The rise of so-called ‘blind boxes’ – surprise packages that conceal the identity of the purchased product – has revolutionized the collectibles market, especially after the global success of the brand Labubu, created by the Chinese company Pop Mart. In Brazil, the phenomenon gained momentum in 2025, driven by influencers and the emotional expectation surrounding planned scarcity. Sales on marketplaces reach values exceeding R$1,500.00 per unit, demonstrating a new level of consumption and sparking debates about consumer protection regarding these practices.
The concept of blind boxes is simple: the consumer buys a product without knowing exactly which character, figure, or model they will receive. The commercial appeal intensifies when some models are extremely rare, encouraging repeat purchases to complete collections. This logic, while involving entertainment and engagement, raises ethical and legal questions, mainly due to its similarity to loot boxes in video games—already under investigation in European countries.
In the Brazilian context, consumer protection legislation is clear regarding the duty of information, transparency, and balance in consumer relations. The Consumer Protection Code (CDC) requires consumers to be informed in advance about all relevant aspects of the offer. For blind boxes, this includes warnings about the randomness of the product, the actual chance of finding rare items, and details about exchange and return policies. Non-compliance with this duty may be interpreted as intentional omission or misleading advertising, violating Article 37 of the CDC.
Special caution is needed when advertising these products relies on emotional triggers—phrases like ‘just one more box’ or ‘collect while they last’ may constitute abusive practices, especially when the target audience is children and adolescents, historically more vulnerable to consumption pressure. The CDC explicitly prohibits advertising that exploits consumers’ lack of judgment, reinforcing the need for moderation and responsibility from companies.
Another relevant point concerns the right to regret purchases made online. The jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice firmly guarantees consumers a full refund within seven days of receipt, even if the surprise package has already been opened. Any clause that limits or excludes this right may be considered null and void, as it contradicts objective good faith and contractual balance.
The parallel market created around the rarest items, often resold for up to ten times their original price, also draws attention. If artificial price manipulation through intentional scarcity is confirmed, there is a risk of violating economic regulations and Article 39 of the CDC, opening the door for action by agencies such as Procon and CADE, especially if collusion between suppliers and resellers is involved.
The Labubu phenomenon, therefore, illustrates a new consumption paradigm, where entertainment, the desire for belonging, and digital aesthetics merge with market logic. The advancement of these practices demands strict enforcement of consumer protection laws, with attention to the duty of information, effective return policies, advertising moderation, and respect for contractual balance. Without these safeguards, suppliers and marketplaces face penalties under the CDC, including fines, injunctions, and liability for individual or collective damages.
In times of rapid innovation and global trends, consumer protection cannot be relativized in the name of commercial creativity. The challenge lies in balancing innovation and responsibility, ensuring that consumer rights keep pace with market transformations—without compromising fundamental guarantees.
*Giovanna Araujo is a lawyer specializing in Consumer Law, Business Law, Contracts, and Intellectual Property.
