To sue a foreign company in Brazil, one headquartered abroad, is possible in far more cases than people assume, and pointless in some where it is assumed possible. The difference lies in four questions that must be answered before the complaint is filed: whether the Brazilian courts have jurisdiction over the foreign company; how the defendant will be served, because service of process is what sets the time and the cost of the lawsuit; which law and which evidence will support the claim; and where the assets that will answer for the judgment are located, because a judgment against a company with no property in the country only becomes useful once it has been recognized in the country where the property sits. This article answers each of these questions, drawing on the firm’s practice in litigation and arbitration, with the rules of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the treaties Brazil has incorporated and the precedents of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) that have defined the reach of those rules in recent years.
The legal framework consists of Articles 21 to 25 of the CPC, which set the limits of Brazilian jurisdiction; Article 75, item X and paragraph 3, on the representation of foreign legal entities in court; Articles 26 to 41, on international cooperation and the letter rogatory, the formal request from a Brazilian court to a foreign authority; the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents, the Hague Service Convention, promulgated by Decree No. 9,734/2019; the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory; Article 9 of the Law of Introduction to the Rules of Brazilian Law, for the applicable law; and Articles 28 and 101 of the Consumer Defense Code (CDC), for consumer relations.
For the reverse situation, the creditor who already holds a judgment or an enforceable instrument obtained abroad and wants to enforce it here, the firm keeps two dedicated articles, on the enforcement of a title issued abroad and on the recognition of a foreign judgment by the Superior Court of Justice, the step Brazil requires before any foreign judgment can be enforced in the country.
Do Brazilian courts have jurisdiction over a company headquartered abroad?
They do, whenever the defendant is domiciled in Brazil, the obligation is to be performed here or the fact on which the claim is based occurred here. These are the situations listed in Article 21 of the CPC, and for that purpose a foreign legal entity that has an agency, branch or subsidiary office in the country is deemed domiciled in Brazil, under the sole paragraph of that article. Jurisdiction is concurrent: the fact that the action could be filed abroad leaves Brazilian jurisdiction intact, and an action filed there creates no lis pendens here, as Article 24 provides, unless a treaty says otherwise. What a Brazilian company harmed by a foreign supplier must identify, therefore, is where the obligation was to be performed, which is usually found in the delivery clauses of the contract and in the Incoterms, and where the fact took place, which, for damage to an asset or an operation in Brazil, is here.
Consumers have their own, broader rule. Article 22, item II, gives the Brazilian courts jurisdiction over actions arising from consumer relations when the consumer is domiciled or resident in Brazil, regardless of where the contract was concluded or performed. This is the rule that allows the airline passenger, the buyer on a foreign platform and the user of a digital service to bring a consumer lawsuit in Brazil against a foreign platform or any other company with no seat in the country, and Article 101, item I, of the Consumer Defense Code allows the action to proceed in the plaintiff’s domicile.
A clause choosing a foreign forum is the most common obstacle, and Article 25 gives it effect: when an international contract contains an exclusive foreign forum clause, raised by the defendant in its answer, the Brazilian courts decline to hear the case. This applies between companies, in a negotiated contract, and it is the reason foreign suppliers insist on the clause. For consumers, case law has reversed the rule. In Special Appeal No. 2,210,341/CE, with Justice Antonio Carlos Ferreira as reporting justice, decided by the Fourth Panel in June 2025 and published on July 31, the Superior Court of Justice upheld Brazilian jurisdiction in an action brought by a consumer domiciled in Brazil against a betting platform headquartered in Gibraltar, with no representation in the country, holding that Article 25 must be read together with Article 22, item II, and that a foreign forum clause imposed in an adhesion contract, without negotiation and on a website aimed at the Brazilian public, is abusive when it hinders or prevents access to justice. The clause holds between companies and is set aside when it is adhesive and burdensome for the consumer.
