The charges landed on monthly bills, forcing customers to pay to avoid penalties.
Por quatorze anos, o Itaú Unibanco cobrou de seus clientes seguros que jamais foram contratados — pequenas quantias mensais que, somadas ao silêncio institucional, tornaram-se um dano coletivo de proporções consideráveis. O acordo firmado com o Ministério Público e o Instituto Brasileiro de Defesa do Consumidor não é apenas uma vitória jurídica: é o reconhecimento tardio de que a confiança depositada em uma instituição financeira foi sistematicamente explorada. Agora, cabe aos próprios prejudicados reunir as provas do que lhes foi tirado — e fazê-lo antes que o prazo os alcance.
- Durante 14 anos, cobranças não autorizadas de seguros foram embutidas nas faturas do Itaucard, tornando quase impossível para o consumidor recusar o pagamento sem arcar com juros e penalidades.
- Clientes que tentaram cancelar os produtos relataram recusas diretas ou promessas vazias — o banco continuava cobrando mesmo após pedidos formais de cancelamento.
- Os valores individuais eram pequenos — R$12,99, R$4,30, R$26,90 por mês — mas a acumulação silenciosa ao longo de anos representou perdas reais e invisíveis para milhares de pessoas.
- Um acordo entre o Itaú, o Ministério Público de Minas Gerais e o Idec estabelece agora um caminho formal para reembolso, exigindo documentação de cobranças e reclamações feitas dentro do período de 14 anos.
- O prazo para solicitar o ressarcimento é 23 de março de 2028 — menos de dois anos — e a responsabilidade de reunir provas recai inteiramente sobre os consumidores lesados.
O Itaú Unibanco firmou um acordo com o Ministério Público e o Instituto Brasileiro de Defesa do Consumidor para reembolsar clientes cobrados por seguros que nunca contrataram. As cobranças apareceram nas faturas do Itaucard entre junho de 2011 e dezembro de 2025 — catorze anos de débitos não autorizados embutidos em contas mensais.
O mecanismo era perverso em sua simplicidade: ao inserir os valores diretamente na fatura, o banco forçava o pagamento integral para evitar juros e multas. Quem tentava cancelar ouvia negativas ou recebia promessas que não eram cumpridas. Os casos documentados revelam um padrão amplo: um cliente em Brasília pagou R$12,99 por mês por um seguro residencial que nunca pediu; uma mulher em Porto Alegre foi cobrada R$33,90 por seguro em um cartão Marisa Itaucard sem qualquer solicitação; outros acumularam cobranças duplas por serviços igualmente não contratados. Houve até clientes cobrados por seguros em cartões que nunca chegaram a ativar.
Para ter direito ao reembolso, o consumidor precisa comprovar tanto a cobrança indevida na fatura quanto uma reclamação formal registrada no período — seja no Procon, no portal federal do consumidor, no Reclame Aqui ou no próprio banco. Os documentos devem ser enviados a um endereço de e-mail dedicado até 23 de março de 2028.
O acordo é um reconhecimento formal de um dano sistemático. Mas a ironia persiste: após anos de cobranças que exigiram zero esforço do banco, são os próprios prejudicados que precisam agir — reunir registros, localizar reclamações antigas e cumprir um prazo que se aproxima. Quem não o fizer perde a chance de recuperar o que foi silenciosamente retirado.
Itaú Unibanco has agreed to reimburse customers who were charged for insurance products they never authorized, a settlement reached after years of complaints to Brazil's public prosecutor and consumer defense authorities. The charges appeared directly on Itaucard credit card statements between June 2011 and December 2025—a span of fourteen years during which the bank systematically billed customers for coverage they did not request.
The investigation began when consumers reported being charged for insurance premiums and other services without their consent. What made the scheme particularly difficult to resist was the mechanics of how it worked: the charges landed on monthly credit card bills, forcing customers to pay the full amount to avoid interest, penalties, and other financial consequences the following month. When customers tried to cancel these products or demand refunds, the bank either refused the cancellation outright or promised to stop the charges while continuing to bill them anyway.
The cases documented in the public prosecutor's civil action reveal the pattern's scope. A customer in Brasília discovered he was being charged R$12.99 each month for a "home insurance" product he had never contracted. Over a single year, this accumulated to roughly R$156—money he would never have authorized had the charges been transparent. A woman in Porto Alegre found herself billed R$33.90 for insurance on a Marisa Itaucard without any request on her part. Another customer reported being charged R$26.90 for "invoice protection insurance," while yet another faced dual unauthorized charges of R$13.90 for "secure purchase insurance" and R$4.30 for "automatic message sending." Some customers were even billed for insurance on cards they had never activated.
The agreement, negotiated between Itaú, the Public Ministry of Minas Gerais, and the Brazilian Consumer Defense Institute, establishes a process for affected customers to claim reimbursement. To qualify, a customer must provide evidence of the unauthorized charge appearing on their statement and proof that they filed a complaint through official channels—whether with Procon, the federal consumer portal, the public prosecutor's office, public defender's office, the consumer institute, Reclame Aqui, or the bank itself. Both the charge and the complaint must fall within the fourteen-year window.
Customers have until March 23, 2028 to submit their claims. They must gather their billing records and complaint documentation and send them to a dedicated email address the bank has established. Itaú has stated it will review each submission and process refunds only after verifying the documents provided. The bank has also warned customers that it will never request payment as part of this reimbursement process and will not contact them by phone asking for passwords, security codes, or personal information.
The settlement represents a formal acknowledgment of systematic harm. For fourteen years, thousands of customers paid for services they did not want, often in small monthly increments that accumulated into substantial sums over time. The burden fell on individual consumers to notice the charges, understand they were unauthorized, navigate complaint systems, and now—years later—gather evidence to prove what happened. The deadline for claims is less than two years away, meaning customers who were harmed must act soon or lose their opportunity to recover what was taken.
Notable Quotes
The bank either refused cancellation or promised to stop the charges while continuing to bill them anyway— Public Ministry of Minas Gerais civil action
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did the bank keep charging people even after they complained?
Because the charges were embedded in the credit card bill itself. If you don't pay the full bill, you get hit with interest and penalties. So customers paid rather than risk their credit. When they complained, the bank could simply ignore them or promise to stop while continuing to bill.
How many people are we talking about?
The source doesn't give a total number, but the pattern was systematic across fourteen years. The cases mentioned—someone in Brasília, someone in Porto Alegre—suggest this was widespread, not isolated.
What's the actual amount people lost?
It varies. One customer paid R$156 in a year for a single unwanted charge. Another was hit with R$33.90 monthly. Some faced multiple charges at once. Over fourteen years, for thousands of customers, the total harm is substantial.
Why did it take so long to stop?
Consumers had to complain through official channels first, then gather evidence, then submit claims. The system required individual action. There was no automatic refund, no acknowledgment from the bank until this settlement.
What happens now?
Customers have until March 2028 to prove what happened. They need the billing records and proof they complained. If they can show both, they get reimbursed. But they have to do the work themselves.