Companies can’t refuse to provide services requested by the consumer. This is the understanding of the 3rd Group of the "Recursal do Tribunal de Justiça do Distrito Federal”, based on the Consumer Protection Code, Article 39. The section II of this article says that "supplier is prohibited from products or services, among other abuses: (...) II - refuse to attend to consumers demands, the exact extent of their available inventory, and also compliance with the uses and manners; “.The TJ-DF condemned the TIM phone operator to pay damages of R$ 4.000,00 for having denied the provision of services to a consumer. According to the company, the negative of the available of its services took place on the result of consultation promoted in its internal system, called Crivo . However, the company did not specify on which it based, in effect, the refusal to hire the services, merely to say that this was, in short, a decision of the Crivo system. For the justice, the company may refuse to provide the service ultimately; even so, this negative must be well grounded to the client, which did not happen in the case of TIM. The company justified only like "secret and mysterious," such as that the refusal was made ​​based on information from the internal electronic system adopted by the supplier's is attitude that goes against the standards current.

The justice understood that left the necessary assumptions at civil liability pursued by the authors: a) the wrongful act, namely the failure to provide the services provided by the defendant, who wrongfully refused to hire to the authors, in the manner intended, b) embodied moral damages in violation of the privacy of the authors (Article 5, section X , of the Constitution), c) the causal link between the wrongful conduct attributable to the defendant and the damage experienced by the applicant.

Source: Conjur