An arbitration clause in the terms of use is a variant of the same problem. Foreign platforms usually provide for arbitration abroad, and Article 4, paragraph 2, of Law No. 9,307/1996 gives effect to an arbitration clause in an adhesion contract only if the adhering party initiated it or expressly accepted it, in writing, in an attached document or in bold type with a specific signature; Article 51, item VII, of the Consumer Defense Code deems void any clause that imposes the compulsory use of arbitration. The Paraná State Court of Appeals (TJPR), in an interlocutory appeal against a platform established in the United States whose terms of use provided for arbitration in New York, set aside the clause for lack of express and highlighted acceptance and upheld Brazilian jurisdiction under Article 21, item I, because the defendant had an establishment and a corporate taxpayer registration (CNPJ) in the country.
What remains are the cases of exclusive jurisdiction under Article 23, real property located in Brazil, probate of assets located here and the division of assets located here in a divorce, where no clause can displace Brazilian jurisdiction, and which are the cases that matter when the foreign company owns real estate in the country.
How is a foreign company served with process?
Service of process on a foreign defendant in Brazil is the point at which the action gains or loses a year, and there are two routes. The first, the fast one, is service in Brazil on the manager, representative or administrator of a branch, agency or subsidiary office opened or established in the country, as provided in Article 75, item X, of the CPC; paragraph 3 presumes that the manager of a branch or agency is authorized by the foreign legal entity to receive service in any proceeding. The second, the slow one, is the letter rogatory, by which the Brazilian court asks the authority of the defendant’s country to serve it there.
The reach of the first route was broadened by the Special Court of the Superior Court of Justice in Foreign Judgment Recognition Case No. 410/EX (HDE 410), decided on November 20, 2019, with Justice Benedito Gonçalves as reporting justice. The Court held that service on a foreign legal entity through its local outpost (entreposto) in Brazil is valid even when the outpost is a separate legal entity, without the form of an agency or branch, because the purpose of Article 75, item X, is to make service on the foreign company easier, so the terms branch, agency and subsidiary office receive a broad reading. It is the appearance doctrine applied to service of process: a Brazilian company that presents itself to the market as the representative or outpost of a foreign group, with a similar name, a common line of business and access to the negotiations of the deal, may receive service on behalf of the parent company.
The limit came in 2026. In Special Appeal No. 2,000,242/RJ, decided by the Fourth Panel on April 14, 2026 and published on June 8, with the opinion written by Justice Isabel Gallotti after a tie-breaking vote, the Superior Court of Justice set aside the service on Hyundai Corporation made on Hyundai Caoa do Brasil, a separate company that used the brand and held distribution contracts with a company affiliated with the defendant. The headnote records that service made on a separate Brazilian company, without proof of powers of representation or of actual activity on behalf of the foreign legal entity, is invalid and taints the subsequent acts, and that a commercial partnership and a shared brand are insufficient to presume representation; without a representative shown to be authorized, valid service requires a letter rogatory, cured only by the defendant’s voluntary appearance. The rule that emerges from the two decisions is this: service on the outpost is valid when the plaintiff shows, with documents, the representation link, whether formal or de facto, and is void when it rests only on a shared brand or on the existence of a distribution contract. A complaint that requests service in Brazil must therefore attach the Brazilian company’s corporate registration, its website, the contracts or the correspondence that show it acting for the foreign company.
When there is no outpost, the letter rogatory has followed, since June 2019, the Hague Service Convention, promulgated by Decree No. 9,734/2019 and in force for Brazil since June 1 of that year, with the Ministry of Justice and Public Security as central authority, which removes the need to route the request through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Itamaraty). The request goes on a standard form signed by the judge, with a translation into the language of the destination country, and travels from central authority to central authority. Brazil made reservations to Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, objecting to service through direct diplomatic channels and to service by mail or by officials of the destination country without passing through the central authority, so a foreign company served here by mail may plead nullity, and service on a Brazilian resident abroad by those means is likewise inadmissible. For countries in the Americas that have stayed outside the Hague Convention, the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory and its Additional Protocol apply, with their own forms; for all other countries, the diplomatic channel based on reciprocity, under Article 26, paragraph 1, of the CPC.
