Acre

Brazil

Pará

Paraíba

Pernambuco

Alagoas

Piauí

Amazonas

Paraná

Amapá

Rio de Janeiro

Bahia

Rio Grande do Norte

Ceará

Rondônia

Distrito Federal

Roraima

Espírito Santo

Rio Grande do Sul

Goiás

Santa Catarina

Maranhão

Sergipe

Minas Gerais

São Paulo

Mato Grosso do Sul

Tocantins

Mato Grosso

On January 23, 2025, the Brazilian Institute for Consumer Protection (IDEC) filed a judicial inquiry against the car rental company Localiza Rent A CAR S/A. This action is part of a set of two inquiries proposed by IDEC alleging greenwashing and problems in the use of carbon credits from the voluntary market. In this case, Localiza is questioned about offering rental services with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions offsets through its ‘Carbon Neutrality’ and ‘Commitment to the Climate’ programmes. However, IDEC believes that this initiative may constitute greenwashing due to the imprecise origin of the carbon credits, the apparent lack of information on the real benefits, and the effectiveness of the methods used to achieve the stated objectives. IDEC believes that there are indications of greenwashing due to gaps in the information collected through the respondent's website. Furthermore, the offer is not in accordance with consumer law, as it violates objective good faith, as well as the basic consumer right to freedom of choice and adequate and clear information, all of which are provided for in the Consumer Protection Code. The payment of an additional amount in the car rental contract to offset GHG emissions requires justification in order to be considered an offer that complies with consumer rights. However, consumers are misled due to a lack of adequate information and thus believe that the respondent will provide a service that has less impact on the environment. Greenwashing is characterised as unfair practices that downplay risks and threats to socio-environmental rights. Therefore, it is believed that the respondent uses this resource because GHG emission compensation programmes have a positive impact on its image. Firstly, because the service provided would be guided by ESG standards, generating a favourable image for the company. In addition, it reaches a fraction of consumers who base their consumption on social and environmental criteria. The purpose of the Judicial Inquiry is to enable Localiza to provide detailed explanations of its GHG emission compensation practices and to allow the respondent to correct any inconsistencies. The plaintiff requests that documents be provided to prove the veracity of the benefits of the programes offered in the car rental service, as well as that the questions presented about the programmes be answered.

In December 2021, the Associação SOS Amazônia, the Organization of Indigenous Peoples of the Juruá River (OPIRJ), the Comissão Pró-Índio do Acre (CPI Acre), the Coordination of Indigenous Organizations of the Brazilian Amazon (COIAB), and the National Council of Extractive Populations (CNS) filed a Public Civil Action (PCA) with a request for urgent injunctive relief against the Federal Union, the National Department of Transport Infrastructure (DNIT), and the Brazilian Federal Agency of the Environment (IBAMA). The lawsuit sought to nullify the bidding process under DNIT Notice 130/2021, which initiated the tender for construction work on the BR-364 highway segment connecting the municipality of Cruzeiro do Sul, Acre, to the Brazil-Peru border, crossing the Serra do Divisor National Park (PNSD). From a climate perspective, the plaintiffs argued that deforestation caused by the project would degrade the Amazon rainforest—the Earth&#39;s primary carbon sink—which prevents greenhouse gases from accumulating in the atmosphere and excessively warming the planet. The forest is essential for mitigating climate change and reducing its effects. They also emphasized that indigenous peoples, particularly isolated groups, are especially vulnerable to the impacts of such projects. The plaintiffs requested preliminary injunctions to suspend the bidding notice, environmental licensing, and construction. Their final demands included: - Declaring DNIT Notice 130/2021 null and void; - Ordering the Federal Union and DNIT to refrain from any further bidding procedures for the BR-364 segment until: - Technical and Environmental Feasibility Studies (EVTEA) were conducted; - Prior, formal, free, and informed consultation was held with affected indigenous and traditional communities, as required by ILO Convention 169; - FUNAI (National Indian Foundation) confirmed the presence of isolated indigenous peoples in the project&#39;s area of influence; - Prohibiting IBAMA from issuing an environmental license for the BR-364 stretch; - Suspending Article 3 of Presidential Decree 97,839/1989, which established the Serra do Divisor National Park. In their defenses, the Federal Union, DNIT, and IBAMA argued that: Using a PCA to challenge the constitutionality of Decree 97,839/89 violated the Supreme Federal Court&#39;s exclusive jurisdiction; The Judiciary should not interfere in administrative decisions; There was no violation of ILO Convention 169, as prior consultation would only be required after confirming the presence of isolated indigenous peoples in the project&#39;s area. They requested the lawsuit&#39;s dismissal. The Unica-Iguatemi Consortium also sought dismissal. FUNAI claimed it had not neglected its institutional duties. June 14, 2023, the judge rendered a decision that declared FUNAI&#39;s lack of standing in the case; Nullified DNIT Notice 130/2021; Ordered the Federal Union and DNIT to refrain from any administrative or political decisions regarding the BR-364 segment until: - Prior consultation (under ILO Convention 169) was conducted with affected indigenous and traditional communities; - FUNAI confirmed the presence of isolated indigenous peoples in the project&#39;s area; - Prohibited IBAMA from granting an environmental license for the BR-364 stretch until the same conditions were met; - Suspended any actions under the contract between DNIT and the Unica-Iguatemi Consortium. The Federal Public Prosecutor&#39;s Office (MPF) appealed, demanding that the Federal Union and DNIT pay R$6,076,000 (the contract&#39;s value) in collective moral damages, to be allocated to environmental recovery projects in the Serra do Divisor National Park and educational programs on environmental and Indigenous culture in Acre, developed with direct input from indigenous communities, the plaintiffs, and the MPF. The Unica-Iguatemi Consortium appealed, requesting compensation from DNIT for contract termination due to the court&#39;s invalidation of the bidding process. The Federal Union, IBAMA, and DNIT appealed, seeking to overturn the ruling and dismiss all original claims.

Acre

Recent cases