His presence gave the company an aura of legitimacy it did not deserve
Quando uma figura pública empresta seu rosto a uma promessa financeira, torna-se, aos olhos da lei, parte dessa promessa. No Brasil, o apresentador Rodrigo Faro foi condenado por publicidade enganosa após endossar a TRIÊ Soluções Financeiras, empresa que cobrou de uma consumidora por serviços que jamais foram prestados — resultando na perda de seu veículo. A sentença, proferida em dezembro de 2025, lembra que a confiança depositada em um rosto conhecido tem valor real, e que esse valor implica responsabilidade real.
- Márcia Regina pagou por uma renegociação de financiamento que nunca chegou ao credor — e perdeu o carro que dependia dessa promessa.
- A presença de Faro nas peças publicitárias da TRIÊ não era decorativa: foi ela que convenceu a consumidora de que a empresa era confiável.
- A juíza classificou o endosso do apresentador como 'manifestamente enganoso e reprovável', recusando qualquer distância entre celebridade e consequência.
- Faro e a TRIÊ foram condenados a restituir R$ 4.000 pelos serviços não prestados e a pagar R$ 15.000 em danos, totalizando R$ 19.000.
- A decisão sinaliza um novo patamar de responsabilidade jurídica para influenciadores e apresentadores que promovem serviços financeiros no país.
Rodrigo Faro, um dos rostos mais conhecidos da televisão brasileira, foi condenado por publicidade enganosa em um caso que expõe os riscos legais de celebridades que associam seus nomes a empresas de serviços financeiros. A consumidora Márcia Regina da Silva Pauli processou tanto Faro quanto a TRIÊ Soluções Financeiras após a empresa não cumprir o que prometeu: renegociar seu contrato de financiamento veicular e reduzir os juros.
O esquema parecia simples. Márcia Regina pagou uma taxa que deveria ser repassada ao credor para reestruturar sua dívida. O dinheiro nunca chegou ao destino. Em vez de ver sua situação resolvida, ela teve o veículo apreendido por inadimplência no contrato original — ficou sem carro e sem o dinheiro que havia pago por um serviço que nunca foi executado.
Ao levar o caso à Justiça, sua defesa argumentou que o endosso público de Faro conferiu à TRIÊ uma legitimidade que ela não merecia. Como figura de confiança na televisão brasileira, sua presença nas peças de marketing foi determinante para que consumidoras como Márcia Regina optassem pelos serviços da empresa.
Em 11 de dezembro, a juíza responsável pelo caso condenou ambos os réus. Além da restituição de cerca de R$ 4.000 pelos serviços não prestados, Faro e a TRIÊ foram condenados a pagar R$ 15.000 em danos — totalizando R$ 19.000. A magistrada foi direta ao avaliar a conduta do apresentador, apontando seu 'papel ativo na divulgação do empreendimento' e sua responsabilidade não apenas pelo prejuízo de Márcia Regina, mas pelo padrão de danos causados a outros clientes.
A sentença estabelece um precedente relevante no direito do consumidor brasileiro: celebridades que endossam produtos financeiros não podem se esquivar das consequências quando as empresas que promovem enganam o público. Para Faro, é uma condenação com peso profissional e financeiro. Para o setor, é um aviso de que o valor de um nome famoso vem acompanhado de responsabilidade jurídica concreta.
Rodrigo Faro, one of Brazil's most recognizable television personalities, has been found liable for deceptive advertising in a case that exposes the legal risks celebrities face when lending their names to financial services companies. A consumer named Márcia Regina da Silva Pauli sued both Faro and TRIÊ Soluções Financeiras after the company failed to deliver on promises to renegotiate her vehicle financing contract and reduce her interest payments.
The arrangement seemed straightforward enough. Márcia Regina paid the company a fee that was supposed to be forwarded to her lender to restructure her loan terms. The money never reached the financing company. Instead of her debt being resolved, her vehicle was seized due to unpaid obligations on the original contract. She was left without transportation and out the money she had paid for services that were never rendered.
When Márcia Regina brought her case to court in January of this year, she named both the financial services firm and Faro as defendants. Her legal team argued that Faro's public endorsement of TRIÊ gave the company an aura of legitimacy it did not deserve. As a trusted face on Brazilian television, Faro's association with the firm influenced her decision to use their services. His presence in the company's marketing materials was not incidental—it was central to how the business attracted customers like her.
On Thursday, December 11th, the judge overseeing the case ruled against both defendants. The court ordered Faro and TRIÊ to reimburse Márcia Regina approximately R$4,000 for the services she paid for but never received. Beyond that, they were ordered to pay an additional R$15,000 in damages for the harm caused to her. The total liability came to R$19,000.
In her ruling, the judge was direct about Faro's culpability. She found that he had promoted the company's services in a manner that was "manifestly deceptive and reprehensible." More significantly, she noted that Faro had taken an "active role in publicizing the enterprise" and bore responsibility not only for Márcia Regina's losses but for the broader pattern of harm inflicted on other customers. The court also found TRIÊ guilty of failing to deliver on its contractual obligations and violating the terms of the agreement it had made with Márcia Regina.
The case marks a notable moment in Brazilian consumer protection law. It establishes that celebrities who endorse financial products cannot simply distance themselves from the companies they promote. When those companies deceive consumers, the public figures attached to them can be held legally accountable. For Faro, the conviction represents a significant professional and financial consequence. For other television personalities and influencers who lend their names to financial services, it serves as a warning that their endorsement carries real legal weight and real legal risk.
Notable Quotes
The judge stated Faro presented the services in a manner that was 'manifestly deceptive and reprehensible' and bore responsibility for harm to multiple customers beyond just the plaintiff.— The presiding judge
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did the judge hold Faro personally responsible? Couldn't he claim he was just doing his job as a spokesperson?
The judge found he wasn't passive. He took an active role in promoting the company. That matters legally. He didn't just appear in an ad—he was part of how the company built trust with customers like Márcia Regina.
But how much did Faro know about what TRIÊ was actually doing with the money?
The ruling doesn't detail what Faro knew or didn't know. What it establishes is that it doesn't matter much. If you lend your credibility to a company, you bear some responsibility for what that company does in your name.
R$19,000 seems like a lot for one person's case. Will this change how celebrities approach endorsements?
It should. This ruling says your face, your reputation—those aren't free to use. If the product fails, you're not insulated from the consequences. That's a real shift.
What about TRIÊ itself? Are they still operating?
The ruling doesn't say. But a company that fails to deliver on its core service and gets publicly convicted of deception doesn't usually survive long. The damage is done either way.
Could Márcia Regina have avoided this if she'd been more skeptical?
She did what most people do—she trusted the endorsement. That's exactly why the law is stepping in now. The judge is saying that trust shouldn't be weaponized against consumers.