Profeco closing a conciliation file can be challenged if due process was breached
Federal contentious administrative proceeding. It is available against Federal Consumer Protection Agency rulings ordering a conciliation file closed, when violations of the essential formalities governing that alternative dispute resolution mechanism are alleged.
Official heading (Spanish): JUICIO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO FEDERAL. PROCEDE CONTRA LAS DETERMINACIONES DE LA PROCURADURÍA FEDERAL DEL CONSUMIDOR QUE ORDENAN EL ARCHIVO DEL EXPEDIENTE DE UN PROCEDIMIENTO CONCILIATORIO CUANDO SE HACEN VALER VIOLACIONES A LAS FORMALIDADES ESENCIALES QUE RIGEN ESE MECANISMO ALTERNATIVO DE SOLUCIÓN DE CONTROVERSIAS.
The ruling
A consumer sought nullity of a Profeco order that ended a conciliation and closed the file; the TFJA dismissed the claim as not final. The Collegiate Circuit Court held that a nullity action is available, under article 3, section XII, of the TFJA Organic Law, when violations of essential procedural formalities are alleged, such as failing to summon a supplier.
Our take
The precedent favors consumers, but suppliers should read it carefully. A file closure that seemed to end the matter can be reopened if the procedure was flawed, pulling the company back into a conciliation it considered finished. In our experience, many companies do not track the address they have on record with Profeco or follow up on closed files. The precedent is narrow: not every closure becomes challengeable, only one issued in breach of essential formalities. That line will be the battleground in each case.
What to do
- Verify and update the company's address for service on file with Profeco.
- Keep a log of closed files and check whether every supplier was properly summoned.
- As a business consumer, consider a nullity action when Profeco closes a file without summoning the counterparty.
Details
- Court
- Collegiate Circuit Court
- Type
- Isolated precedent
- Identifier
- I.11o.A.1 A (12a.)
- Digital registry
- 2032332
- Published
- June 26, 2026
- Area
- Tax litigation
- View official source ↗
Does this ruling affect your company? Let’s talk.
Schedule a conversationOther precedents in the same area
- Conagua: without prior alert, water-mailbox service is unlawful
- Poorly grounded delegation to report audit findings leads to remand, not annulment
- Nullity complaint by mail: no proof of exact hour when time compensation applies
- Garnishment via the tax mailbox is clearly defined and respects legal certainty
Prepared by Artegia for information only; not legal advice. Headings in English are unofficial translations. The official text is the one published in the Semanario Judicial de la Federación or the TFJA journal.