The Federal Court of Rio de Janeiro rules that the sale of AI-generated petitions for use in Small Claims Courts is lawful

The Federal Court of Rio de Janeiro rules that the sale of AI-generated petitions for use in Small Claims Courts is lawful

On 4 November 2025, the bench of the 27th Federal Court of Rio de Janeiro ruled that providing an artificial-intelligence service aimed at automating petitions for the Small Claims Courts does not constitute the unlawful practice or commodification of legal services. When adjudicating Public Civil Action No. 5038042-87.2025.4.02.5101/RJ, Judge Jhonny Kato found that the AI in question did not perform individualized case analysis, limiting itself to a technological solution for document automation based on artificial intelligence.

The dispute originated from a public civil action filed by the Rio de Janeiro Section of the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB/RJ), against the individual responsible for the domain and operation of the website “Resolve Juizado.” The platform offers the public, upon payment of a fee of R$ 19.90, the generation of initial complaints drafted with support from artificial intelligence, as well as guidance on the appropriate venue for filing, necessary documents, and estimated damages. A preliminary injunction initially ordered the suspension of the platform’s activities and the removal of promotional content, a measure later reversed by the Federal Regional Court of the 2nd Region, which granted suspensive effect to the interlocutory appeal filed by the defendant.

In the complaint, the OAB argued that the platform trivializes and commercializes the legal profession, wrongfully solicits clients, and provides services reserved exclusively for attorneys without complying with professional regulations, thereby violating the Statute of Advocacy (Law No. 8.906/94) and the OAB Code of Ethics and Discipline. It also alleged the dissemination of abusive advertising, with promises of success and incentives to litigation, in addition to the distribution of standardized petitions that would harm litigants and overload the Small Claims Courts.

In its answer, the defendant asserted that the platform merely facilitates the exercise of jus postulandi, provided for in Article 9 of Law No. 9.099/95, which allows citizens to file claims of up to twenty minimum wages in the Small Claims Courts without legal representation. The defendant further argued that the fee charged is solely intended to maintain the service, denying any improper client solicitation or commercialization of legal practice.

When examining the merits, the court highlighted the need to interpret Article 1 of the Statute of Advocacy and Article 9 of the Small Claims Courts Act jointly, in order to delineate the boundary between the technical-intellectual activity reserved for licensed attorneys and operations that are merely mechanical or instrumental. The judgment concluded that the automated generation of texts based on information provided by the user, without personalized legal advice, does not constitute an activity reserved to attorneys and resembles standardized forms made available by public agencies, Public Defender’s Offices, or doctrinal repositories, which may even enhance access to justice.

According to the judge, the service constitutes a “document-assistance tool whose use is compatible with the constitutional right of access to justice (Article 5, XXXV, of the Constitution),” and the fee charged does not represent remuneration for legal services but only for maintaining the technological system. The judgment likewise dismissed the allegation of unfair competition, concluding that the parties do not compete in the same market: while legal practice entails the provision of qualified legal services, the platform is limited to offering technology and document automation.

Finally, the court found no evidence of improper client solicitation, emphasizing that the platform’s advertising does not promise success nor suggest the provision of services reserved for attorneys. As for any potential increase in judicial caseload, the judge clarified that such a phenomenon does not stem from tools that enable the exercise of the constitutional right of action but rather from structural factors. Accordingly, the court denied the request to suspend the platform and ordered it to include clear notices regarding the non-legal nature of the service and to refrain from any advertising that may suggest legal advice, promise of results, or substitution of the professional role of attorneys. The decision may be appealed.

The judgment may be accessed at the following link: PUBLIC CIVIL ACTION No. 5038042-87.2025.4.02.5101/RJ.

Note: For quick release, this English version is provided by automated translation without human review.