Theme 177 of the Brazilian Superior Labor Court (TST) established the understanding that employees of credit card administrators fall under the professional category of “financiários” (financial sector employees). This understanding has been consolidated for years. Nothing has changed.

Nevertheless, Theme 177 has sparked considerable controversy in recent days, making it essential to clarify certain points to avoid misinterpretations.

The thesis is very clear: employees of credit card administrator companies are considered “financiários.” This classification guarantees these employees the rights afforded to the “financiários” category, which has its own collective bargaining agreement and is equated with bank employees for purposes of working hours, as established by TST Precedent 55.

Despite the clarity of the thesis, the case selected by the TST to establish it has led to arguments that it should also apply to employees of payment institutions (PIs), thereby classifying them under the same professional category.

Why did this happen? Because the case in question involves Fortbrasil Administradora de Cartões de Crédito S/A, which—despite its name—is currently a payment institution. Its current name is Fortbrasil Instituição de Pagamento S.A. Unfortunately, this change was not taken into account in the formulation of Theme 177.

This is a classic case where a small factual difference makes all the legal difference.

From a legal-regulatory standpoint, credit card administrators and payment institutions are not equivalent entities. Quite the opposite.

The term “credit card administrator” was previously used generically to refer to companies operating before the specific legal framework established by Law No. 12,865/13 (which governs payment arrangements and institutions).

These companies were, in certain cases, equated with financial institutions, since the products they offered included a credit component. In fact, Superior Court of Justice (STJ) Precedent 283 establishes that credit card administrators are considered financial institutions.

On the other hand, Law No. 12,865/13 establishes that payment institutions are not financial institutions and are expressly prohibited from engaging in any activities reserved for financial institutions.

Currently, even a payment institution that issues post-paid payment instruments (credit cards) cannot itself offer revolving credit or installment plans. It must partner with a duly authorized financial institution to do so.

This distinction is essential from a labor law perspective and for the application of Theme 177.

This is because classifying employees as “financiários” requires that their employer be considered a financial institution, since “financiários” are not a distinct professional category.

Therefore, TST (and labor courts) case law on the classification of employees of credit card administrators cannot be analogously applied to payment institutions created under Law No. 12,865/13.

Indeed, decisions issued by Regional Labor Courts and the TST itself have held that employees of payment institutions cannot be classified as “financiários.” Here are some examples:

(...) CLASSIFICATION AS “FINANCIÁRIO” – IMPOSSIBILITY – PAYMENT INSTITUTION – CREDIT CARD OPERATOR (...), the activities of issuing and managing credit cards may also be carried out by non-financial institutions. In such cases, credit card operators act merely as intermediaries between the end user, the merchant, and the financial institutions supervised by the Central Bank of Brazil. In this role, they are characterized as payment institutions, not financial institutions, under Law No. 12,865/2013. Decision from the Superior Court of Justice. (…) 4. In this case, the activities performed by the Claimant, as described in the regional court’s decision, are typical of a payment institution and/or banking correspondent, and do not justify classification as a financial institution. (TST, 0100753-34.2020.5.01.0026; Reporting Justice: Maria Cristina Peduzzi; publication date: 02/16/2024) (emphasis added)

APPEAL FOR REVIEW. (...) PAYMENT INSTITUTION. UNION CLASSIFICATION. “FINANCIÁRIO.” IMPOSSIBILITY. (...) 1. In this case, the Regional Court rejected the classification of the claimant as a bank employee, (...) but considered it possible to classify them as a “financiário,” (...) . 2. The regional decision must be overturned, as it contradicts the consistent, well-established, and current case law of this Superior Court, which holds that card operations and activities preceding those of financial institutions—such as credit checks, data processing, proposal and document submission, product offerings, and similar tasks—do not constitute banking or financial activities. Precedents. Appeal for review granted. (TST, 00206345720215040741; Reporting Justice: Morgana de Almeida Richa; publication date: 09/06/2024) (emphasis added)

The new precedent system guiding the TST’s actions throughout 2025 is essential for jurisprudential consistency, legal certainty, and a better business environment.

In this new context, it is up to us — litigants and especially legal professionals — to interpret and apply precedents correctly, practicing law transparently and in good faith, including procedural good faith.