digital-consumer-claims-triage

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.