The case involves a complaint filed by the Office for Collective Consumer and Taxpayer Protection of Rio de Janeiro against Rappi for illegally selling electronic smoking devices (ESDs), leading the Public Prosecutor's Office to initiate a public civil action. The court ruled that Rappi, as an intermediary, is liable for its role in creating a false sense of legitimacy in selling these banned products, violating consumer protection laws. Consequently, Rappi was ordered to remove all ESDs from its platforms and pay damages and litigation costs.
Public Ministry of Rio de Janeiro v. Rappi Intermediação De Negócios LTDA, Vigesima segunda camara de direito privado (antiga 23ª câmara cível)(2023).
Brazil
Sep 30, 2024
Vigesima segunda camara de direito privado (antiga 23ª câmara cível)
Government, through its agencies and officials including prosecutors, may seek to enforce its health laws. For example, the government may revoke the license of a retailer that sells tobacco products to minors. These cases may also directly involve the tobacco industry, for example, a government might impound and destroy improperly labeled cigarette packs.
A violation of the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health. Public health advocates may claim the public’s right to health is violated by weak tobacco control measures, industry tactics, or an organization’s or smokers’ actions.
A violation of the right to carry on trade, business, or profession of a person’s choice. This right may also be called the right to free enterprise or economic freedom. The industry may argue that a business should be able to conduct its business without government regulation, including whether or not to be smoke free.
A violation of the public’s right to information. The tobacco industry may claim that advertising, promotion or sponsorship, or packaging regulations limit the industry’s ability to communicate information to their customers and therefore infringes on the customer’s right to receive information, and to distinguish one product from another. Alternatively, public health advocates may claim that tobacco industry misinformation violates their right to accurate information or that government must be transparent in its dealings with the tobacco industry.
Any violation of a law designed to ensure fair trade, competition, or the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"Failure to comply with the regulations governing the commercialization of products that compromise the health and safety of consumers calls for greater protection from the relevant government entities to combat the illegal practice. Regarding electronic smoking devices, Senacon asserts, on pages 712 and following: "(...) the continuation of the current situation, in addition to violating the legal order, excessively jeopardizes the right to health, safety, information, and transparency of consumers who, due to the lack of transparency in the production chain, purchase products harmful to their health, with high potential for addiction, elevated levels of toxicity, and whose long-term effects are unknown to health authorities. (...) Therefore, it is imperative that the State intervene in this activity to protect consumers' rights and to ensure the integrity of the legal order, given the violation of the applicable regulations, which subjects offenders to the corresponding administrative sanctions. ANVISA plays a recognized role in the health control of products, substances, and services of interest to public health and addresses the issue while observing the legal competence of other agencies. However, when the intervention's objective is directly related to the protection and promotion of citizens' health and safety, as in the case of the prohibition of electronic smoking devices, it is clear that it involves concurrent and complementary competencies with other state agencies. The National Tobacco Control Policy, for example, consists of various fronts and involves the coordination of interministerial bodies and regulatory agencies. According to the legislation on the matter, the following objectives of this policy can be listed: (i) protection against the risks of exposure to tobacco smoke, (ii) restriction of access to tobacco products, (iii) protection of youth, (iv) treatment and support for smokers through the approval of clinical protocols and therapeutic guidelines, (v) restriction of advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products, (vi) public awareness through educational actions, (vii) implementation of the Framework Convention for Tobacco Control (FCTC), issued by the World Health Organization (WHO), (viii) taxation of tobacco products, and finally, (ix) control and supervision of tobacco products."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
The case involves a complaint filed by the Office for Collective Consumer and Taxpayer Protection of Rio de Janeiro against Rappi for illegally selling electronic smoking devices (ESDs), leading the Public Prosecutor's Office to initiate a public civil action. The court ruled that Rappi, as an intermediary, is liable for its role in creating a false sense of legitimacy in selling these banned products, violating consumer protection laws. Consequently, Rappi was ordered to remove all ESDs from its platforms and pay damages and litigation costs.