In consumer litigation, it is common to find lawsuits in which consumers seek compensation for moral damages due to the inclusion of their name on negotiation platforms, such as Serasa Limpa Nome or Acordo Certo.
The recurring claim is that this inclusion creates the impression of being negatively listed, with consequent damage to reputation, ultimately leading to the pursuit of compensation for moral damages, in addition to material damages.
The brand “Serasa” is still culturally associated with the idea of credit restriction. For many people, seeing their name linked to this type of platform generates fear, insecurity, and the immediate feeling of having a “bad credit history.”
However, it is important to mention that these tools actually function as intermediaries between consumers and creditors, with access granted voluntarily to the consumer through the insertion of personal data and a previously registered password.
The discussion on this topic becomes more complex when the debt collection involves a time-barred debt, a circumstance that has given rise to divergent interpretations in legal doctrine and case law.
Topic 1264: Is a debt that has expired and can be collected by trading platforms?
Prescription is a legal concept that affects the substantive claim, the possibility, even if only potential, of demanding payment. Therefore, prescription can only be applied to rights involving performance, preventing the judicial enforcement of the obligation after the legally established period has elapsed, in accordance with articles 205 and 206 of the Civil Code.
The controversy that arises, however, lies in determining whether the effects of prescription are limited to judicial proceedings or whether they also extend to extrajudicial collection, especially that carried out through digital debt negotiation platforms.
It so happens that, notwithstanding the statute of limitations having run on the claim, the substantive right to the credit is not extinguished, and the contractual relationship remains valid. This is so much the case that Article 882 of the Civil Code stipulates that payment of a prescribed debt is not recoverable, which demonstrates the continued existence and validity of the debt, even though it lacks legal enforceability due to the statute of limitations.
Until then, the prevailing understanding within the Superior Court of Justice was that prescription converts a civil obligation into a natural obligation, not affecting the substantive right itself, but only the exercise of the claim in court.
In other words, prescription does not extinguish the subjective right, but only removes its judicial enforceability.
However, this matter has become controversial within the Courts of Justice, giving rise to a proliferation of various divergent interpretations in the lower courts.
Due to this jurisprudential dissonance, some states have begun to establish Incidents for the Resolution of Repetitive Demands (IRDRs) and Incidents for the Uniformization of Jurisprudence, procedural instruments aimed at stabilizing and standardizing the interpretation of law within the Courts of Justice, in the face of a multiplicity of demands based on identical legal issues.
In this context of jurisprudential disagreement, the discussion was submitted to the Superior Court of Justice, culminating in the referral of Topic 1264, whose object is to define the legality of the extrajudicial collection of time-barred debt, particularly when carried out through digital negotiation platforms, in light of the principles of good faith, consumer protection, and the social function of credit.
Therefore, many lawsuits dealing precisely with this issue are suspended, awaiting the definition of the legal precedent to be established, the pronouncement of which is likely to have significant effects on the actions of creditors and on the very dynamics of extrajudicial collection of debts that have expired under Brazilian law.
Practical relevance of this topic for companies
Should the Superior Court of Justice recognize the extrajudicial collection of time-barred debts as an abusive practice, considering it capable of constituting moral coercion or a violation of the debtor's dignity, the impacts on financial institutions and other agents in the credit market will be significant, and may include, among others, the following effects:
- potential for significant growth in lawsuits seeking compensation, based on allegations of embarrassment or violation of the debtor's dignity;
- The need to review and readjust the routines and automated workflows for extrajudicial debt collection, especially those implemented in digital environments and negotiation platforms;
- the restriction of creditors' freedom to negotiate with respect to claims whose existence and origin are not disputed, but which are time-barred;
- The worsening legal uncertainty regarding the relationship between the passage of time and the effects of prescription, with direct repercussions on credit pricing, risk management, and the structuring of non-performing loan portfolios; and
- relevant impacts on secondary market for the assignment of non-performing loans (NPLs), especially with regard to recovery strategies and communication with debtors.
loans, with limitations on communication with debtors
Practical relevance of this topic for consumers.
If this practice is deemed illegal, consumers will have greater legal security , avoiding repeated, embarrassing, or potentially intimidating approaches related to debts that can no longer be legally enforced. Furthermore, there will be greater clarity in distinguishing between debts that are actually due and obligations that have expired due to prescription, reducing the risk of payments made out of fear or misinformation.
On the other hand, even if the extrajudicial collection remains legal, the establishment of objective parameters by the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) tends to strengthen the duty of information and transparency , ensuring the consumer's right to understand, clearly and unequivocally, the prescribed nature of the debt and the absence of negative legal consequences in case of non-payment.
In either scenario, the ruling on Case 1.264 represents a significant step forward in improving consumer relations, by establishing guidelines that contribute to the prevention of abuses, contractual balance, and respect for fundamental consumer rights.
