A lawsuit filed by the National Confederation of Tourism (Cntur) tries to overturn a municipal law in São Paulo that guaranteed free supply of water from the house to customers in bars and restaurants. Classified as a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality, the request was upheld by the São Paulo Court of Justice (TJSP) in a unanimous decision of June 2022. Since then, the duty of establishments to offer drinking and filtered water that is requested by the customer has been suspended. To conclude the case, it is now up to the Federal Supreme Court (STF) to determine whether Law No. 17,453, of September 9, 2020, is valid or not. The case was sent to the STF on February 1st.
Councilman Xexéu Tripoli (PSDB), who authored the norm with Adolfo Quintas, drew attention to the case in a post on Instagram this Monday (6) and highlighted some environmental impacts that may be caused by the refusal to supply water from the home for free.
According to Tripoli, the objectives of the Water in the House Law are:
- “Fighting pollution from extraction to disposal
- Reduce the amount of garbage generated in the city of SP (20 thousand tons / day)
- Encourage conscious consumption in the population and the #ESG concept [que vem da expressão em inglês Environmental, Social and Governance, que diz respeito a práticas sustentáveis que atendam aspectos ambientais, sociais e de governança]
- Collaborate with the SDGs – Sustainable Development Goals: SDG6, SDG12, SDG14, SDG15
- Fulfill the Global Commitment for the New Plastics Economy, led by the UN and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, and signed by the city of São Paulo in 2019″.
What does the decision of the previous instance say
In June 2022, the Special Body of the TJSP understood that the Água da Casa law, imposed on establishments such as bars, hotels, restaurants, snack bars, bakeries and cafeterias, was unconstitutional. By law, noncompliance could result in fines of up to R$ 8,000.
The then rapporteur of the action, judge James Siano, pointed out that “if not even the State offers free filtered water to citizens, demanding such behavior from traders, some of small financial size, configures a disproportionate and unreasonable model to the regular demands of economic activity, in contempt for the principle of free enterprise”.
For Siano, the law required the free supply of “a product that has a cost”: the acquisition of water by Sabesp and maintenance of its own filtering system. According to the judge, free tap water “would certainly reduce the sale of other beverages”.
The magistrate concluded that the granting of gratuity by a commercial establishment would create “a vicious circle” that ends up “harming the citizen”.
“The increase in price and the difficulty caused to the entrepreneur are factors that discourage the exercise of the activity, which harms the consumer due to the possibility of reducing competition and, consequently, increasing the price, as well as the general pass-through of the costs arising from the adoption of the measure, even if the customer decides not to enjoy the benefit imposed by law”, he said.
