The rise of so-called ‘blind boxes’ – surprise packages that hide the identity of the purchased product – revolutionized the collectibles market, especially after the global success of the Labubu brand created by the Chinese company Pop Mart. In Brazil, the phenomenon gained momentum in 2025, driven by influencers and the emotional expectation around programmed scarcity. Sales on marketplaces reach values above R$ 1,500.00 per unit, showcasing a new level of consumption and sparking debates about consumer rights protection against 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 similarities with electronic game loot boxes – already under investigation in European countries.
In the Brazilian context, consumer legislation is clear regarding the duty of information, transparency, and balance in consumer relations. The Consumer Defense Code (CDC) requires that consumers be informed in advance about all relevant aspects of the offer. In the case of blind boxes, this includes warnings about the randomness of the product, the real chance of finding rare items, and the details of exchange and return policies. Failure to comply with this duty can be interpreted as willful omission or deceptive advertising, in violation of article 37 of the CDC.
Special caution is needed when the advertising of these products relies on emotional triggers – phrases such as ‘just one more box’ or ‘collect before it’s gone’ may constitute abusive practice, especially when the target audience is children and adolescents, historically more vulnerable to consumption pressure. The CDC expressly prohibits advertising that takes advantage of the consumer’s judgment deficiency, emphasizing the need for moderation and responsibility on the part of companies.
Another relevant point concerns the right of withdrawal established for online purchases. The jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice is firm in guaranteeing the consumer a full refund within up to seven days after 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 goes against objective good faith and contractual balance.
Also noteworthy is the parallel market created around the rarest items, often resold for prices up to ten times higher than the original price. If there is intentional scarcity pricing, there is a risk of infringement of the economic order and violation of article 39 of the CDC, allowing for the action of bodies such as Procon and CADE, especially if there is collusion between suppliers and resellers.
The Labubu phenomenon, therefore, illustrates a new paradigm of consumption, in which entertainment, a sense of belonging, and digital aesthetics merge with market logic. The advancement of these practices demands strict adherence to consumer protection standards, with attention to the duty of information, effective possibility of return, advertising moderation, and respect for contractual balance. Without these precautions, suppliers and marketplaces expose themselves to the sanctions provided for by the CDC, which include fines, shutdown, and accountability for individual or collective damages.
In times of rapid innovations and global trends, consumer protection cannot be relativized in the name of commercial creativity. The challenge is to balance innovation and responsibility, ensuring that consumer rights keep pace with market transformations – without giving up on their fundamental guarantees.
*Giovanna Araujo is a lawyer specializing in Consumer Law, Business Law, Contracts, and Intellectual Property.
