Portuguese 
Spanish 
Credit card charges made over more than a decade led to a national reimbursement agreement, with specific rules for consumers who filed complaints and need to prove amounts paid for uncontracted insurance or services.
Itaú must reimburse consumers who paid undue charges related to insurance or services linked to credit cards, in a national agreement made with the Procon of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Minas Gerais and the Brazilian Institute for Consumer Protection.
The refund applies to proven cases between June 13, 2011, and December 18, 2025, with the possibility of requesting until 2028, according to the rules released by the involved agencies.
Announced by the MPMG in February 2026 and detailed again in June of the same year, the measure also reaches consumers of cards issued in partnership with retail chains associated with the bank.
-
Brazilian Company Grows from Bartering Soap for Food to Producing 30 Million Units Monthly, Challenges Global Giants with $100 Million Revenue and Expands into Premium Cosmetics
-
Petrobras and Engeko’s New Investment Plan Promises Billions and Thousands of Jobs, Capturing Market Attention
-
JBS Halts Beef Production for China as Brazil Exceeds 50% of 1.106 Million-Ton Quota; Tariff May Rise from 12% to 67%, Raising Concerns Over Cattle Prices.
-
Brazil’s Social Security Alters Biometric Rules for Pensions and Benefits, Sets 30-Day Deadline, Expands Requirements, and Clarifies Who Is Exempt from Immediate Update
In the list of partners mentioned by the agency are Magazine Luiza, GPA, Extra, Assaí Atacadista, Hipercard, and Marisa, companies whose cards could be linked to the services questioned in the agreement.
According to the conditions disclosed by Procon-MPMG, the restitution will be simple, limited to the amount unduly charged, without double refund within the collective agreement made with the bank.
This form of reparation, according to the agency, was negotiated in exchange for the 14-year period covered by the solution, longer than the period normally discussed in individual actions.
The agreement was made after investigations into charges for uncontracted insurance or maintained even after cancellation requests, a situation that led consumers to question entries on their bills.
Many clients, according to the MPMG, did not notice the debits because the amounts usually appeared discreetly on the card bills, making immediate identification difficult.
Who can request reimbursement from Itaú
To be entitled to a refund under the collective agreement, the consumer must present evidence of the irregular charge and demonstrate that they filed a complaint by December 18, 2025.
This record may have been made directly with Itaú or through official consumer protection channels, such as consumidor.gov.br, Pro-Consumidor, Public Prosecutor’s Offices, Public Defenders, Idec for members, or Reclame Aqui.
In addition to the prior complaint, it will be necessary to prove that there was a charge for uncontracted insurance or maintenance of the debit even after a formal cancellation request.
Invoices, statements, and other documents capable of identifying the questioned discount can be used by the consumer to support the request for a refund from the bank.
The reimbursement, according to Procon-MPMG, can be requested directly from Itaú via the email evidenciascontratacaoseguros@correio.itau.com.br or by phone at 3004-8428.
As a preventive guideline, the agency recommends that consumers monitor invoices and activate consumer protection channels whenever they identify unauthorized charges.
How the agreement addresses undue charges
The negotiated solution covers charges made between 2011 and 2025, a period longer than the statute of limitations normally applied to individual compensation actions in the Judiciary.
In Idec’s assessment, the creation of the reimbursement mechanism anticipated results for consumers who could face a long judicial dispute without a guarantee of quick payment.
The institute also informed that the agreement does not prevent consumers from seeking other forms of compensation, especially in recent cases or with sufficient documentation for a new claim.
Those who suffered undue charges in the last five years can request cancellation, administrative reimbursement, and, if there is no solution from the bank, resort to the Judiciary with a request for double reimbursement.
Under the Consumer Protection Code, the inclusion of services without consent can constitute an abusive practice when there is no valid contract or express authorization from the holder.
In situations proven to be outside the limits of the collective agreement, MPMG reminds that the legislation may ensure the reimbursement of the amounts paid, including double, according to the analysis of each case.
Why the refund will not be automatic
The requirement for proof, according to Procon-MPMG, is related to banking secrecy and the limitations for individualized access to cardholders’ data.
If only the financial institution were responsible for identifying the harmed consumers, the agency states, the scope of the compensation could be reduced throughout the process.
For this reason, the negotiated model allows consumers themselves to request reimbursement based on documents, invoices, or complaint records already submitted through official channels.
In Procon-MPMG’s assessment, this alternative increases the possibility of compensation in a controversy marked by low-value charges, repeated over several years.
Idec informed that the agreement was reached after about ten years of litigation in a class action involving charges attributed to the bank.
For the institute, maintaining the judicial dispute would not guarantee the preservation of partially favorable decisions nor certainty about the effective reimbursement of the affected consumers.
Billion-dollar estimate requires caution
The impact estimate that could reach R$ 33.6 billion is based on a hypothetical calculation mentioned in the presented investigation, considering an average of R$ 20 per charge.
This calculation also considers the assumption that 10% of customers would have been affected over the period, without this amount appearing in the official notes from MPMG and Idec consulted.
Although it helps to gauge the potential financial significance of the case, the amount should not be treated as a confirmed reimbursement sum nor as an amount recognized by the bank.
As of the available official publications, the compensation depends on the individual proof of each consumer, and there is no disclosure of a total amount recognized by Itaú for refund.
In addition to reimbursement, the agreement provides for monitoring mechanisms and fines in case of non-compliance with the conditions agreed between the bank and the involved entities.
Idec stated that amounts allocated for collective moral damages and the entity itself will not be deducted from consumer reimbursements, but added to the amount disbursed by Itaú.
Be the first to react!