Unfair airline terms in Peru: what has Indecopi already sanctioned?
Between December 2024 and January 2025, Indecopi's Consumer Protection Chamber upheld as abusive several clauses in the terms and conditions of LATAM Airlines Perú, Sky Airline Perú and Star Up: changing the trip for reasons other than force majeure, capping baggage liability at what an insurance policy covers, or refusing liability for what staff tell you. You can cite those decisions in your complaint.
VerificationVerified against the official sourceSee the sources ↓
- 7sources cited
- 7read at the official source
- 2official institutions
Peruvian State portal (gob.pe) · Indecopi
Checked 12 Oct 2026Next review 12 Jan 2027
The three decisions were read in full in Indecopi's official resolution search.
Read moreRead less
Ley 29571 articles 48 to 51 are quoted from the SPIJ text published on gob.pe, which has no update date; the most recent amendment it notes is Ley 32032 (18 May 2024). That text shows no amendments to articles 48 to 52, and the later amendments we know of (Ley 32495, D. Leg. 1729) do not touch articles 48 to 52. We did not check whether these clauses are still in the airlines' terms and conditions today, or whether any company took its case to court. Resolution 0075-2025/SPC-INDECOPI does not set LATAM's final fine: the Commission must grade it again. That you can cite these decisions in a complaint is our reading; we did not verify that any of them is a binding precedent (precedente de observancia obligatoria).
What an abusive clause is
When you buy a ticket on an airline’s website, you accept its terms and conditions without being able to negotiate them. Ley 29571 calls that an adhesion contract (contrato por adhesión), and in those contracts non-negotiated terms are abusive and «inexigibles» (unenforceable) when, «en contra de las exigencias de la buena fe» (against the requirements of good faith), they put you «en una situación de desventaja o desigualdad» (at a disadvantage or in a position of inequality) or cancel your rights (art. 49.1).
The law has two lists:
- Article 50: absolute ineffectiveness. Among others, clauses that «excluyan o limiten la responsabilidad del proveedor o sus dependientes» (exclude or limit the liability of the provider or its staff, item a), those that «excluyan o limiten los derechos legales reconocidos a los consumidores» (exclude or limit consumers’ legal rights, item e), and those that are «contrarias o violatorias a normas de orden público o de carácter imperativo» (contrary to public-order or mandatory rules, item h).
- Article 51: relative ineffectiveness, meaning abusive depending on the case. For example, those that «impongan obstáculos onerosos o desproporcionados» (impose onerous or disproportionate obstacles) to exercising your rights (item a).
Separately, article 48 requires clauses to have «concreción, claridad y sencillez en la redacción» (concise, clear and simple wording, item a). For the full explanation, see adhesion contracts and unfair terms.
Three airlines, three decisions
All three are proceedings opened by Indecopi on its own initiative (de oficio); for LATAM and Star Up, the decision states that the clauses were in the terms and conditions on their website. The Consumer Protection Commission – Lima Sur Office No. 3 decided them at first instance, and the Specialized Consumer Protection Chamber at second instance.
