Virginia Fonseca is ordered to compensate for $ 2,000 followers who have not received the product

HTML[data-range=”xlarge”] IMG.IMG-255BC51F572023DBEB05D8F29F7693TC1C9NE2 {Width: 774px figure; Height: 432px; } html[data-range=”large”] IMG.IMG-255BC51F572023DBEB05D8F29F7693TC1C9NE2 {Width: 548px figure; Height: 306px; } html[data-range=”small”] IMG.IMG-255BC51F572023DBEB05D8F29F7693TC1C9NE2, HTML[data-range=”medium”] Image figure img.img-255bc51f572023dbeb05d8f29f7693atc1c9ne2 {width: 564px; Height: 315px; } html[data-range=”small”] . Article___MAGE-MOB, HTML[data-range=”medium”] . Margin: 0 Auto 30px; }

The digital influencer Virginia Fonseca He was sentenced for the 1st Panel of Appeal of the Court of Justice Paraná (TJPR) to compensate $ 2,000 a follower who purchased a sunglasses marketed with your name, but I have never received the product. The Court recognized the objective responsibility of the influencer in the consumers’ report, applying the theory of equivalent and appearance suppliers.

• Receive the main news directly on WhatsApp! Sign up for the Earth channel

Understand the case

The action was presented by a follower who acquired the “IK + Virginia” glasses model, for an amount of $ 65, issued by the influencer on his Instagram profile. However, the product was not delivered, leading the consumer to search in court the return of the amount paid and compensation for moral damages.

Virginia’s defense claimed that the responsibility for non -delivery would have been exclusively for the manufacturer, the company from IK, and requested the revocation of the sentence. However, the rapporteur, Fernando Andreoni Vasconcellos, rejected the topic, noting that the action of the influencer “passed the simple advertising propaganda”, since its name was incorporated into the product, giving it an exclusive identity on the market.

For the magistrate, Virginia “created a false expectation in the consumer”, who trusted the delivery of the product due to the credibility associated with the image of the influencer.

The Court followed the understanding of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), which usually attributes responsibility to the manufacturer or service provider, without extending to the means of communication that transmits advertising. However, in the case of Virginia, the magistrates considered that it was not only an advertising channel, but had an active participation in marketing by connecting their name to the product.

Unanimously, the Collegiate understood that the inability to provide the service “passed the simple disagreement of daily life”. However, by applying the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, it has reduced the amount of compensation, initially fixed by $ 4 thousand, to R $ 2 thousand for moral damage.

Source: Terra

Amanda

I am Amanda Gans, a motivated and ambitious professional in the news writing industry. With over five years of experience in this field, I have developed an eye for detail and an ability to craft stories that captivate readers. I currently write for Gossipify, where I specialize in beauty & celebrities news. My passion lies with exploring the world of beauty through writing, interviewing experts and developing articles that are both informative and entertaining.