Far beyond legality.
More than a strictly legal debate, the issue involves ethics, good faith, and balance in consumer relations.
Trading platforms are not, in themselves, grounds for moral damages. The problem arises when their use exceeds the limits of reasonableness, transparency, and respect for the consumer.
In a market of mass-market relationships, the exercise of the right to collect debts must go hand in hand with the responsibility of not exposing, embarrassing, or confusing the person on the other side of the relationship.
The biggest point of controversy lies in the inclusion of:
- old debts;
- expired debts;
- amounts already paid or under judicial dispute.
In these cases, the consumer's exposure — even in a private setting — can be questioned, especially if the communication suggests the possibility of negative credit reporting or exerts undue pressure for payment.
Conclusion
The Superior Court of Justice's ruling on Case 1.264 represents a significant milestone in defining the legal boundaries of extrajudicial collection of time-barred debts, especially in the context of digital negotiation platforms.
The controversy goes beyond the traditional analysis of prescription as an institution of substantive law and extends its effects to the legitimacy of contemporary debt recovery practices, the protection of consumer dignity, and the very legal certainty of contractual relationships.
On the one hand, it is undeniable that prescription does not extinguish the substantive right to credit, converting the civil obligation into a natural obligation, a circumstance that has historically supported the admissibility of extrajudicial collection.
On the other hand, the massification of consumer relations and the use of digital tools capable of influencing consumer behavior impose the need to reassess the ethical and legal limits of this action, especially when communication about the debt is likely to generate confusion, embarrassment, or a false perception of enforceability.
In this scenario, the definition to be established by the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) should seek a balance between opposing interests, preserving the legitimate right of creditors to organize and manage their credits, without undermining the protective function of prescription and the principles of objective good faith, transparency, and human dignity.
More than declaring a particular practice lawful or unlawful, the challenge lies in establishing clear parameters for action, capable of guiding the market, reducing litigation, and providing predictability to consumer relations.
Thus, Topic 1.264 is not merely a technical discussion about the enforceability of time-barred debts, but an opportunity for institutional maturation of the legal system, requiring companies to commit to good practices and consumers to be more aware of their rights.
The outcome of the trial will have a direct impact on how credit is recovered in Brazil and on building a more balanced, responsible, and legally secure consumer environment.
References
SILVA JUNIOR, Anibal Pereira da; MAZETTI, Monique Roskoi. STJ Theme 1.264 and its impact on debt collection and litigation. Migalhas, August 6, 2025. Available at: https://www.migalhas.com.br/depeso/436112/tema-1-264-do-stj-e-seu-impacto-na-cobranca-e-litigiosidad
BRAZIL. Law No. 10.406, of January 10, 2002. Establishes the Civil Code. Official Gazette of the Union: section 1, Brasília, DF, January 11, 2002. Art. 882.
BRAZIL. Superior Court of Justice. AgInt in AREsp No. 1.592.662/SP, Rapporteur Justice Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva, Third Panel, decided on August 31, 2020, published in the Official Gazette on September 3, 2020.
BRAZIL. Superior Court of Justice. Special Appeal No. 1.694.322/SP, Rapporteur Justice Nancy Andrighi, Third Panel, decided on November 7, 2017, published in the Official Gazette on November 13, 2017.
BRAZIL. Superior Court of Justice. REsp No. 2.092.190/SP , Topic 1264 – Extrajudicial collection of time-barred debt, case assigned on 06/11/2024. Available at: STJ database.
BRAZIL. Superior Court of Justice. REsp No. 2.121.593/SP , Topic 1264 – Extrajudicial collection of time-barred debt, case assigned on 06/11/2024. Available at: STJ database.
BRAZIL. Superior Court of Justice. REsp No. 2.122.017/SP , Topic 1264 – Extrajudicial collection of time-barred debt, case assigned on 06/11/2024. Available at: STJ database.
BRAZIL. Superior Court of Justice. REsp No. 2.088.100/SP , Rapporteur Justice Nancy Andrighi, Third Panel, decided on October 17, 2023, published in the Official Gazette on October 23, 2023. Rejects the possibility of judicial and extrajudicial collection of a time-barred debt.
FURTADO, Diogo Dantas de Moraes. Extrajudicial collection of time-barred debts: STJ Theme 1264 and its impact on the legal governance of companies and financial institutions. JOTA Info, Opinion and Analysis section, Legal & Business collection. Available at: https://www.jota.info/opiniao-e-analise/colunas/legal-business/cobranca-extrajudicial-de-dividas-prescritas
MARQUES SILVA, Anna Carolina Gouveia; ISSA VIEIRA, Nathália Mariah Mazzeo. Statute-barred debt collected by Serasa Limpa Nome: a legal or illegal practice? Consultor Jurídico ( ConJur ), September 18, 2024.
