Franchising: Supreme Court cases shape ABF Legal Day 2026 agenda

The legal challenges accompanying the expansion of Brazilian franchise networks were the focus of a panel at ABF Legal Day 2026, held on 23 September in São Paulo. According to a report published by legal news outlet Consultor Jurídico on 25 September, experts brought together by the Brazilian Franchising Association (ABF) discussed cases pending before Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court (STF) that could affect the sector.

Legal certainty matters as franchise networks grow

The event highlighted the need for greater legal certainty for franchisors and franchisees. The discussion comes as the market continues to grow: according to ABF figures cited in the report, sector turnover exceeded R$300 billion in 2025, up 10.5% on 2024.

The sector ended that period with more than 202,000 franchise operations across nearly 3,300 networks, supporting around 1.8 million direct jobs. These figures help put the debate into perspective: determining which branch of the judiciary should hear particular disputes matters to a system comprising thousands of businesses and contractual relationships.

However, the panel’s agenda should not be mistaken for a regulatory change already in force. The report covers ongoing cases and discussions among experts, rather than a new Supreme Court ruling that has settled the issues raised at the event.

Theme 1,389 concerns contracts and allegations of fraud

One topic discussed was Theme 1,389, a case under the Supreme Court’s ‘general repercussion’ procedure for issues with wider significance. According to Consultor Jurídico, it concerns the engagement of legal entities, allegations of fraud in civil and commercial contracts, and the jurisdiction of the labour courts to hear these matters.

These points need to be considered separately. Engaging a legal entity is one aspect of the discussion; an allegation that a civil or commercial contract conceals fraud is another. Court jurisdiction, meanwhile, concerns which branch of the judiciary should examine these issues.

For readers in the franchise community, this distinction matters because the debate is not simply about the terms of a contract. It also concerns the judicial route through which a dispute can be heard. This was the context in which the case featured among the legal challenges discussed at the ABF event.

The source material does not report an outcome for Theme 1,389 or set out a definitive legal position adopted by the Supreme Court. The report therefore provides no basis for claiming that the proceedings have already established a final resolution for franchise contracts.

ADPF 1,149 concerns disputes between franchise parties

The panel also addressed ADPF 1,149, known as the ‘Franchising ADPF’. An ADPF is a constitutional action alleging a breach of a fundamental precept. According to the report, this case concerns the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts to hear disputes arising from contracts between franchisees and their franchisor.

Although both cases were discussed at the same event, their subject matter should not be presented as identical. Theme 1,389 brings together questions about engaging legal entities, allegations of fraud and labour court jurisdiction. The description of ADPF 1,149, by contrast, relates directly to disputes arising from franchise contracts and the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts.

This distinction helps readers follow developments accurately. News about progress in one case should not automatically be treated as an answer to the other. Here too, the event report announces neither a final ruling nor a date for the Supreme Court to conclude its consideration.

What to monitor before making decisions

The main news from ABF Legal Day is that these cases are on the sector’s legal agenda as franchise networks expand. The event highlights the attention being paid to predictability in contractual relationships, but it is no substitute for reading the rulings and assessing their scope once they are published.

For franchisors, franchisees and prospective franchisees, monitoring developments means distinguishing three elements: the issues discussed by experts, the procedural stage of each case, and the substance of any eventual ruling. Conflating these can lead to the mistaken belief that an expected outcome has already become an applicable rule.

Practical guidance: follow Theme 1,389 and ADPF 1,149 separately, and seek legal advice before changing contracts or litigation defence strategies on the basis of news about the debate.