People began removing the stickers without buying the bottles
Em supermercados brasileiros, uma campanha promocional da Coca-Cola ligada à Copa do Mundo de 2026 encontrou uma resistência inesperada: consumidores removem as etiquetas exclusivas das garrafas sem efetuarem a compra, levando as figurinhas e deixando o produto para trás. O fenômeno, registrado em vídeos nas redes sociais, revela uma tensão antiga entre escassez fabricada e desejo humano — quando algo se torna raro e cobiçado, nem sempre os limites estabelecidos pelas regras são suficientes para conter o impulso de obtê-lo. Empresas e varejistas respondem com cautela, tratando os casos como episódios isolados enquanto a Copa se aproxima.
- Vídeos circulam nas redes mostrando garrafas de Coca-Cola com etiquetas arrancadas nas prateleiras, expondo uma brecha inesperada na campanha de figurinhas da Copa do Mundo 2026.
- A prática — retirar a etiqueta promocional sem comprar o produto — viola as regras da promoção e deixa os varejistas em posição delicada diante de consumidores que encontram garrafas já esvaziadas de seu apelo.
- Supermercados respondem com avisos afixados nas geladeiras e até fita adesiva nas garrafas, improvisando soluções físicas para um problema que nasceu do desejo coletivo por itens escassos.
- A Coca-Cola reafirma que a conduta é irregular e garante procedimentos de reposição para casos isolados, enquanto o setor varejista, por ora, não registra alertas internos nem reclamações formais em escala preocupante.
Nas geladeiras de supermercados brasileiros, garrafas de Coca-Cola aparecem com as etiquetas rasgadas ou completamente removidas — sinais de que alguém passou antes, levou as figurinhas exclusivas da Copa do Mundo 2026 e deixou o produto para trás. Os vídeos que documentam o fenômeno se espalharam pelas redes sociais com rapidez suficiente para forçar uma resposta dos estabelecimentos: avisos colados perto das prateleiras refrigeradas e, em pelo menos um supermercado em Brusque, Santa Catarina, fita adesiva nas próprias garrafas.
A campanha, desenvolvida em parceria com a Panini — produtora histórica do álbum oficial da Copa —, segue uma lógica de marketing bem conhecida: criar escassez, despertar desejo, impulsionar vendas. O modelo funcionou. A procura pelas garrafas promocionais foi intensa, repetindo o sucesso de edições anteriores. Mas entre a fábrica e o caixa, uma brecha se abriu.
A Coca-Cola, consultada pelo O Globo, foi direta: remover etiquetas sem comprar o produto viola as regras da promoção. A empresa acrescentou que cabe a cada varejista adotar as medidas de segurança que julgar adequadas. A Panini preferiu não comentar. Já o setor varejista, nos bastidores, demonstra pouca preocupação — nenhum alerta interno relevante foi emitido, nenhuma enxurrada de reclamações formais chegou a caracterizar um problema sistêmico.
Rodrigo Castro, responsável pelo setor de bebidas do Supermercados Mundial, confirmou esse diagnóstico: casos pontuais, sem impacto real nas operações. Para as situações em que etiquetas são danificadas, a Coca-Cola mantém procedimentos de reposição. O monitoramento continua, mas sem urgência declarada — ao menos por enquanto, enquanto a Copa se aproxima e a caça às figurinhas segue seu curso.
Across Brazilian supermarkets, a peculiar kind of theft has begun to surface. Videos posted to social media show Coca-Cola bottles stripped of their promotional labels—the stickers that conceal exclusive World Cup trading cards from the 2026 tournament. In some images, the damage is obvious: ripped edges, missing sections, the telltale signs of someone's fingers working quickly to peel away what they came for. In others, the bottles sit bare on shelves, their purpose already extracted and abandoned. The phenomenon has spread enough that store managers have started posting warnings near the refrigerated sections, asking customers not to remove the labels. One supermarket in Brusque, Santa Catarina, belonging to the Archer chain, felt compelled to tape down the bottles themselves, a small act of prevention in what has become an unexpected problem.
The promotion itself is straightforward enough. Coca-Cola partnered with Panini, the company that has produced the official World Cup album for decades, to distribute exclusive trading cards inside specially marked bottles. It's a marketing tactic as old as soft drinks themselves—create scarcity, create desire, drive sales. The campaign has worked. Demand for the promotional bottles has been strong, repeating the success of previous World Cup tie-ins. But somewhere between the factory and the checkout counter, a gap opened. People began removing the stickers without buying the bottles, taking the cards and leaving the product behind.
The scale of the problem remains unclear, which is itself telling. Coca-Cola, when contacted by O Globo, stated flatly that removing labels without purchasing the product violates the promotion's rules. The company noted that individual retailers have the autonomy to implement whatever security measures they deem appropriate. Panini declined to comment, directing inquiries back to the beverage maker. But behind the scenes, the retail sector appears largely unbothered. Sources within the industry told the newspaper that no significant internal alerts have been issued, no formal complaints have accumulated, and the incidents are being treated as isolated occurrences rather than a systemic problem requiring urgent intervention.
Rodrigo Castro, who oversees the beverage section at Supermercados Mundial, confirmed this measured assessment. His chain has recorded only scattered cases, he said, nothing that has disrupted store operations or triggered real concern. When isolated incidents do occur, Coca-Cola has procedures in place to replace the damaged promotional labels, minimizing waste and protecting consumers who purchased bottles legitimately. The company continues to monitor the situation closely, as does the retailer, but neither sees the need for extraordinary measures at this moment.
What emerges from this small controversy is a portrait of a system responding to friction without panic. The sticker hunt that was meant to delight consumers has instead revealed a gap between intention and behavior—a reminder that when you create something scarce and desirable, some people will find ways to take it that the designers did not anticipate. The supermarkets have responded with tape and signs. The companies have responded with statements and procedures. Whether that will be enough remains to be seen as the World Cup approaches and the hunt for cards continues.
Citações Notáveis
The removal of labels without purchasing the product is in violation of the promotion's regulations— Coca-Cola statement to O Globo
We've had only isolated situations, nothing that has generated significant impact in stores or major concern— Rodrigo Castro, beverage manager at Supermercados Mundial
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why would someone go to the trouble of peeling a sticker off a bottle they're not buying? What's the appeal?
The cards inside are exclusive—you can't get them any other way. If you're collecting, you want them all. Buying every bottle gets expensive fast. Peeling the label takes thirty seconds and costs nothing.
So it's essentially theft, but of something so small that stores don't know how to respond?
Exactly. It's not shoplifting in the traditional sense. You're not taking the bottle. You're taking something that was meant to be inside it, but the bottle itself stays behind. It creates a weird gray zone.
Why haven't the companies cracked down harder?
Because the problem is still small enough to manage with tape and replacement procedures. If it explodes into something bigger, they'll have to rethink the whole promotion. For now, they're watching and waiting.
Does this say something about how people relate to these kinds of campaigns?
It says that when you make something scarce and collectible, people will find creative ways to get it. The promotion worked—demand is high. But it also created an incentive structure that some people are exploiting. The companies designed the desire; they just didn't design for this particular way of satisfying it.