Once time runs out, the debtor has earned the right to be left alone.
Diante de uma questão que divide tribunais brasileiros há anos, a 2ª Seção do Superior Tribunal de Justiça suspendeu esta semana o julgamento sobre a legalidade da cobrança extrajudicial de dívidas prescritas e sua inclusão em plataformas de negociação. O caso revela uma tensão mais profunda sobre o que significa o tempo na vida das obrigações humanas: quando o direito de exigir expira, o que resta — uma dívida moral, uma oportunidade comercial ou um instrumento silencioso de pressão? A decisão, ainda pendente, estabelecerá precedente vinculante para milhares de processos e redefinirá os limites entre negociação legítima e coerção velada no sistema de crédito do país.
- O STJ suspendeu o julgamento do Tema 1.264 após sustentações orais, com o ministro relator pedindo mais tempo para analisar o processo — sinal de que a corte reconhece o peso da decisão.
- Bancos e securitizadoras defendem que a prescrição extingue apenas o direito de ação judicial, não a dívida em si, e que plataformas como Serasa Limpa Nome representam oportunidade de acordo, não coerção.
- Advogados consumeristas e a Procuradoria-Geral da República argumentam que notificações, ofertas de quitação e promessas de melhora no score funcionam como mecanismos indiretos de cobrança, violando o Código de Defesa do Consumidor.
- O nó central é que a maioria dos devedores não sabe distinguir dívidas prescritas das exigíveis, e as plataformas não tornam essa diferença clara — transferindo ao consumidor um ônus que ele raramente consegue carregar.
- O precedente a ser firmado determinará se credores podem continuar ofertando acordos sobre dívidas prescritas, se plataformas podem mantê-las listadas e se devedores têm direito à exclusão de seus nomes dessas listas.
O Superior Tribunal de Justiça abriu nesta semana a discussão oral sobre o Tema 1.264, caso destinado a pacificar uma controvérsia que se repete em tribunais de todo o Brasil: é legal que bancos e cobradoras mantenham dívidas prescritas em plataformas de negociação e continuem tentando recebê-las fora do Judiciário? Após as sustentações, o ministro relator pediu vista dos autos, suspendendo o julgamento.
Do lado dos credores, a tese é que a prescrição encerra apenas a via judicial — a dívida permanece, e o devedor pode quitar voluntariamente. Representantes do Banco Itaú e de fundos de crédito argumentaram que plataformas como Serasa Limpa Nome não têm caráter restritivo, mas sim conciliatório, e que proibir acordos sobre dívidas antigas poderia, paradoxalmente, empurrar mais conflitos para os tribunais. A lei civil, lembraram, reconhece expressamente a validade do pagamento voluntário de obrigações prescritas.
Os defensores dos consumidores enxergam o mesmo fenômeno de outro ângulo. Para eles, notificações, ofertas de quitação e promessas de recuperação de score funcionam como cobrança indireta — e a tecnologia exerce pressão mesmo sem ameaça explícita. O problema central, apontado também pela Procuradoria-Geral da República, é que o devedor comum não distingue o que ainda pode ser cobrado judicialmente do que já prescreveu. As plataformas não esclarecem essa diferença. O Código de Defesa do Consumidor, argumentou a PGR, proíbe a divulgação de informações que prejudiquem o acesso ao crédito após a prescrição.
A decisão do STJ criará tese vinculante aplicável a milhares de processos em curso. Ela definirá não apenas o destino das dívidas prescritas, mas também os contornos do que pode ser chamado de negociação legítima em um sistema onde tempo, tecnologia e assimetria de informação moldam silenciosamente as relações entre credores e devedores.
Brazil's highest court of justice paused its examination this week of a question that has divided lower courts for years: whether banks and debt collectors can keep listing expired debts on negotiation platforms and continue trying to collect them outside the courtroom. The 2ª seção of the Superior Court of Justice opened oral arguments on Theme 1.264, a case designated to resolve disputes that recur across the country's legal system. After lawyers for creditors, consumer advocates, and the government's attorney general's office made their cases, the reporting minister asked for time to review the record, effectively suspending the decision.
