From then on, repeated decisions

[messi05]

Were made to suspend legal actions until the plaintiff/consumer proved the previous attempt to resolve the conflict through the platform. Such decisions were partially reformed by the Court of Justice of Rio Grande do Sul, on the grounds that the use of the online platform is voluntary, never mandatory. Currently, however, several civil chambers 1 have decided on the legality of these decisions and even confirmed the termination of the action when the attempt at an extrajudicial solution has not been proven. The arguments for creating this new “condition of action” all involve the issue of excessive legal demands.



The reasons for one of the votes in Interlocutory Buy Phone Number List Appeal 70063985626, judged in August 2015 2 , are quite exemplary. Judge Carlos Eduardo Richinitti states: “The Judiciary cannot continue to be the first, only and most profitable way of resolving conflicts. Its use must be by exception and not by rule, always proving, first and foremost, the necessity and reasonableness of using the costly judicial machine. (…) what is happening in practice is that this unbridled demandism ends up clogging up the judicial machine. There are countless mistakes in this line of reasoning.







From the premises, to the (lack of) knowledge of the concepts and institutes mentioned, there are errors and confusion from start to finish. In this short text, we will present brief reflections on some of these misunderstandings. The first and primary point that deserves attention is the relationship that has been established between dejudicialization and the so-called alternative means of dispute resolution. In the case of consumer conflicts, the mistaken syllogism is to relate the necessary reduction of legal demands mainly through the use of self-composing extrajudicial methods. False. This argument assumes that the excess of actions is resolved by transferring conflicts from the magistrate's table to a mediation table. Nothing more wrong.