How consumer litigation entered the era of algorithmic response in Brazil and why it brings human interpretation back to the centre of strategy<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Para ler o artigo em portugu\u00eas, clique aqui<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n At the airport, before even collecting their luggage, a passenger receives a message on their phone. The flight was delayed by three hours. A platform offers hundreds of Brazilian reais in exchange for selling the right to compensation. Within minutes, the ticket data are converted into a claim. The case is filed. The proceedings begin. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Scenes like this have become commonplace. Brazil now registers an unusually high volume of passenger lawsuits against airlines, far above international averages. The phenomenon reflects a system operating at a scale of litigation that is disproportionate by any standard, as documented in the Justice in Numbers 2025<\/em><\/a> report by the National Council of Justice (CNJ), which consolidates official data on Brazil\u2019s procedural volume. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n When comparing Brazil with EU member states using data from the <\/em>European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ)<\/em><\/a>, the report reveals a structural imbalance.<\/em> The rate at which demand is met in Brazil is higher than in Europe. Brazilian judges are, comparatively, more productive\u2014but they face an incoming caseload that has no parallel on the European continent.<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n Source: Justi\u00e7a em N\u00fameros 2025, Conselho Nacional de Justi\u00e7a (CNJ)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n But the phenomenon has evolved. Consumer litigation has entered a new phase\u2014less visible and more sophisticated. Automated claims are now met with automated responses. It is no longer merely a dispute between lawyers. It is a battle of algorithm against algorithm. Research conducted for the launch of the Chambers Brazil Contentious Guide 2026<\/em> confirms this shift. Law firms and inhouse legal teams repeatedly highlighted the central role of technology in managing consumer disputes<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n Institutional recognition of predatory litigation as a systemic problem is relatively recent. In 2024, the CNJ issued Recommendation No. 159\/2024<\/a>, guiding courts to adopt measures to identify and address abusive patterns of mass litigation. The measure formalised what practitioners had already observed: the coordinated repetition of claims with weak factual grounding and high economic pressure. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For defendants, advantage no longer lies in responding to each claim individually, but in the ability to decipher the logic behind the repetitive demands. Lawyers now confront not only the merits of a single case, but the architecture that produced it. Jurimetrics tools make it possible to map concentration by lawyer, repetition of arguments, anomalous distribution across courts, and documentary inconsistencies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Cases like the one that follows are routine. A single firm files dozens of actions per day against the same company. The pattern repeats: real\u00a0claimants but\u00a0living in other cities;\u00a0near-identical\u00a0narratives. By analysing the full\u00a0caseload\u00a0with the support of an AI tool designed for pattern detection, the company\u00a0finds\u00a0a high volume of claims filed by the same lawyer, with\u00a0virtually identical\u00a0texts. The\u00a0combined\u00a0value of the judgments reaches millions.\u00a0Because the automated response\u00a0operates\u00a0at a structural rather than an individual, case\u2011by\u2011case level, it is possible to reduce the amount effectively paid by a significant margin. In situations already\u00a0observed,\u00a0the final sum disbursed has fallen to approximately 1% of the\u00a0initial\u00a0exposure.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n This type of approach mirrors the logic of the\u00a0Judiciary\u2019s Intelligence Centres<\/a>, created to\u00a0identify\u00a0repetitive claims and anomalous patterns. Courts such as the S\u00e3o Paulo Court of Justice (TJSP) and the Federal District Court (TJDFT) have published technical notes on predatory litigation and abusive\u00a0claim-splitting, formally recognising the phenomenon.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n Brazil offers particularly fertile ground for this dynamic. Broad,\u00a0low-cost\u00a0access to small claims courts, the digitalisation of the judiciary, and a strong\u00a0consumer-protection\u00a0culture have lowered the barriers to litigation. Electronic proceedings have\u00a0removed geographical constraints. As a result, forum selection has become strategic\u2014a practice known as forum shopping.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n Consumer Law Partner, Brazilian Law Firm<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n The aviation sector serves as a laboratory for this experiment. Although Brazil accounts for roughly 3% of global air traffic, it is responsible for 95% of the sector\u2019s lawsuits worldwide<\/a>. A study by Abear<\/a> monitoring 20,000 flights by Brazilian airlines in Latin America\u2014with a sample of 46% Brazilians and 54% foreigners\u2014found that one in every 362 Brazilian passengers sought some form of judicial redress, compared with one in every 7,432 foreign passengers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The imbalance in aviation litigation<\/strong><\/p>\n \n Brazil’s aviation sector concentrates a volume of legal claims that is disproportionate to its share of global market.<\/p>\n \n 3%<\/strong> is the number of Brazil’s share of global air network<\/p>\n \n 95%<\/strong> is the number of Brazil’s share of judicial actions<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n Litigation rate per passenger in Latin America<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n \n