The cost and the timing of the letter rogatory must be estimated before filing. The sworn translation of the complaint and the documents, the copies and the expenses of execution are borne by the plaintiff, and the interval between issuance and the return of the executed letter ranges from a few months to more than a year depending on the country, with the action at a standstill in the meantime. If the defendant’s address abroad is unknown or the letter comes back unexecuted, Article 256 allows service by publication (edital). A foreign company that offers services to the Brazilian public by digital means is subject to Brazilian law as regards data and communications, under Article 11, paragraph 2, of Law No. 12,965/2014, even if headquartered abroad. In addition, the holding (tese) established by the Supreme Federal Court (STF) in the judgment on Article 19 of the Brazilian Internet Civil Framework (Marco Civil), on June 26, 2025 and upheld in the motions for clarification of June 2026, requires application providers operating in Brazil to maintain a seat and a representative in the country, with powers to answer in court and comply with orders, and Article 40 of Law No. 15,211/2025 requires a legal representative with powers to receive service from providers of digital services likely to be accessed by children and adolescents. Whether such a representative or a subsidiary exists is the first point to check in an action against a platform.
Which law applies and how is what happened abroad proven?
Brazilian jurisdiction is one thing and the application of Brazilian law is another, and the judge may have to decide the merits under foreign law. Article 9 of the Law of Introduction to the Rules of Brazilian Law submits obligations to the law of the country in which they were formed and, for contractual obligations, deems the obligation formed in the place where the offeror resides; international contracts also usually choose the applicable law, and that choice is respected between companies. A plaintiff who relies on foreign law must be ready to prove it, because Article 376 of the CPC allows the judge to require proof of the content and the validity of the foreign law, which is done with the translated statutory text, an opinion from a jurist of that country and, if necessary, a consular certificate. In consumer relations the question becomes simpler, because the rules of the Consumer Defense Code are matters of public policy and apply to a consumer domiciled in Brazil regardless of the law chosen in the adhesion contract.
Foreign documents enter the case file with a sworn translation, as required by Article 192, sole paragraph, and, when they are public documents, with an apostille from the country of origin, under the 1961 Hague Convention, to which Brazil has been a party since 2016. Contracts and e-mail correspondence in a foreign language are private documents and are exempt from the apostille, while the translation remains mandatory; the practice of filing the English original and asking the judge to read it creates an incidental dispute and delay. A notarial record (ata notarial) of web pages and messages, drawn up by a Brazilian notary, is the usual means of preserving evidence of the foreign company’s activity in the Brazilian market and also serves to support service on the outpost.
When the evidence is abroad, a witness’s testimony, an expert examination of an asset located there or the production of a document held by the defendant, the route is the letter rogatory for the taking of evidence, which follows the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad, promulgated by Decree No. 9,039/2017, through the same central authority. The timing is the same as for service, and the evidentiary strategy should therefore be designed so that the case can be decided on the evidence available in Brazil, reserving the letter rogatory for what is indispensable. A videoconference hearing with a witness residing abroad is accepted by the courts, but it depends on the country where the witness is located raising no objection to the direct taking of evidence, which varies and should be checked before counting on it.
Does a Brazilian judgment reach the company’s assets abroad?
Not by itself. A judgment rendered in Brazil is enforced in Brazil, against assets located here; to enforce a Brazilian judgment abroad, it must first be recognized by the country where the assets are, under that country’s own procedure. This is why the question about assets must be answered before filing.
