own rules and standards of conduct, without the direct imposition of rigid state regulations. In the context of customer service, this meant that digital platforms had greater flexibility to structure their support channels, response times, and dispute resolution methods, relying on internal policies and market dynamics.

    The change under the new SAC decree

    The introduction of the new SAC decree alters this dynamic. By bringing an end to self-regulation, the rule indicates that the State will now establish more uniform and mandatory guidelines for customer service in the virtual environment. Digital platforms, which previously enjoyed autonomy to define the rules of their customer care operations, must now adhere to the parameters established by the new decree.

    This transition reflects a broader shift toward standardizing consumer relations in the digital space, aiming to align the support offered by tech platforms with traditional consumer protection requirements.

    Practical impact for businesses

    For founders, executives, and investors operating digital platforms in Brazil, the end of self-regulation demands a careful review of customer service operations. Companies will need to adjust their internal structures to ensure they no longer operate under exclusively self-defined policies, but rather in full compliance with the new SAC directives.

    Restructuring support channels and updating customer care policies become essential steps for adapting to the new regulatory landscape.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • 巴西新版SAC法令对数字平台产生深远影响

    巴西新版SAC法令对数字平台产生深远影响

    巴西法律媒体 Consultor Jurídico 近期报道了一项针对巴西科技与电子商务企业的重要法规调整：新版 SAC（Serviço de Atendimento ao Consumidor，巴西客户服务中心）法令正式终结了数字平台所谓的行业自律模式。

    什么是行业自律？

    在企业与数字化环境中，自律是指某一行业或企业群体在没有国家刚性法律直接强制要求的情况下，自行确立行为规范与运营标准。在客户服务领域，这意味着数字平台以往拥有较大自由度，可以依据内部政策和市场机制自行搭建技术支持渠道、设定响应时限及纠纷解决流程。

    新版SAC法令带来的转变

    新版 SAC 法令的颁布打破了原有的运作格局。通过宣告自律模式的终结，该法规表明监管部门开始为网络环境下的客户服务确立更统一、更具强制性的法定指引。以往在制定客服规则方面享有高度自主权的数字平台，现在必须严格遵守新法令确定的各项监管标准。

    这一转变体现了数字化消费关系进一步标准化的监管趋势，旨在推动科技平台所提供的客户服务符合传统的消费者保护法规要求。

    对企业的实务影响

    对于在巴西开展业务的数字平台创始人、高管及投资者而言，自律机制的终止意味着必须对客户服务运营流程进行全面审查。相关企业需要调整内部管理架构，确保自身服务不再仅受内部规则约束，而是全面符合 SAC 法令的新指引。

    重构客户沟通渠道并更新支持政策，已成为企业适应新合规环境的关键步骤。

    本内容仅供参考，不构成法律意见。如需针对具体情况的指导，请咨询专业律师。