---
name: digital-consumer-claims-triage-bossmann007
title: Digital Consumer Claims Triage
description: Triagem de reclamação de consumidor em ambiente digital (cobrança indevida, propaganda enganosa, falha na entrega, chargeback). Análise de mérito e opções de resposta. Rascunho para revisão de advogado.
author: Bossmann007
author_url: https://github.com/Bossmann007/claude-legal-br/tree/main/digital-ecommerce-legal/skills/digital-consumer-claims-triage
license: Apache-2.0
version: 0.1.0
execution_mode: open
jurisdiction: br
practice: consumer
language: en
---

# Digital Consumer Claims Triage

## Matter context

**Matter context.** Check `## Matter workspaces` in the practice-level CLAUDE.md. If `Enabled` is `✗` (the default for in-house users), skip the rest of this paragraph — skills use practice-level context and the matter machinery is invisible. If enabled and there is no active matter, ask: "Which matter is this for? Run `/digital-ecommerce-legal:matter-workspace switch <slug>` or say `practice-level`." Load the active matter's `matter.md` for matter-specific context and overrides. Write outputs to the matter folder at `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/digital-ecommerce-legal/matters/<matter-slug>/`.

---

## Purpose

When a consumer makes a complaint via chat, email, or a platform like Reclame Aqui, the team needs a quick triage: Is the claim valid? What's the exposure? What are our response options?

This skill takes the complaint, applies the relevant law (CDC art. 37, 39, 49, Decreto 7.962/2013, Marco Civil art. 19), and produces a triage memo with legal merit assessment + recommended response.

## Jurisdiction assumption

**Premissa de jurisdição (Brasil):**

- **CDC Art. 37 — Publicidade enganosa:** Qualquer propaganda que induz o consumidor a erro sobre características do produto. `[verified: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l8078compilado.htm]`

- **CDC Art. 39 — Práticas abusivas:** (I) venda casada/limites quantitativos; (II) recusar atendimento às demandas do consumidor; (III) enviar ou entregar produto/serviço sem solicitação; (IV) prevalecer-se de fraqueza/ignorância do consumidor; (V) exigir vantagem manifestamente excessiva. `[verified: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l8078compilado.htm]`

- **CDC Art. 49 — Direito de arrependimento:** Consumidor pode desistir da compra no prazo de 7 dias (corridos, não úteis [verified: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l8078compilado.htm]). Se o cliente reclama 6 dias após a compra, direito existe. Se reclama 8 dias, prescrição completou.

- **Decreto 7.962/2013:** O fornecedor deve informar forma e prazo da entrega ou disponibilização do produto (Art. 2º, V). `[verified: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2013/decreto/d7962.htm]`

> **No silent supplement.** If a research query returns few results for a CDC article or Decreto 7.962 provision, report what was found and stop. Do NOT invent case law or assert a rule you're unsure of. Instead, ask the user / attorney.

## Load the playbook

Read `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/digital-ecommerce-legal/CLAUDE.md` first. Any standing positions on claims (e.g., "we always refund COD orders within 48h", "we dispute chargebacks if order was shipped") apply to this triage.

## The triage

### Step 1: Classify the claim type

| Type | CDC article | Key question |
|---|---|---|
| **Cobrança indevida** | Art. 42, parágrafo único | Was the customer charged for something they didn't owe? |
| **Propaganda enganosa** | Art. 37 | Did our ad claim something the product doesn't do? |
| **Alteração de preço no checkout** | CDC Arts. 30, 35 e 37; Decreto 7.962/2013 Art. 2º, IV `[verified: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l8078compilado.htm; https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2013/decreto/d7962.htm]` | Did we show one price in the catalog and a different price in the cart/invoice? |
| **Falha na entrega** | Decreto 7.962/2013 Art. 2º, V | Did we fail to state the promised delivery or availability deadline? |
| **Produto defeituoso / não conforme** | CDC Art. 20 | Is the product broken or not what was promised? |
| **Recusa de devolução / arrependimento** | CDC Art. 49 | Did we refuse to allow a 7-day return? |
| **Chargeback** | Banking / Art. 39 | Consumer did a chargeback — did they have a legitimate reason? |

### Step 2: Assess the claim on legal merit

**High-risk claims** (we likely lose if this goes to court):

- "I requested a refund within 7 days and you refused" → **We lose.** Art. 49 is non-waivable. `[verified: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l8078compilado.htm]`
- "Your ad said 'guaranteed to work' and it doesn't; I want a refund" → **We lose if we can't prove it works.** Art. 37 defines/prohibits misleading advertising; Art. 38 assigns the burden of proof for advertising truthfulness/correction to the sponsor. `[verified: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l8078compilado.htm]`
- "I never authorized this charge" + "It appeared on my card statement" → **We lose if we can't prove authorization.** Chargeback is often correct.
- "You charged me twice" → **We lose.** Cobrança indevida is treated in CDC Art. 42, parágrafo único; envio/fornecimento sem solicitação is Art. 39, III. Refund analysis should use Art. 42, not Art. 39, I. `[verified: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l8078compilado.htm]`

**Medium-risk claims** (defense exists but gray):

- "The package arrived 8 days late; I want compensation" → Depend on what Termos says; if "3-5 days" promised and it took 13, we're liable for breach but damages are unclear. `[review]`
- "You said 'free shipping' but added a $10 fee at checkout" → Do not classify this as Art. 39, II on this source alone; analyze as offer/publicity and disclosure of delivery expenses (CDC Arts. 30, 35 and 37; Decreto 7.962/2013 Art. 2º, IV). `[verified: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l8078compilado.htm; https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2013/decreto/d7962.htm]`

**Low-risk claims** (we have a defense):

- "I regret buying after 8 days" → We have defense: 7-day window closed. But be nice — may offer partial refund as retention play.
- "The product has a small scratch" → If we disclosed "cosmetic wear" in photo, we have defense. If undisclosed, it's non-conformity (CDC Art. 20) and repair/replacement/refund applies. `[review]`

### Step 3: Response options

1. **Refund** — Use if: high-risk claim, low-dollar amount, or customer service recovery.
2. **Refund with Terms clarification** — Use if: medium-risk claim + Terms actually supports our position.
3. **Repair / replacement** — For defect claims; often better than refund.
4. **Deny + escalate to attorney** — Use if: claim is clearly baseless + customer is unreasonable. ⚠️ Requires attorney approval.
5. **Escalate to dispute resolution** — If customer threatens escalation or files PROCON complaint.

## Consequential-action gate

**Before recommending "deny" or escalating to legal action:**

Read `## Who's using this` in `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/digital-ecommerce-legal/CLAUDE.md`. If the Role is Non-lawyer:

> Recommending denial or escalation is a legal decision with business consequences (reputational risk, potential lawsuit, regulatory scrutiny). Have you reviewed this with your attorney? If yes, proceed. If no, here's a brief: [Claim type, legal merit (high/medium/low risk), aggravating factors, recommended response, reason for that response.]

Do not recommend "deny" or "escalate to arbitration" without explicit attorney approval.

## Output

Format as a brief triage report with claim summary, legal merit assessment (🔴 high-risk | 🟠 medium | 🟢 low), and recommended next step.

## What this skill does not do

- It doesn't represent the company in actual disputes or litigation — that requires a lawyer.
- It doesn't generate formal responses for regulatory bodies (PROCON, ANPD, etc.) — that's attorney work.
- It doesn't assess the reputational impact of refusal — that's a business/marketing call.