The concept of financial consumer in Colombia

A Family Compensation Fund and a consortium made up of two construction companies entered into a trust agreement with a fiduciary company in 2015 to develop a real estate project. The project never took off: the pre-operational phase failed due to a lack of technical studies and construction permits. When the fiduciary refused to liquidate the trust assets, arguing that a joint request from both trustors was required, the consortium filed a financial consumer protection claim before the Superintendence of Finance.

In the first instance, the Superintendence of Finance found the fiduciary liable and ordered the trust to be liquidated within one month. The Superior Court of Bogotá (TSB), in the second instance, reversed the decision, ruling that the consortium lacked standing to bring the special action because it did not qualify as a financial consumer, since the trust agreement was “a commercial act intrinsically linked to its economic activities.” The Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ), in Judgment SC1718-2025, overturned this decision and reinstated the first-instance ruling, setting a precedent regarding who holds this status.

Regarding the status of financial consumer, two main positions were discussed in the process:

TSB: Both criteria must be met concurrently:

i) Being the final recipient of the service to satisfy a personal or business need that is not intrinsically linked to its economic activity (General Consumer Statute, Law 1480 of 2011, Art. 5); and

ii) Being a party to a contractual relationship with a supervised entity (Financial Consumer Protection Regime, Law 1328 of 2009, Art. 2).

SCJ: The status of financial consumer is determined solely by the special and abstract criterion set forth in Law 1328 (existence of a contractual relationship with a supervised entity). By supplementary integration, all guarantees and remedies under Law 1480 are automatically activated. It is irrelevant whether the consortium was or was not the final recipient of the service for the purpose of satisfying a business need not intrinsically linked to its economic activity.

Although the outcome reached by the Supreme Court in the cassation process is shared, it should be noted that meeting the abstract definition of financial consumer does not always mean that Law 1480 applies automatically. Both regimes have independent scopes of application, which are determined by their respective definitions of “consumer.” Therefore, both criteria must be met if both regimes are to apply.

For example, a private citizen who acquires an online credit card from a bank as a final recipient may exercise the right of withdrawal provided under Law 1480, since—beyond being a financial consumer—he also meets the definition of a general consumer under that law.

However, a fiduciary company, in the course of its commercial operations, may request 100 credit cards from the same bank through its website. Is it a financial consumer? According to the abstract criterion of Law 1328, yes. But should the guarantees and rights under Law 1480 also apply? Not necessarily—it depends on whether the acquisition satisfies its own needs that are not intrinsically linked to its business activity.

Written by: Juan Jose Alzate