Company is condemned in RN after selling designer items and delivering fake clothes Freepik A logistics and marketing company was ordered by the Rio Grande do Norte Court to return R$9,821.80 to a consumer who bought clothes advertised as designer, but received products different from those chosen. The decision also determined the payment of R$4,000 for moral damages. The sentence was handed down by judge Demetrio Demeval Trigueiro do Vale Neto, from the Special Civil, Criminal and Public Treasury Court of the District of Goianinha. The judge acknowledged misleading advertising, lack of information and non-compliance with the offer. ? Click here to follow the g1 RN channel on WhatsApp According to the process, the consumer purchased, in June 2024, several pieces of clothing advertised on a social network. The purchase price was R$8,000, paid via Pix. After the purchase, the customer was informed that the products would be shipped from China, information that, according to the process, had not been presented before the purchase. In addition, R$1,821.80 in import taxes was charged. When receiving the order, the consumer stated that the items were different from the advertised and chosen products. The goods were returned to the company with a request for an exchange, but after more than six months he had not received the correct products or a refund. In the action, the customer claimed that he was misled by the advertising and that he did not receive information about the origin of the products and the additional costs. He also stated that he tried to resolve the problem directly with the company, without obtaining a solution. The company was named in the process, but did not present a defense and did not attend the hearing. As a result, the Court ruled in default and considered the allegations presented by the consumer to be true, as provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure. Decision In the sentence, the judge applied the rules of the Consumer Protection Code (CDC) and stated that there was a failure to provide the service, due to the delivery of products that did not comply with the offer, the lack of information and the retention of values ??after the return of the goods. "The refund of the total amount of R$ 9,821.80 is an imperative measure to avoid the defendant's illicit enrichment (art. 884 of the Civil Code). The defendant's default means that the allegations of non-receipt of the new products and absence of refund are considered true", highlighted the judge. The Court ordered the termination of the contract and the full refund of the amounts paid by the consumer as compensation for material damage. Regarding moral damages, the judge considered that the situation went beyond a common disorder, taking into account the frustration of the purchase, the unexpected costs and the time spent by the consumer trying to resolve the problem. "The defendant's conduct was based on bad faith and persistent disregard. The author was misled by misleading advertising, had to bear unexpected costs, personally traveled to the physical store in another region to resolve the problem and, even so, was ignored for months. Brazilian jurisprudence, including from this Court, recognizes moral damage in situations of post-sales neglect and serious failure in the delivery of products purchased online. The theory of consumer productive diversion applies here, as the author was compelled to waste his vital time and resources trying to solve a problem caused exclusively by the supplier's negligence”, stated judge Demetrio Demeval.