In Brazil, what a foreign company usually has are receivables from Brazilian customers, bank balances, trademarks registered with the Brazilian patent and trademark office (INPI), equity interests in a Brazilian company and, less often, real estate and equipment. All of them can be attached in the judgment enforcement phase, and receivables and equity interests are the most effective: attachment (penhora) of a receivable is made on the Brazilian debtor, who starts depositing in court what it owed to the foreign company, and attachment of equity interests follows Article 861 of the CPC, with liquidation or auction of the interest. Urgent relief of a precautionary nature, with pre-judgment attachment (arresto) of those assets, may be requested in the complaint itself when there is a risk that the foreign company will empty its position in the country during the proceeding, and it is often the only measure that produces a settlement.
A Brazilian subsidiary answers for the parent company’s debt only in specific circumstances, and belonging to the same group is insufficient on its own. Its legal personality is separate, and reaching the Brazilian company’s assets requires piercing of the corporate veil, through the incidental proceeding of Articles 133 to 137 of the CPC, under the requirements of Article 50 of the Civil Code, abuse of legal personality through misuse of purpose or commingling of assets, which the mere existence of common control fails to satisfy. The relevant exception is the consumer’s: Article 28, paragraph 2, of the Consumer Defense Code makes the companies in a group subsidiarily liable for obligations arising under the Code, which allows the consumer, once the foreign parent has lost the case or become insolvent, to turn to the Brazilian subsidiary without proof of abuse. For a Brazilian company in a commercial relationship, the solution comes before the dispute: contract with the subsidiary, require a guarantee from it or a surety from the parent, or provide for joint and several liability in the contract.
When the assets are abroad, the Brazilian judgment goes for recognition abroad, and the regime varies by country. In the United States recognition is a matter of state law, under the uniform act on the recognition of foreign money judgments adopted by most states, in a separate action before the local court, which checks the jurisdiction of the Brazilian court, the regularity of service and compatibility with public policy; in the European Union each Member State applies its domestic law to judgments from outside the bloc, and Portugal requires review and confirmation by the Court of Appeal (Tribunal da Relação); in Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, the other Mercosur countries, a regional protocol on judicial cooperation allows recognition by letter rogatory; with China there is a bilateral treaty on judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters, promulgated by Decree No. 8,430/2015, which covers the recognition of judgments. In every case, regular service is the requirement most closely examined, and service made on the Brazilian outpost, valid here under Article 75, may be challenged there; when the goal is to enforce abroad, service by letter rogatory, slow as it is, is the one that withstands scrutiny.
The alternative, in cases where the defendant has nothing in Brazil and recognition abroad is uncertain, is to sue directly in the defendant’s country, with local counsel, using Brazil only for evidence and for the measures available here. It is a cost decision, and it should be made with an estimate of the fees there, which in some countries exceed the value of mid-sized claims.
When is it not worth suing in Brazil?
When the contract between companies has a valid exclusive foreign forum clause or arbitration clause, and the defendant invokes it in its answer. Article 25 of the CPC removes Brazilian jurisdiction in the first case, and Law No. 9,307/1996, in Article 8, sole paragraph, and Article 20, leaves to the arbitrator the decision on the arbitrator’s own jurisdiction in the second; an action filed here despite the clause is dismissed, after months, with the costs already incurred. In those situations what Brazil offers is support for the foreign proceeding, with precautionary measures over assets located here, the taking of evidence and, at the end, the enforcement of the arbitral award or the foreign judgment, under the New York Convention or through recognition by the Superior Court of Justice.
When the defendant has no assets in Brazil, has no outpost and is located in a country where recognition of a Brazilian judgment is slow or unlikely, the action here may end in a judgment with nothing to enforce it against. The calculation to make is the cost of the letter rogatory and of the action in Brazil added to the cost of the recognition action abroad, against the cost of suing directly there; for mid-sized amounts, the second route is often the cheaper one, even if it seems the more distant.
