Superman SA? – information – kudupinter World News Network

The INDECOPI interpretation transforms the general manager into a “supermanager” figure, requiring him to respond to all possibilities within the company. (illustration)

In recent months, technical hardware decisions for INDECOPI In terms of consumer protection – including its own court – it began to distort the role of the general manager of supplier companies. In light of recent decisions, this position seems reserved for a figure who is almost omnipresent, infallible, or all-powerful. The person who, in the event of any failure to provide the service, must respond as if he were an accomplice in authoring the violation.

This interpretation is supported Article 111 of the Consumer Protection and Defense Lawwhich considers – in a clearly extraordinary way – the possibility of sanctioning supplier managers if they are found to have acted with malice or unjustified negligence. But in practice, this exception has been emptied of its content and turned into the rule. Today, in many cases, liability is imposed without a minimum assessment of the director’s direct involvement in the error, nor the degree of his knowledge or actual negligence.

INDECOPI applies sanctions to those alleged

INDECOPI applies sanctions for alleged omissions, without evaluating direct evidence of the director’s involvement. Image: spread

What should have been an exceptional measure has become an automatic mechanism. Therefore, it is sufficient for the general manager to sign the contract to be liable for the allegedly abusive clauses. If you do not respond to the complaint, even if it does not apply directly to you, you will be penalized. Simple operational errors, such as a poorly painted wall or an unclear display? He is guilty too. He was punished because he neglected his supposed “duty of vigilance,” without further analysis or evidence justifying his direct involvement.

It cannot be denied that a general manager has essential duties towards the company he leads. Your role requires diligence, leadership and regulatory compliance. But turning it into a kind of global, supportive and all-knowing guarantor not only contradicts the basic principles of the penal code, but also contradicts common sense. It is one thing to punish when there is real responsibility, but it is another thing to apply penalties simply for being in the organizational structure.

The latter standard penalizes the general manager as responsible for any business failure, attributing blame to him without having to prove his direct involvement. (illustration)

This practice, is far from promoting Consumer protectionweakens the legitimacy of the regime. Because when someone whose responsibility is not proven is punished, the real focus of control, such as facts, evidence and specific responsibilities, is weakened.

Consumer protection is a necessary pillar. But it can’t be based on legal cartoons or fictional characters like the “superhero boss.” It is time to restore the balance so that the law is applied fairly and not automatically.