Despite its good performance, the decision to close Coprec was taken without proposing adequate alternatives that guarantee the continuity of consumer defense.
The recent closure of the Consumer Conciliation Service (COPREC) and the dissolution of the Registry of Consumer Conciliators They represent a hard blow to the protection of consumer rights in Argentina. This measure, far from responding to system optimization, leaves thousands of citizens without an effective tool to resolve consumption conflicts agilely and equitablely.
Since its creation in 2014, Coprec consolidated as an efficient and free access mechanism for consumers. The system, which allowed the resolution of disputes between consumers and suppliers, showed more than acceptable success rates. In 2023, 61% of the cases that reached a hearing were resolved with conciliatory agreement, avoiding judicialization and providing rapid responses to citizens. This high index of agreements demonstrates the effectiveness of a system that, although it was perfectible, fulfilled its purpose of guaranteeing fair and accessible solutions.
Despite its good performance, the decision of Closing Coprec was taken without proposing adequate alternatives that guarantee the continuity of consumer defense. It was argued that other systems, such as mediation, could absorb their function, but this is a fallacy. Mediation is not only not free, but also does not contemplate structural asymmetry between consumers and companies, nor is it governed by the same rules as consumption conciliation. With this decision, consumers lose a key instance to settle their conflicts and remain at the mercy of more expensive and cumbersome procedures.
Decree 55/2025 argues that there are other systems similar to Coprec and it is true, as it was also true in 2014 when the bottleneck between complaints and conciliatory hearings in administrative bodies made them late to provide an effective solution.
The economic impact of this measure is considerable. Before, consumers could access Coprec for free, while now they must resort to private mediators or justice, which implies significant costs. The fees of a private mediator can range between $ 30,000 and $ 100,000 per process, depending on the complexity of the case, while litigating in justice implies even higher costs in judicial rates and lawyer fees. This generates an economic barrier and becomes a fiction, which discourages consumers to claim for their rights, thus benefiting large companies that will now face less pressure to resolve consumption conflicts. Even Coprec’s particularity was also because of the various cases that were received. From purchases for low -amount products, breeding services and some more onerous issues. It is logical to assume that those consumers who want to claim for some low amount will weigh the cost of the claim involved in private mediation for the cost of replacement of the same product.
Another worrying aspect is the lack of clarity on cases in process. Thousands of consumers had initiated procedures within the COPREC system with already scheduled audiences and assigned conciliators. The dissolution of the registration leaves these professionals in a situation of uncertainty and consumers without guarantee of continuity in their claims. In the first place because if the National Registry of Conciliators (entity that enabled the conciliators to act) is dissolved, the conciliators who will continue until the end of the previous procedures, will not have a legal umbrella under which to act. The Ministry of Commerce and Industry, in charge of completing the pending issues, has not given concrete answers on how these cases will be resolved, which generates legal insecurity and violates acquired rights.
The Coprec closure is not an isolated event, but the reflection of a State that withdraws from the defense of consumer rights. This measure adds to the dismantling of support programs, such as the hypervulnerable sector and the specialized over -indebtedness unit, and the reduction of personnel in key consumer protection areas. Without a solid conciliation system, citizens remain in a disadvantage position in front of large companies, which now have less incentives to resolve conflicts voluntarily.
In short, Coprec’s disappearance means a serious decline in consumer defense. A system is dismantled that, with political will and improvements in its implementation, could have been perfected instead of eliminated. The protection of consumers cannot be fought to the will of the market or to ineffective systems. It is urgent that the State reverses this decision and guarantees an adequate and accessible mechanism for the resolution of consumption conflicts. Otherwise, the main injured will be, once again, citizens.
Source: Ambito
I am an author and journalist who has worked in the entertainment industry for over a decade. I currently work as a news editor at a major news website, and my focus is on covering the latest trends in entertainment. I also write occasional pieces for other outlets, and have authored two books about the entertainment industry.
