In judgment 4815 of April 2018, the Superintendence of Industry and Commerce clarified that, within the framework of the effectiveness of the warranty, in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Statute, restricting the right with sweeping phrases that prohibit the exchange of purchased products or the refund of the money paid for such items, such as "no refunds," are abusive clauses that result in a violation of consumer interests.
It should be recalled that abusive clauses are those that produce an unjustified imbalance to the detriment of the consumer and those that, under the same conditions, affect the time, manner, and place in which the consumer may exercise their rights. To determine such abusive clauses, the SIC established the following criteria: (i) that it was not individually negotiated, that is, it is imposed generally on all users; (ii) that it goes against contractual good faith; (iii) that its imposition generates an imbalance with respect to the position of the consumer or user.
Furthermore, on multiple occasions the Superintendence of Industry and Commerce has established that producers and suppliers may not include abusive clauses in contracts entered into with consumers. If they are included, they shall be void ab initio.
Therefore, the expression, when used, generates a significant asymmetry that restricts the manner in which the consumer could request the effectiveness of the warranty; and there is no apparent reason that justifies or explains the use of the aforementioned expression, when it is the duty of the parties to act in good faith and seek the balance of the transaction.