The tension at the heart of the dispute is straightforward but consequential. Banks and debt securitization firms argue that when a debt becomes prescribed—when the legal window for suing to collect it closes—the obligation itself does not disappear. A debtor can still choose to pay voluntarily. Listing these debts on platforms like Serasa Limpa Nome, they contend, is not coercion but opportunity. It is negotiation, not collection. Maria Eugênia Cotrim, representing Banco Itaú, told the court that such platforms have no restrictive character and that blocking creditors from offering settlement deals on old debts might actually discourage agreements and push more cases into the courts.
Consumer advocates see the same platforms very differently. Giovani Fialho Netto Júnior, speaking for consumer interests, argued that while a debtor may voluntarily pay a prescribed debt, creditors have no right to collect it—and that negotiation platforms, with their notifications, settlement offers, and promises to improve credit scores, function as indirect collection mechanisms. The technology itself exerts pressure. Most debtors do not know which debts are prescribed and which still carry legal force. The burden falls on them to figure it out. Platforms do not clearly distinguish between the two. This, he said, violates consumer protection law.
The government's attorney general, represented by subprocurator José Bonifácio Borges de Andrada, sided with consumer protections. Once a debt is prescribed, he argued, the debtor has a right not to pay and not to be pursued. Keeping a person's name attached to a debt whose enforceability has expired contradicts that right. He pointed to a specific provision of the Consumer Protection Code that forbids disclosure of information that might harm a consumer's access to credit after a debt has prescribed. Credit score mechanisms, he suggested, can function as hidden pressure or restriction.
Other creditor representatives offered variations on the same theme. Luiz Rodrigues Wambier, speaking for Ativos S.A., a credit securitization company, maintained that prescription extinguishes only the right to sue, not the debt itself or the possibility of voluntary payment. Legitimate settlement offers, he said, cannot be deemed illegal simply because time has run out on the creditor's legal claim. Celso Mori, representing Fundo Atlântico de Créditos, went further: prescribed debts can be bought and sold, transferred to investment funds. The law itself, he noted, recognizes that prescribed debts can be paid by pointing to the civil code's allowance for voluntary payment of such obligations. The only limit should be abusive collection practices, not negotiation itself.
What the court decides will ripple across thousands of cases already moving through Brazil's courts. The ruling will establish binding precedent—a fixed legal thesis that lower courts must follow. It will determine whether creditors can continue offering deals on debts that time has rendered unenforceable, whether platforms can keep listing them, and whether debtors have the right to demand removal of their names from such lists. The minister's request for additional time suggests the court recognizes the weight of the choice. No decision has yet been announced.
Citas Notables
Prescription impedes judicial collection but does not extinguish the credit or voluntary payment by the debtor— Maria Eugênia Cotrim, representing Banco Itaú
Once a debt is prescribed, the debtor has the right not to pay and not to be pursued— José Bonifácio Borges de Andrada, Procurador-Geral da República
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does it matter whether a debt is prescribed or not if the person still owes the money?
Because prescription is the law's way of saying the creditor had their chance. After a certain period—usually years—you can't be sued for it anymore. The debt doesn't vanish, but your legal obligation to pay does. The question is whether that protection means anything if creditors can still pressure you to pay through other means.
So the banks are saying they're just offering a deal, not threatening?
Exactly. They say a platform listing is neutral—it's just making the offer visible. But consumer advocates point out that when your name appears on a credit negotiation platform, your credit score drops, lenders won't touch you, and you get constant notifications. That's pressure, even if no one explicitly threatens you.
What does the government think?
The government says once time runs out on a debt, the debtor has earned the right to be left alone. Keeping someone's name on a platform violates that right. It's a form of punishment after the legal punishment has expired.
Can someone actually pay a prescribed debt if they want to?
Yes. The law allows voluntary payment. But there's a difference between allowing someone to pay if they choose and actively recruiting them to pay through platforms designed to make non-payment uncomfortable.
Who wins if the court sides with the banks?
Creditors can keep these platforms running as they are now. Debtors lose leverage—they can't demand their names be removed. Debt becomes a permanent shadow, even after the law says it shouldn't be enforceable.
And if the court sides with consumers?
Prescribed debts come off the platforms. Creditors lose a tool for collecting money they can no longer legally demand. But debtors get what the law promised: the right to move on after time has passed.