The use of messaging apps and social media as a means of judicial communication has been gaining increasing prominence in the Brazilian procedural system. The popularization of WhatsApp and other digital platforms has brought to the forefront relevant discussions about the validity and effectiveness of acts such as summonses, subpoenas, and notifications carried out through electronic means.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, social distancing accelerated the digitalization of the Judiciary. Courts, lawyers, and parties adapted to the new reality with virtual hearings, electronic notifications, and intensive use of systems such as the PJe (Electronic Judicial Process). It was in this context that notifications via apps began to be seen as viable and efficient tools.
The advancement of Digital Justice has demanded a reinterpretation of traditional procedural rules. The 2015 Code of Civil Procedure had already made the form of procedural acts more flexible, provided their purpose was achieved. With the health emergency, this understanding gained strength, prioritizing effectiveness over formalism.
The use of social networks and electronic messaging, however, still raises legal and constitutional questions. Issues such as verifying the recipient's identity , respecting the right to a fair hearing , and protecting the right to a full defense need to be carefully analyzed. This article aims to discuss the advances, challenges, and limitations of using new technologies for procedural communications.
The legal admissibility of digital summons and notifications.
Summons and notification are essential procedural acts, as they ensure that the defendant is aware of the claim and becomes a party to the litigation. Without this, the process is invalid: any judgment will lack the prerequisite of adversarial proceedings and the right to a full defense.
All regulations – CPC, Law 9.099/95, CNJ Resolution 185/2013 (PJe) and Resolution 335/2020 (PDPJ-Br) – allow electronic forms of judicial communication, provided they ensure unequivocal notification to the recipient, in accordance with the principle of procedural economy.
From a constitutional standpoint, these modalities mobilize procedural guarantees, such as due process of law (article 5, LIV) and the right to a full defense (article 5, LV). Any innovation must preserve these rights, guaranteeing full understanding and the opportunity to respond.
The jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), especially under the reporting of Minister Nancy Andrighi in August 2023, recognized that service of process via WhatsApp can be valid if it demonstrates unequivocal knowledge, but it can also be annulled if confirmation of identity is lacking, compromising legal certainty.
Relevant precedents and the role of case law
The use of messaging applications for summons and subpoenas has been increasingly accepted by case law, provided that basic guarantees are respected, such as the identity of the recipient and unequivocal knowledge of the act.
Decision of the 44th Civil Court of São Paulo
The judge authorized service of process via WhatsApp, given the ineffectiveness of traditional methods. The following were required:
- Sending the copy of the summons via the app;
- Read receipt;
- A clear message directing the defendant to seek legal counsel.
The decision highlighted the principles of reasonableness and efficiency as the basis for the measure.
STJ – HC 641.877/DF
Although it declared the summons null and void in that specific case, the Superior Court of Justice recognized the possibility of service of process via WhatsApp, provided that:
- that it is guaranteed Defendant's identity;
- there is unequivocal science from the quote.
Other courts and the CNJ
State courts, such as the TJSP (Court of Justice of São Paulo), have validated summonses via apps in specific situations. The CNJ (National Council of Justice), in turn, reinforces this trend with recommendations that encourage the use of technology, such as Recommendations 70/2020 and 313/2020.
These precedents point to an evolution in the judicial process, valuing effectiveness and adaptation to new digital realities, without abandoning constitutional guarantees.
Constitutional challenges and guarantees
The use of applications such as WhatsApp for procedural acts, especially summons and notifications, requires special attention to fundamental constitutional principles, such as due process, the right to a full defense, and the right to a fair hearing. The greatest challenge lies in ensuring that the recipient of the communication is, in fact, the correct person.
How can we guarantee the recipient's identity?
It is essential to prove that the number used actually belongs to the defendant. This verification can be done based on previous interactions recorded in the case file, such as screenshots of conversations, messages sent by lawyers or parties, or even through searches in judicial and administrative systems.
Confirmation of identity is fundamental to the validity of the summons. If the person summoned is not the actual defendant, the entire process may be compromised. Therefore, it is recommended that this form of summons only be authorized when traditional methods (letter or court officer) are not feasible.
The role of the court officer in validation.
The public faith of the court officer is one of the pillars of security in the execution of procedural acts. When serving a summons via WhatsApp, they can attest to the authenticity of the account, send a copy of the summons, and certify that the message has been read (for example, through confirmation of receipt or reading with the two blue ticks).
Furthermore, the officer may use supplementary resources, such as video or audio calls, to confirm the defendant's identity. These precautions increase the reliability of the act and prevent future invalidations.
Possible grounds for annulment and preventive measures
Among the most frequent risks are:
- use of outdated number ou abandoned;
- cell phones without Internet access at the time of the summons;
- Accounts cloned or shared with third parties.
