Brazilian authorities are investigating a fast-growing legal industry that promises indebted consumers a quick way to restore their credit standing, even though the debts themselves remain unpaid.
The practice, known in Brazil as the “limpa-nome” industry — literally, “clean your name” — uses court injunctions to order credit bureaus and protest registries not to display certain unpaid debts when a consumer’s file is checked. The result is temporary: the borrower may appear free of restrictions in systems such as Serasa and SPC, but the underlying debt is neither cancelled nor settled.
The issue has gained scale as household debt has risen. G1’s Fantástico reported that almost 83 million Brazilians are currently indebted, roughly half of the country’s adult population, and that the average delinquency rate has reached its highest level since 2011.
According to G1, investigators are examining the role of consumer-defense associations, lawyers and judges in a suspected scheme built around mass lawsuits. The associations file collective actions arguing that debtors were not properly notified before being listed as delinquent, a requirement under Brazil’s Consumer Defense Code. Lawyers quoted by the report said many of the debtors had in fact received notice.
The National Association of Credit Bureaus said the phenomenon has moved beyond isolated cases. Elias Sfer, the association’s president, told G1 it appeared to be becoming “systemic,” with similar lawsuits spreading across states.
The National Council of Justice, Brazil’s judicial oversight body, has already opened a disciplinary proceeding against Josivaldo Felix de Oliveira, a judge from the 1st Civil Court of João Pessoa, in Paraíba state. The CNJ said in 2024 that it would investigate whether the judge granted repeated and unusually fast injunctions benefiting associations linked to the alleged hiding of protest records and delinquency listings.
The case originated in a complaint filed by the National Association of Credit Bureaus. According to the CNJ, an inspection by the National Justice Inspectorate found signs that case distribution may have been manipulated to steer lawsuits to the judge’s court, potentially violating the principle of the natural judge — the rule that cases must be assigned according to neutral procedures. The judge has denied wrongdoing, according to Folha de S.Paulo.
Folha reported that the CNJ proceeding concerns decisions benefiting associations described by credit bureaus as fronts. The newspaper said a CNJ report found indications that injunctions were granted quickly and repeatedly to entities that may not have had legal standing to bring such cases. It also reported that Paraíba’s state court later dismissed several cases on the grounds that the associations lacked standing.
The disputed injunctions do not erase debts. They suspend the visibility of restrictions in credit databases, allowing consumers to seek loans, financing or credit cards while the unpaid obligations remain active. André Gomes Netto, president of Brazil’s association of protest registry offices, told G1 there is “no magic formula” and warned consumers not to believe a real debt can simply disappear overnight.
G1 reported that the delayed accounts tied to people who benefited from such injunctions total roughly R$130 billion over five years. Earlier reporting cited by Folha and the CNJ put the figure at R$108 billion or R$20.4 billion, depending on the scope and period measured, underscoring that estimates vary by source and methodology.
The business around the practice is openly marketed online. A Jusbrasil article reviewed by Today in Brazil described “limpa-nome” injunctions as a lucrative niche for financial consultants and intermediaries, while acknowledging that the injunctions are only a palliative measure because they do not resolve the debt.
For Brazil’s credit market, the concern is that borrowers can appear solvent while carrying hidden unpaid obligations. For consumers, the risk is different: a promise of instant relief may leave them with the same debt, new borrowing and possible involvement in disputed lawsuits now under scrutiny by judicial authorities.