The Consumer Protection Commission No. 2 of Indecopi confirmed the sanction against Falabella saga And Falabella.com for providing a consumer with a 55-inch television with a broken screen and responding inappropriately to her complaints. This according to Final Resolution No. 2452-2025/CC2, first accessed by Infobae Peru. The case arose after the online purchase of a JVC brand device, the defect of which was only discovered at the time of installation in the customer’s home.
In addition to the ratification of the posse At first instance, the authority ordered, as a common remedy, the delivery of a new television with similar characteristics or, in the absence of stock, the full refund of the money paid plus the corresponding statutory interest. The regulatory authority wanted to restore the affected rights in the consumer relationship.
According to the administrative file, the consumer purchased on January 9, 2025 through the Web platform from Falabella a 55-inch JVC Smart TV valued at S/ 1,099.00, to which S/ 34.90 was added for freight, making a total payment of S/ 1,133.90. The equipment was delivered to his home the next day and remained sealed for several days.
On January 25, when a technician visited to install internet service, the box was opened and the television screen was found to be broken. Against this background, the user immediately filed her complaint with Falabella.com for the sale of defective goods.
According to the resolutionThe company responded to the consumer by indicating that the product left the warehouse in perfect condition and therefore it was not appropriate to respond to her request. This position was reiterated in the claims made on January 25 and 27, 2025, without the company providing any technical support to substantiate its version.
For the commissionthat action constituted a breach of the duty of reasonableness and the consumer’s right to receive adequate attention to his complaints, both of which are provided for in the Directive Consumer Protection and Defense Code.
The Decision Board for Summary Consumer Protection Proceedings No. 3 approved both Falabella saga gladly Falabella.com with complaints because the complainant was provided with a defective product. He also imposed additional reprimands for the inappropriate response to the complaints.
Are Sanctions They were applied after both companies agreed to the administrative authority’s allegations, allowing the process to establish responsibility to be completed.
As part of the ruling, both companies were obliged to deliver a new television with the same characteristics as the one originally purchased within 15 working days. If they do not have stock, they must offer a list of at least three similar products, taking into account the original price paid by the consumer.
If it is not possible to offer alternatives, companies will be obliged to repay the entire amount paid, including statutory interest, from January 21, 2025, the date on which they committed to deliver the product. The refund can be made via bank transfer or other mechanism that allows proof of payment.
The resolution It also stipulated that the defective television must be returned to the supplier in coordination with the consumer to ensure compliance with the corrective action.
One of the central points of the process was the discussion about the legitimacy of Falabella.com considered responsible in the consumer relationship and claimed that it only acted as an intermediary through its marketplace. The company claimed that the direct seller of the product was Saga Falabella.
However, the commission concluded Falabella.com actively participated in the consumer relationship, since the purchase was made through its platform, communications were sent through its channels and it was this company that officially responded to the consumer’s complaints. Therefore, it was determined that the company is entitled to respond to the violations identified.
After the first instance ruling, both the consumer and the companies appealed. The user requested the partial repeal of the resolutionon the grounds that some of their approaches regarding the costs incurred in the proceedings had not been taken into account. This request was declared unfounded.
On his part Falabella saga And Falabella.com They wanted to reverse the entry in the register of violations and sanctions and the remedial measure imposed. However, the commission declared the complaint against the registration inadmissible because the complaint was not sufficiently substantiated and confirmed the order to deliver a new television or refund the money in full. The decision discussed in this communication is in the second administrative instance and can therefore only be appealed to the judiciary.
In the middle of the afternoon, a joint operation between Dircocor and the public prosecutor’s office, which specializes in corruption crimes committed by officials, ended in one with the intervention of deputy public prosecutor Henry Amenábar Falabella. The agents entered the facility after receiving information about an alleged shipment of money related to a passive bribery case.
According to the first versions, Amenábar would have demanded a payment from a person under investigation for fraud in return for assisting him in a criminal case. During the operation in the mall’s toilets, the agents found about three thousand dollars, an amount that would be part of the alleged irregular demand.
After a complaint from the citizen involved, who was also at the scene, the authorities initiated a preliminary investigation. Both were reassigned to give their statements while the Corruption Prosecutor’s Office prepared the relevant minutes and secured the premises where the meeting would have taken place as part of the ongoing proceedings.
The group that controls Falabella SA consists of a group of families and concentrated holdings that together own the majority of shares. In their latest report, they point out that the said “control group” holds around 66-69% of the shares, giving them effective control over the company.
The main owners include companies such as Inversiones Don Alberto Cuatro SPA, Lucec Tres SA and Inversiones San Vitto Ltda. and Dersa SA – each with significant shares – as well as other companies affiliated with the control group.
About The Author
