Brazil's Superior Court of Justice (STJ), the country's second-highest court, has ruled that banks may close customers' checking accounts on their own initiative without violating the Consumer Defense Code (CDC). In a judgment held on September 3, with the ruling published on Wednesday (September 23), the court's Second Section set aside article 39, item IX, of the 1990 consumer statute, which makes it an abusive practice to refuse goods or services to someone willing to pay on the spot. Because the case was decided under the repetitive appeals procedure, a mechanism that binds courts across Brazil, the thesis now guides similar disputes nationwide.

Reporting justice Humberto Martins wrote that the CDC itself carves out services regulated by special laws, which covers banking. Rules of the National Monetary Council (CMN) already allow either party to end a checking account contract, he noted. He gave two further reasons. The CDC provision covers spot-payment relationships, while a checking account is a long-term contract bundling many services. And the article deals with a refusal to contract before a relationship starts, a different situation from closing an account that already exists.

Martins also observed that banking rules oblige banks to close accounts in fraud and money laundering cases, which would clash with the CDC ban. Even so, he set duties for the bank.

The right to information, prior notification and non-retention of the balance must nonetheless be respected, as well as the procedures for the account holder to settle commitments with the financial institution or imposed by law.

Timeline of the case

The case chosen to settle the controversy was filed by four companies against a bank that notified them their accounts would be closed for "commercial disinterest". They went to court asking to keep the accounts or to be given time to move their operations to another bank.

• February 2019: the four companies are notified of the closure of their checking accounts;
• First instance: claims denied;
• Sao Paulo Court of Justice (TJ-SP): defeat on appeal;
• September 3, 2026: the STJ's Second Section judges the repetitive appeal;
• September 23, 2026: the ruling is published, making the thesis mandatory for all courts.

According to the decision, the court's precedent review unit had identified about 17 prior judgments and 1,224 individual decisions by justices on the same question. For roughly two decades the STJ had already held that the CDC provision did not apply to account closures. In the concrete case, the four companies' appeal was not admitted.

Reactions

The Brazilian Federation of Banks (Febraban) said the decision strengthens legal certainty in the financial system. "The decision brings greater clarity to the conditions under which a banking contractual relationship can be ended, preserving the autonomy of the parties", the group said. Febraban also argued that closing accounts matters for fighting fraud and money laundering, and noted that the industry already has self-regulation rules, including requirements to inform clients.

Consumer law specialist Beatriz Quintas de Melo Teixeira, interviewed by Folha de S.Paulo, said the ruling did not create a new power for banks. "The repetitive case only consolidated this understanding and made it mandatory for all courts. It is not an innovation, it is a unification", she said. In her reading, "commercial disinterest" works as an umbrella term that can cover varied reasons, from suspected illicit use of the account to reputational risk, a client under investigation, a money-losing account, credit risk reassessment or simple loss of interest in the relationship.

With the ruling published, individual lawsuits on the subject will now be decided by lower courts under the new thesis. For the four companies in the lead case, the outcome is already set: the STJ declined to hear their appeal.