[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ theme_builder_area=”post_content” _builder_version=”4.27.9″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.27.9″ _module_preset=”default” theme_builder_area=”post_content” width=”100%” hover_enabled=”0″ sticky_enabled=”0″][et_pb_column _builder_version=”4.27.9″ _module_preset=”default” type=”4_4″ theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.9″ _module_preset=”default” theme_builder_area=”post_content” text_orientation=”justified” hover_enabled=”0″ sticky_enabled=”0″]In Colombia, third-party notice allows a defendant to bring into the same proceedings a third party who may be required to assume all or part of the consequences of an eventual judgment against the defendant. For years, however, there had been a debate over whether this mechanism could be used before the Superintendencia de Industria y Comercio (SIC) or whether it was reserved for civil courts.<\/p>\n
The controversy arose because the SIC had been rejecting third-party notice requests in consumer protection proceedings. Its position was that its jurisdictional authority was limited to resolving disputes arising from consumer relationships and that, since the relationship between the defendant and the third party being brought into the proceedings is not necessarily a consumer relationship, the SIC could not rule on it. Some courts had already held otherwise when deciding appeals against these decisions, but the SIC\u2019s practice had not consistently changed.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court of Justice has now settled this debate through Judgment STC9708-2026, holding that third-party notice is available in consumer protection actions before the SIC when it exercises jurisdictional functions. According to the Court, denying this possibility would mean that companies and other participants in the same consumer supply chain would have fewer procedural defense mechanisms depending on whether the case is heard by a court or by the SIC.<\/p>\n
The decision has significant practical implications: the SIC may now determine, within the same proceedings, not only the dispute between the consumer and the defendant, but also the internal liability, guarantee, or reimbursement relationships that may exist among the different participants in the consumer supply chain. The ruling therefore eliminates a procedural distinction that, for years, had affected the way these proceedings were handled before the SIC as compared with those brought before civil courts.[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In Colombia, third-party notice allows a defendant to bring a third party who may be required to assume all or part of the consequences of an eventual judgment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":4430769,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[59,160],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4430753","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-newsletter-en","category-consumer-law"],"yoast_head":"\n