Brazil Bank Account Closure Rule Settled by the STJ
BRAZIL · LAW
Key Facts
- —What was decided A bank may end a current account contract unilaterally, and one article of the consumer code does not prevent it.
- —The case Theme 1.119, decided by the STJ’s Second Section on Thursday 3 September 2026.
- —The rapporteur Minister Humberto Martins. The merits were unanimous.
- —The catch The ruling fixes no notice period. The thirty days often quoted came from the facts of the case.
- —What was left out Whether a bank must state a reason was deliberately excluded from the theme.
- —Who brought it Three companies whose accounts Itau Unibanco closed, citing commercial disinterest. They sued in 2019.
The Brazil bank account closure question now has a binding answer. It is narrower than the headlines, and it fixes no notice period.
Brazil’s highest court for federal law has settled the Brazil bank account closure question. A bank may end a current account contract unilaterally.
The Superior Tribunal de Justica decided it on Thursday 3 September 2026. The case is Theme 1.119, heard by the court’s Second Section.
The thesis is narrow and specific. One article of the consumer code, thirty-nine item nine, does not reach this situation.
It cannot be used against a bank ending a current account contract on its own initiative. That is the entire holding.
Minister Humberto Martins was the rapporteur. On the merits the section was unanimous.
What the Brazil Bank Account Closure Ruling Does Not Say
It does not say the consumer code stops applying to banks. That is a much larger claim than the court made.
Article 39, item nine bans refusing to sell goods or services to someone willing to pay. It carries its own exception for intermediation regulated by special laws.
Martins read that exception as covering institutions supervised by the national monetary council. That is the whole legal move.
Everything else in the consumer code remains available to a customer with a complaint.
The Thirty Days Are Not in the Ruling
The binding thesis requires prior communication to the account holder and fulfilment of remaining contractual obligations. It fixes no number of days.
Thirty days appears widely in coverage. It comes from the facts of the lead case, where the plaintiffs were given that period.
The only disagreement among the ministers was whether to write the notice obligation into the thesis text itself. Martins’s position prevailed.
Anyone reporting that the STJ imposed a thirty-day notice rule is describing the case, not the holding.
The Reason Question Was Left Open
Whether a bank must give a specific reason was deliberately kept outside the theme’s limits. The court drew that boundary itself.
In the lead case the stated reason was commercial disinterest. Three companies sued Itau Unibanco in March 2019 after their accounts were closed on that basis.
They lost at the Sao Paulo state court before the case reached the STJ. The state public defenders’ strategic litigation group argued for requiring a proven legitimate motive, and lost.
Who Was and Was Not Involved
Itau Unibanco is reported as the defendant bank in the lead case. That detail comes from a single smaller outlet, with the larger legal publications naming only the appeal number.
Nubank and Santander were not parties. They appear in some headlines as examples of banks the ruling affects.
The thesis is written generically about current account contracts. It is not limited to companies, even though the lead plaintiffs were companies.
What It Means in Practice
For foreign residents this matters more than it looks. Account closures without explanation are a recurring complaint among newcomers to Brazilian banking.
The ruling makes clear that a closure with notice is lawful. It does not make an arbitrary or abusive one lawful.
What is still open is what happens when a customer disputes the motive. The STJ left that door unlocked.
More: Brazil news in English, every day from The Rio Times.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the STJ actually decide?
That article 39, item nine of Brazil’s consumer code does not prevent a bank from unilaterally ending a current account contract. It was decided under Theme 1.119 by the Second Section on 3 September 2026, with Minister Humberto Martins as rapporteur.
Does a bank have to give thirty days’ notice?
The binding thesis fixes no notice period. It requires prior communication to the account holder and fulfilment of remaining contractual obligations. The thirty days widely quoted came from the facts of the lead case.
Must the bank give a reason?
That question was deliberately excluded from the theme. In the lead case the stated reason was commercial disinterest, and the state public defenders’ group argued unsuccessfully for requiring a proven legitimate motive.
Sources: Migalhas, ConJur, Brasil em Folhas, Superior Tribunal de Justica, Rio Times.
This article was drafted with automated assistance and reviewed before publication. How we use AI · Report an error
Read More from The Rio Times