Merely intermediating the sale of an airline ticket does not automatically make a travel agency responsible for every problem arising during air transportation.

Liability may arise, however, when the intermediary itself fails to perform duties that are directly related to its relationship with the consumer.

Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice, the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ), addressed this distinction in Special Appeal No. 2,229,670/AL, decided unanimously by its Third Panel on August 18, 2026.

The ruling is particularly relevant to digital platforms because it distinguishes liability resulting from a third party’s performance from liability arising from the platform’s own failure to provide information and assistance.

What happened in the case?

The consumer purchased a travel package to the United States through an online travel agency in November 2019.

As the Covid-19 pandemic began to develop in March 2020, she attempted to reschedule the trip. According to the facts established in the underlying proceedings, the agency denied the request, stating that the package was promotional and that flights were operating normally.

Once in the United States, the traveler experienced significant disruptions, including flight cancellations and hotel closures in New York.

The courts found that the agency failed to provide adequate support or material assistance. The consumer ultimately relied on financial assistance from family members to purchase a new ticket and return to Brazil.

The lower courts awarded both economic and non-economic damages, and the STJ upheld the agency’s liability.

Are travel agencies automatically liable for flight cancellations?

No.

The STJ expressly preserved its established case law under which a travel agency that merely intermediates the sale of an airline ticket is not automatically jointly liable for damages caused exclusively by the airline.

Where the intermediary has no control over the event that caused the loss, such as certain flight cancellations or baggage-related incidents, liability may remain with the carrier.

The Court emphasized that this case presented a different issue.

Why was the agency liable?

The liability resulted from the agency’s own conduct.

The Court found a failure to provide information, support and assistance while the consumer was abroad in an exceptional and highly vulnerable situation.

Under Brazil’s Consumer Protection Code, consumers have a basic right to adequate and clear information regarding products and services.

The STJ held that this duty forms part of the consumer contract itself and continues throughout the performance of the contractual relationship, rather than ending when the ticket is issued.

The agency was therefore not held liable merely because it participated in the supply chain.

The Court identified a direct causal connection between the agency’s own failure and the harm suffered by the consumer.

Why is the decision relevant to digital platforms?

The reasoning may be significant for companies operating business models based on intermediation.

Marketplaces, travel platforms, fintechs, insurance distributors, service applications and other digital businesses often operate within multi-party supply structures.

In such arrangements, contracts may allocate responsibility for different portions of the service.

However, contractual characterization as an “intermediary” does not necessarily eliminate duties imposed directly on the platform under applicable consumer law.

The relevant legal analysis may therefore involve two separate questions:

who was responsible for the underlying operational failure; and

whether the platform independently failed to perform an obligation under its own relationship with the customer.

Post-sale information as a compliance issue

The ruling also highlights the importance of treating consumer information as an ongoing compliance process rather than a disclosure exercise limited to the moment of sale.

Depending on the business model, companies may need systems capable of:

receiving material service updates from business partners;

notifying consumers promptly;

documenting communications;

providing effective customer support;

escalating exceptional situations;

and allocating responsibilities among suppliers.

Failure to establish these mechanisms can create a separate source of liability for the intermediary.

Implications for B2B agreements

Businesses that distribute or intermediate third-party services may also consider whether their commercial agreements adequately address information flows and consumer support.

Relevant contractual provisions may include notification obligations, response times, reimbursement procedures, indemnification mechanisms, rights of recourse and responsibilities during operational disruptions.

Such clauses do not necessarily limit consumers’ statutory rights, but they may improve the allocation and management of risk between business partners.

A broader lesson for platform governance

Special Appeal No. 2,229,670/AL reinforces an important distinction in Brazilian consumer law.

A platform is not automatically liable for every failure committed by another participant in the supply chain.

At the same time, the intermediary label does not shield a company from liability for its own failure to comply with duties involving information, transparency and assistance.

For companies operating digital ecosystems, the decision reinforces the value of integrating legal, compliance, product, technology and customer-service functions into the management of consumer information and operational risk.