The justice of Maranhão condemned the mobility app 99 to compensate R$ 1 thousand to the driver who had his profile suspended without committing irregularity, in addition to restoring the account on the platform.
According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff reported having registered as a partner driver and performed the functions normally and with good evaluation until February 2021, when his profile was permanently blocked. The action by 99 took place without any warning, which led the worker to ask for the reactivation of the account and compensation for moral damages.
Image: Reproduction/99
An injunction was granted by the court, however, the sentence was challenged by the company, alleging loss of the object of the action, that is, when there is a disappearance of interest, with no use of the procedural measure pending judgment – an argument rejected by the judge. “The preliminary claim of supervening loss of the object of the action must be rejected, since, despite the fulfillment of one of the plaintiff’s requests, there is still the existence of a request for compensation for moral damages to be judged”, recorded the judge.
In the appeal, the mobility company also maintained that the Consumer Protection Code was not applicable in the type of relationship maintained by the driver.
Conclusion, however, contrary to the judge’s understanding. “This is a consumer relationship, in which the defendant has greater possibilities to produce the necessary evidence to demonstrate the allegations. In the opportunity to present a defense, the defendant did not prove any impeding, modifying or extinguishing fact of the author’s right, she only claimed that some discrepancies were found in the information of the author’s profile, without proving anything “, decided the magistrate.
Blocking by 99 needs to be consistent
The judge recognized that the company has the right to supervise and ensure the good services provided to customers, blocking the account when necessary. However, “it must also respect the rights of those who provide the services and depend on them for their own sustenance. Given that the defendant did not prove the existence of any inconsistencies to be analyzed that caused the author to block the platform, the initial requests must be granted”, he continued.
Image: Dan Gold/Unsplash
As for moral damages, the judge clarified that, in order to contest the compensation, “it is enough to demonstrate the occurrence of facts that lead to the perception of embarrassment of a nature capable of affecting the dignity of the person, a phenomenon that was confirmed in the case of the process, causing damages and inconveniences that go beyond the sphere of mere annoyance”.
Via ConJur
