Publications

As society and technology evolve, so do the ways in which services are hired, delivered, and formalized. Over the past few years, these changes have intensified dramatically.

Today, a significant portion of the services people use on a daily basis is provided digitally.

In the financial sector, for example, most services offered to consumers are now electronic — not least because money itself has become “digitized.”

A customer who wants to make a deposit, transfer funds, request payments, or take out a loan no longer needs to visit a bank branch in person. In fact, many financial institutions today operate entirely without physical branches.

Just as the delivery of services has changed, the way contracts are executed has also evolved alongside new technologies. With the rise and sophistication of digital authentication methods, many contracts can now be signed online, without the parties ever meeting in person.

This shift includes even the most routine agreements — especially those arising from relationships between customers and financial institutions.

With these significant changes, it is no surprise that disputes involving electronic contracts have increased.

This raises essential questions:
Are electronic contracts valid? Under any circumstances? Are they still valid when one party is considered vulnerable in the consumer relationship?

Electronic Contracts and Their Legal Validity

The Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure is clear on this point. Article 784, §4 validates electronic contracts whose authentication is completed through any legally recognized form of electronic signature, and further clarifies that witness signatures are unnecessary when the document’s integrity is certified by a signature provider.

While there are official digital certification systems — such as those issued under ICP‑Brasil (Brazil’s Public Key Infrastructure) — courts have consistently held that if there is clear evidence that the consumer knowingly entered into the agreement, the contract is valid and legally enforceable.

This understanding is reinforced by Provisional Measure No. 2.200‑2/2001 (which created ICP‑Brasil), whose Article 10, §2 states:

The provisions of this Provisional Measure do not prevent the use of other means to prove the authorship and integrity of electronic documents, including certificates not issued by ICP‑Brasil, provided they are accepted by the parties or by the person to whom the document is being presented.

How the Courts Have Ruled

Brazilian courts — including in consumer-related cases — have consistently upheld the validity of electronic contracts. More than formal requirements, judges focus on whether the contract was authenticated and whether the consumer’s intent to contract can be reliably demonstrated.

A recent decision from the São Paulo Court of Justice offers a clear example.

In Appeal No. 1004145‑63.2024.8.26.0189, judged by the 21st Chamber of Private Law on April 9, 2025, the court upheld the validity of an electronic agreement for a Bank Credit Note entered into between a consumer and a financial institution.

The court found the contract valid because the bank proved that:

• the consumer executed the credit agreement electronically;
• the process included a facial‑recognition selfie (biometric authentication);
• the electronic signature was collected via the bank’s app;
• and the consumer’s IP address was captured as part of the authentication process.

In his opinion, the reporting judge emphasized that the consumer’s intention was clearly expressed electronically, even without the formalities traditionally associated with in‑person transactions. Key excerpts include:

“After examining the documents, there is no indication of fraud that would justify declaring the debt unenforceable.

Today, electronically executed transactions are extremely common and do not require extensive formalities.

Electronic contracting methods have expanded and diversified, especially in the aftermath of the COVID‑19 pandemic.

It is obvious that electronic contracts do not have the same formalities as those signed in person. That does not invalidate the resulting obligations.

New technological realities require society to adapt — we can no longer demand that transactions occur solely through the traditional methods used just a few years ago.”

What This Means in Practice

If there is no doubt that the consumer intended to enter into the agreement — as in this case, a personal loan — then the contract is valid. As such, the legal consequences of that agreement must be respected both by the courts and by the contracting parties.

Our team specializing in contract law, consumer relations, and civil procedure closely monitors these developments and is available to provide guidance whenever needed.

By Victor Menezes Ribeiro Nunes