Superman SA? – Infobae – Deercreekfoundation

In INDECOPI’s interpretation, the general manager becomes a kind of “manager-superhero” who must respond to any situation within the company. (Image image Infobae)

In recent months, the technical agency’s decision has been taken. indecopi From a consumer protection perspective, the role of general managers of supplier companies is beginning to become distorted, including in the courts. In light of recent resolutions, this position would seem to be bestowed upon a person who is near omnipresent, infallible, or omnipotent. A person who must respond in the event of any failure in the provision of services as if he were a co-author of the violation.

This interpretation is supported by: Consumer Protection and Defense Law Article 111It contemplates the possibility of sanctioning supplier managers in a clearly exceptional manner if it is proven that they have acted in bad faith or with inexcusable negligence. However, in reality, the content of that exception has been emptied and turned into a rule. Nowadays, liability is often imposed without direct involvement of managers in their negligence or even a minimum assessment of the extent of their knowledge and actual negligence.

INDECOPI applies sanctions against suspects

INDECOPI applies sanctions for alleged omissions without assessing direct evidence of management participation. Photo: Diffusion

This should have been an exceptional measure, but it has become an automatic mechanism. Therefore, it is sufficient for the general manager to sign a contract holding him accountable for the allegedly abusive provisions. If you do not respond to a complaint, you may be subject to sanctions, even if the complaint does not directly apply to you. Was there a small operational error, like a poorly painted wall or an unclear offer? He’s guilty too. He was sanctioned for failing in his supposed “duty of vigilance” without further analysis or evidence to justify his direct involvement.

There is no denying that a general manager has important duties to the company he leads. Your role requires diligence, leadership and regulatory compliance. However, turning it into a kind of universal, cooperative and omniscient guarantor not only violates the basic principles of sanctions law, but also goes against common sense. It’s one thing to punish someone when they’re actually responsible; it’s quite another to punish them just for being on the organizational chart.

Recent standards sanction general managers as responsible for business failures, attributing responsibility without the need to prove direct involvement. (Image image Infobae)

This practice, far from strengthening; consumer protectionthe legitimacy of the system is weakened. This is because sanctioning a person for whom responsibility has not been proven diminishes the true focus of control: facts, evidence, and specific responsibility.

Consumer protection is a necessary pillar. But it can’t be built on legitimate caricatures or fictional characters like “manager-cum-superhero.” It is time to restore balance so that the law is applied equitably, rather than automatically.