When the relationship is a low-value consumer one, the action in Brazil is almost always the only viable route, and here what decides is whether the company has a representative or a subsidiary in the country. Against platforms with a Brazilian subsidiary the case proceeds like any other, with local service and subsidiary liability of the group; against a company with no presence at all, the letter rogatory makes the case disproportionate to the amount, and the consumer should weigh out-of-court remedies, such as a chargeback through the card issuer, before litigating.
In every scenario, the forum clause, the arbitration clause, the applicable law and the guarantee are negotiated before the contract, and that is the moment when a Brazilian company that buys from or sells abroad decides, without noticing, where it will be able to litigate. Reviewing those clauses costs a fraction of what it costs to discover, in the dispute, that the forum is Singapore.
In what order should decisions and steps be taken?
The order starts with the assets, because they tell whether the action will have a useful end, and only then moves to jurisdiction and service, which tell whether the action can begin. Before any filing, the plaintiff locates what the defendant has in Brazil, receivables from customers, accounts, trademarks, equity interests in a Brazilian company and real estate, and with that knows whether there is anything to attach and whether it is worth litigating here or in the defendant’s country. At the same time counsel reads the contract or the terms of use looking for an exclusive foreign forum clause, an arbitration clause and a choice of law, because those are what can end the action before the merits, under Article 25 of the CPC or Law No. 9,307/1996, and frames jurisdiction under Articles 21, 22 or 23 with the facts that support it.
Once it is settled that the action lies, service is prepared before it is requested. If there is a Brazilian company acting for the defendant, the link is documented with a notarial record of the website and the communications, with the company’s corporate registration and with the contracts or the correspondence that show it acting for the foreign company, and only then is service on the outpost requested, which is completed in weeks. If there is no outpost, the complaint and the documents are translated into the language of the destination country and the expenses of the letter rogatory are advanced, so that transmission to the central authority avoids stalling over a missing requirement; the return of the executed letter takes from months to more than a year, depending on the country, and the action is at a standstill in the meantime. Where there are assets in Brazil and a risk that the defendant will remove them, pre-judgment attachment or other urgent relief is requested in the complaint itself, with proof of the risk, and it is often the act that produces the settlement.
At the evidentiary stage, if the applicable law is foreign, the plaintiff files the translated statutory text and the opinion of a jurist from that country before the judge demands them; evidence located abroad is reserved for the letter rogatory for the taking of evidence only when indispensable. After the judgment becomes final, the judgment enforcement phase runs against the assets located at the outset, and, when the assets are abroad, the judgment goes for recognition abroad, with local counsel, within the time and under the procedure of the destination country. The processing times of central authorities vary by country and appear in no statute; the reference for the client is the firm’s recent experience with the country in question. For the foreign company that maintains an operation in Brazil and needs permanent representation, the service is described in the article on the representation of foreign companies in Brazil.
Sources consulted on October 31 and November 1, 2026: STJ, judgment in Special Appeal No. 2,000,242/RJ, Fourth Panel, DJEN of June 8, 2026; Migalhas, STJ sets precedent on service of process on foreign legal entities, HDE 410/EX; Migalhas, Brazil may hear action against Gibraltar betting house, Special Appeal No. 2,210,341/CE; Law No. 15,211/2025, Article 40, legal representative in the country; STF, holding in Theme 987, duty to maintain a seat and a representative in Brazil; Conjur, foreign company may be served through a representative without formal appointment, HDE 410; Conjur, STJ rejects service based on a presumed partnership, June 2026; Jurinews, Fourth Panel sets aside service on Hyundai Corporation; Decree No. 9,734/2019, Hague Service Convention, with the reservations to Articles 8 and 10; Conjur, the Hague Service Convention in Brazil; Mattos Filho, STJ and the foreign forum clause in consumer relations, Special Appeal No. 2,210,341/CE; STJ, news item on foreign forum clauses in adhesion contracts; TJPR, arbitration clause in the terms of use of a foreign platform; the firm’s article on the enforcement of a title issued abroad; the firm’s article on the recognition of a foreign judgment by the STJ.