If there is a flaw in the communication, the defendant may allege the summons is invalid, a situation that could lead to the annulment of subsequent procedural acts. To avoid this, the judge must justify the authorization of service by application, making it clear that other attempts have failed and that the measure is exceptional and justified.
Ways to preserve guarantees
Several measures can be taken to reinforce the validity of digital communications:
- require that the number used be demonstrably linked to the defendant;
- to determine that the summons should preferably be served by a court officer;
- File screenshots of the conversation and delivery and read receipts in the case file.
Adopting these precautions preserves the fundamental rights of the defendant and ensures that the modernization of the judicial process does not compromise its legitimacy. At the same time, it allows the Judiciary to advance in solutions compatible with the digital age, without sacrificing legal certainty.
Trend towards modernization of Digital Justice
Innovation in the Brazilian Judiciary is advancing under the banner of Justice 4.0 , which combines technology, data, and artificial intelligence to streamline processes. The Justice 4.0 program, led by the CNJ (National Council of Justice) in partnership with the UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) and higher courts, has already delivered platforms such as the Virtual Helpdesk, the 100% Digital Court, and the Electronic Judicial Domicile. These projects combine automation and integration between courts, promoting greater efficiency, transparency, and interaction with society.
The 100% Digital Court allows all procedural acts to be carried out remotely. Complementing this, the Virtual Help Desk, offered by several courts (such as the Superior Court of Justice, the Court of Justice of São Paulo, and the Regional Labor Court), provides remote service via videoconference, gaining traction after CNJ Resolution 372/21.
In this context, service of process via apps emerges as yet another element of digital transformation. This alternative method integrates with digital justice, promoting accessibility, speed, and procedural economy. Although still in the process of normative consolidation, service of process via WhatsApp reflects the transition from traditional formality to a logic based on effectiveness and digital inclusion.
This trend generates direct benefits:
- AccessibilityIt facilitates access to the judiciary, especially for people who already depend on their cell phones.
- SpeedIt reduces processing times and eliminates the delays associated with physical letters and summonses.
- BusinessIt reduces operational costs related to transportation, mail, and personnel.
The digital revolution in the Judiciary is advancing with a focus on the citizen and efficiency. Summons via WhatsApp, within an ecosystem that includes Digital Courts, Virtual Counters, and automation, represents the future: a justice system without geographical barriers, more agile and connected . However, it is important to ensure transparency, data security, and respect for fundamental rights, so that modernization is also fair and reliable.
The closing thought
The use of apps like WhatsApp for service of process reflects the evolution of the judicial process towards a more digital, accessible, and efficient justice system. Supported by jurisprudence and the advancement of programs like Justice 4.0, this practice is gaining ground, provided that the constitutional principles of adversarial proceedings, full defense, and due process are respected. For professionals working in Constitutional Law and Civil Procedure, understanding the limits and potential of this innovation is essential. Want to deepen your knowledge of technology in the Judiciary and procedural modernization? Learn about the IDP 's Postgraduate Program in Constitutional Law and be prepared for the challenges of the digital age.
References
BRAZIL. Constitution (1988). Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil, promulgated on October 5, 1988. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm.
BRAZIL. Superior Court of Justice. Service of process via messaging app may be valid if it provides unequivocal notice of the legal action. Published on: August 22, 2023. Available at: https://www.stj.jus.br/sites/portalp/Paginas/Comunicacao/Noticias/2023/22082023-Citacao-por-aplicativo-de-mensagem-pode-ser-valida-se-der-ciencia-inequivoca-da-acao-judicial.aspx.
CAVALCANTI, Lavínia. The legal possibility of electronic summons via WhatsApp . Consultor Jurídico, April 23, 2020. Available at: https://www.conjur.com.br/2020-abr-23/cavalcanti-possibilidade-juridica-citacoes-eletronicas/.
MELLO, Felipe Varela; MAZZARO, Jeronimo. Citation via messaging app and social networks under debate at the Superior Court of Justice . Consultor Jurídico, May 28, 2025. Available at: https://www.conjur.com.br/2025-mai-28/citacao-por-aplicativo-de-mensagem-e-redes-sociais-em-debate-no-stj/.
NUNES, Dierle. Citation via WhatsApp and recent STJ decision: text co-written with ChatGPT . Consultor Jurídico, August 24, 2023. Available at: https://www.conjur.com.br/2023-ago-24/dierle-nunes-citacao-whatsapp-recente-decisao-stj/.
RIBEIRO, Flávia Pereira; COSTA, César Augusto. Brief notes on citation via WhatsApp. Migalhas, July 14, 2021. Available at: https://www.migalhas.com.br/depeso/348506/breves-apontamentos-sobre-a-citacao-por-whatsapp.
