CADE upholds preventive measure involving Itaú Bank

On 5 August, the Tribunal of the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) ruled on the request for clarification filed by Itaú Unibanco S.A. Commissioner Carlos Jacques Vieira Gomes, rapporteur of the case, voted to grant the request for clarification, without suspensive effect, upholding the decision of the former rapporteur, Gustavo Augusto Freitas de Lima.

The request was filed following the unanimous decision issued on 18 March 2026, when the Tribunal granted the appeal and partially granted the bank's request to ensure access to the evidence, pursuant to Binding Precedent 14 of the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (STF). The preventive measure adopted by the Office of the Superintendent General was upheld, subject to the adjustments set out in the opinions of Commissioner Camila Cabral and of the former rapporteur of the case.

In its request, Itaú argued that the decision failed to specify the deadline and the use of ABECS codes. It also claimed that the decision was unclear as to whether the preventive measure applied to different issuers. Moreover, the bank stated that the decision was internally inconsistent because it required information to be provided to digital wallet operators despite banking secrecy and imposed a daily fine for non-compliance.

In his vote, the rapporteur noted that the issue had already been addressed in Order No. 31/2026, issued by Mr Lima, which granted the request for clarification without suspensive effect, as there was no periculum in mora. According to Mr Gomes, reconsidering the decision was unjustified.

The vote

With regard to the allegation of omission of deadline Mr Gomes found that the issue had already been clarified. The Order No. 31/2026 granted a 30-calendar-day period, commencing on 27 March 2026, to complete the requirements of the preventive measure.

Also, on the allegation of inconsistencies in the use of ABECS codes, Itaú argued that it was not responsible for creating or modifying the response codes used in credit card transactions, as those codes are defined by card schemes

In his vote, the rapporteur noted that ABECS Standard 21 provides that issuers must use the response codes established by card schemes and consult those entities in specific situations. Additionally, Mr Gomes mentioned that the

standardisation of response messages is intended to ensure consistency and accuracy in communication of refused transactions.

He concluded that there was no inconsistency between the votes of Mr Lima and Commissioner Camila Cabral. According to him, the opinions are complementary: while the former rapporteur stated the need for clarifying the reasons of transactions declined, Commissioner Cabral acknowledged the practical limitations in the use of response codes and noted that the SG should further examine the matter.

According to the vote, Itaú must use the available ABECS codes standardised and accepted by card schemes. In addition, the bank must provide consumers and digital wallet operators with further information through other channels of direct communication. Finally, Commissioner Gomes stated that the codes must not be used generically or without rationale for the refusal to deal.

Access Case No. 08700.002316/2025-17