La Corte Suprema de Justicia y las cláusulas abusivas en los servicios financieros en Argentina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolLa Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nacion ha asumido un relevante rol respecto a la proteccion de los consumidores y usuarios y a su acceso a la justicia. En cuanto a la relacion entre los consumidores y los bancos, los datos oficiales muestran que el sector bancario es el que mas reclamos recibe en acciones de defensa del consumidor en la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. En este articulo se comenta el fallo “PADEC”, accion colectiva en la cual la CSJN considero no escritas las clausulas abusivas de contratos bancarios de caja de ahorro que imponian al cliente un “cargo por mantenimiento de cuenta” que consumia no solo la tasa de interes, sino tambien el capital. Se selecciona este fallo porque mediante el la Corte reconocio una tutela especial al consumidor bancario para casos futuros. Cierra el articulo una reflexion sobre el avance de las tecnologias en los contratos de consumo y los desafios que esta realidad planteara para la defensa del consumidor. EnglishThe Supreme Court of Justice (CSJN) of Argentina has assumed a relevant role regarding the protection of consumers and their access to justice. Concerning the relation between consumers and banks, official data shows that the financial sector is the one that receives more claims in the City of Buenos Aires. In this article we comment the leading case “PADEC”, a class action in which the CSJN considered unwritten the abusive clauses of bank contracts in saving accounts that imposed a fee for “account maintenance” that consumed, not just the obtained interest, but also the capital. This case was selected because, through it, the Court recognized for future cases a special protection for all the consumers of financial services. The article closes with a consideration on the advance of the technologies in consumer contracts and the challenges that this reality will raise for consumer protection.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".