With over 150 million registered users, Pix has established itself as one of the main payment methods in Brazil. Data from the Getulio Vargas Foundation (FGV) indicates that in 2024, 63% of Brazilians used Pix at least once a month, with an average of 32 monthly transactions per user. Another study conducted by the Brazilian Federation of Banks (Febraban) showed that Pix was the most used payment method in Brazil in 2024, with 63.8 billion transactions, a 52% growth compared to 41.9 billion in 2023, reinforcing the success of the payment method among the Brazilian population.
However, the popularization of the system developed by the Central Bank has also brought to light a significant increase in fraud, scams, and transaction errors. This scenario raises urgent discussions about the legal liability involved in these cases, both on the part of financial institutions and the users themselves.
According to lawyer Karina Gutierrez from the firm Bosquê & Advogados, the rise in scam cases involving Pix requires a thorough analysis of the legal framework. ‘Pix is an unprecedented technological advancement, but its speed and ease of use have also created loopholes exploited by criminals. In cases of fraud, it is crucial to assess whether there was a failure in the service provided by the financial institution, which could lead to objective liability,’ she explains.
From a legal standpoint, the Consumer Protection Code (CDC) is often applied in these cases, especially when it comes to relationships between customers and financial institutions. In situations of transaction errors, such as transfers to incorrect accounts, or social engineering frauds, courts have analyzed the banks’ conduct regarding prevention, detection, and response to incidents.
‘In many recent rulings, the courts have understood that when a bank fails to demonstrate adequate security and prevention measures, it can be held liable for the losses suffered by the customer,’ says Karina.
Additionally, Central Bank Resolution No. 4,893/2021 establishes security guidelines that participating institutions in Pix must follow, including the possibility of precautionary blocking of funds in suspicious cases. However, there are still gaps regarding the standardization of practices and accountability in increasingly sophisticated frauds.
In the tax field, the massive use of Pix has also drawn attention from the Federal Revenue, with discussions about the traceability of operations and their fiscal impacts, especially for small entrepreneurs and freelancers. Given this, experts warn of the need for more financial and digital education for users, as well as continuous improvement of regulatory norms and security systems.
‘Responsibility is shared, but it is up to the financial system to ensure effective means of protection and recovery of funds in cases of fraud. Consumers, in turn, must be vigilant about best practices and signs of scams. This balance is essential for trust in the system,’ concludes the lawyer.
With the continuous growth of Pix, the debate over legal liability becomes essential to protect consumer rights and ensure the integrity of the Brazilian financial ecosystem. Therefore, it is crucial that financial institutions, technology companies, and the government work collaboratively to create more robust security mechanisms, educate users, and implement clear rules for accountability in fraud cases. Only with an integrated approach will it be possible to consolidate Pix as a secure, efficient, and reliable tool for all Brazilians.
