In brief
On 20 August 2026, the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice (the “Supreme Court”) issued a new decision concerning collective proceedings. In “ACYMA Asociación Civil v. Farmacia S.A. y otros s/ sumarísimo”, the Supreme Court set aside a judgment rendered by Chamber A of the National Court of Appeals in Commercial Matters (the “Court of Appeals”), which had dismissed the class action on the grounds that the individual harm suffered by each consumer was insignificant. According to the Supreme Court, such reasoning overlooks one of the very elements that justifies the admissibility of class actions: the lack of sufficient economic incentive for individuals to pursue their claims separately.
In focus
ACYMA Asociación Civil filed a class action against Farmacias TKL S.A. (“Farmacias TKL”) seeking reimbursement of amounts allegedly overcharged as a result of a rounding practice that failed to comply with the legal requirement to resolve rounding differences in favor of consumers. The Court of Appeals dismissed the claim, holding that any benefit allegedly obtained by the defendant was insignificant in the context of its overall business operations.
It is worth recalling that Section 9 bis of Commercial Loyalty Act (Law No. 22,802) provides that, where the difference in favor of the consumer is less than five cents and it is impossible to return the exact change, such difference must always be rounded in favor of the consumer.
The Court of Appeals acknowledged that the plaintiff association had standing to bring the action. However, it found that no compensable harm to consumers had been proven, on the basis that any injury was trivial and therefore not legally redressable. In reaching this conclusion, it relied on an accounting expert opinion indicating that, in most cases, the economic impact of the rounding practice was neutral, as instances in which consumers benefited offset those in which consumers were adversely affected.
The plaintiff filed a federal extraordinary appeal, arguing that the Court of Appeals had disregarded one of the core requirements underlying class actions: that the economic interest of each affected individual, considered separately, is insufficient to create a reasonable incentive to pursue judicial relief.
In reviewing the case, the Supreme Court reiterated that Section 43 of the Argentine Constitution permits collective actions concerning homogeneous individual rights where: (i) there is a common factual, legal, or contractual cause; (ii) the claim is focused on the collective effects arising from that cause; and (iii) the individual interest, considered in isolation, does not justify bringing an individual lawsuit, thereby affecting access to justice. The Court further reaffirmed that, where there is a real risk that individual actions would be impracticable or extremely difficult to pursue, a collective action constitutes an appropriate mechanism to ensure effective judicial protection. This is particularly relevant in consumer matters, where the low value of individual claims may otherwise deter affected individuals from seeking relief.
On that basis, the Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeals had dismissed the claim on grounds that, in fact, form part of the constitutional rationale for class actions. According to the Supreme Court, rejecting a class action because of the low value of individual damages departs from the standards established in Halabi, undermines the nature of consumer class actions, and infringes Sections 42 and 43 of the Argentine Constitution.
This decision in ACYMA confirms that the small amount of individual harm, by itself, does not preclude the admissibility of class actions arising from conduct that may simultaneously affect a significant number of consumers.
It is important to note that, in 2009, the Supreme Court established the key requirements for the admissibility and viability of class actions under Argentine law in its landmark Halabi decision. Subsequently, in 2013, the Court reaffirmed those requirements for collective proceedings involving homogeneous individual rights of an economic nature arising from consumer relationships in PADEC. Both precedents (Halabi, 2009, and PADEC, 2013) are expressly cited in this new Supreme Court decision.
It remains to be seen whether the National Congress will enact legislation governing collective proceedings or class actions, or whether case law will continue to define the requirements for the admissibility and viability of such claims.
Sofia Arfuch, Associate, has contributed to this legal update.
Download the Spanish version of The Argentine Supreme Court Confirms the Viability of Class Actions Based on Low-Value Individual Claims.