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

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.