| Company (as named in the decision) | Clause | What the Chamber decided | Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| LATAM Airlines Perú S.A. — Res. 0075-2025/SPC-INDECOPI (13 January 2025) | Clause 2.7: allowed the airline, «por causas distintas a casos fortuitos o fuerza mayor» (for reasons other than unforeseeable events or force majeure), to cancel the operation, have other carriers substitute for it, or change or skip stops shown on the ticket | Upheld as abusive (art. 50(h)) | The Commission had imposed a single fine of 63.7 UIT for both clauses. The Chamber partly annulled it because each clause should have been sanctioned separately. The final fine is still to be graded |
| LATAM Airlines Perú S.A. — same decision | Clause 3.9: the airline reserved the right to change baggage dimensions | Upheld as abusive (art. 50(h)) | Same as the row above |
| Sky Airline Perú S.A.C. — Res. 0076-2025/SPC-INDECOPI (13 January 2025) | Clause 2 of section «A. Condiciones Generales»: excluded its liability for what its staff told passengers about travel requirements | Upheld as abusive (art. 50(a)) | 41.35 UIT |
| Sky Airline Perú S.A.C. — same decision | Clause 6 of section «B. Condiciones Particulares: Perú»: staff could deny boarding, at their sole discretion, if they judged a passenger needed a companion | Reversed the sanction: the clause did not breach article 48(a). Because the clause has since changed, the Commission will consider whether to open a new proceeding | No fine for this clause |
| Star Up S.A.C. — Res. 3397-2024/SPC-INDECOPI (12 December 2024) | Clause 8: a USD 50.00 penalty if the passenger did not follow the route on the ticket | Upheld as abusive (art. 51(a)) | 17.5 UIT |
| Star Up S.A.C. — same decision | Clause 26: limited its liability for missed connections the passenger had not reported in advance | Upheld as abusive (art. 50(a)) | 17.5 UIT |
| Star Up S.A.C. — same decision | Clause 10: limited its liability to refunding the price if it did not provide the service (Promo, Simple and Extra fares) | Upheld as abusive (art. 50(e)) | 17.5 UIT |
| Star Up S.A.C. — same decision | Clauses 10, 26, 27 and 28: a USD 11.80 no-show charge; changing Promo, Simple and Extra fares without prior consent; changing the transport conditions for reasons other than unforeseeable events or force majeure; capping loss of checked baggage at what the contracted insurance covers | Upheld as abusive (art. 50(h)) | 17.5 UIT |
Star Up’s four fines add up to 70 UIT; the sum is ours. As a corrective measure, the Chamber confirmed that LATAM must remove or modify clauses 2.7 and 3.9, and Star Up clauses 8, 10, 26, 27 and 28, in both cases within 15 business days of notification.
What these decisions do not say
- They do not say what each airline’s terms say today. The clauses are the ones Indecopi found during its supervision. We have not checked whether they are still in the current terms.
- They do not set LATAM’s final fine. They only annul the single 63.7 UIT fine so the Commission can grade it again.
- They do not settle which trade name Star Up S.A.C. uses. We name the company as it appears in the decision.
- We do not know whether any company took its case to court. These are second-instance decisions within Indecopi.
If your airline applies a similar clause to you
Our reading is that these decisions help in a complaint as an example of how the Chamber reasoned about identical or similar clauses. We have not verified that any of them is a binding precedent, and each case is judged on its own facts. Three common situations:
- Your flight, route or conditions are changed and the airline points to its terms. If the reason is not an unforeseeable event or force majeure, cite LATAM’s clause 2.7 (Res. 0075-2025/SPC-INDECOPI) and Star Up’s clause on changing the transport conditions (Res. 3397-2024/SPC-INDECOPI). See also what you’re owed if your flight is delayed or cancelled.
- You’re told they only pay for your bag what an insurance policy covers. The Chamber upheld as abusive a Star Up clause that capped loss of checked baggage at what the contracted insurance covered. The page on lost or damaged luggage on a flight explains what Peru’s civil aviation law says about clauses that limit that liability on domestic flights.
- Staff gave you wrong information about a travel requirement and you couldn’t board. Cite Sky’s clause 2 (Res. 0076-2025/SPC-INDECOPI): the Chamber upheld as abusive a clause that excluded the airline’s liability for that information.
In your complaint, write the decision’s full number and describe how the clause applied to you resembles it. If you were denied boarding because of overbooking, a different rule applies: see bumped from an overbooked flight.
How to file
- Find the clauseSave a screenshot or PDF of the terms and conditions you accepted when you bought the ticket, with the date. If the airline quotes a clause at you, ask for its number.
- Compare it with the tableSee whether it looks like one of the clauses the Chamber upheld as abusive: changing the trip for reasons other than force majeure, capping baggage liability at an insurance policy, or refusing liability for what staff tell you.
- Complain in the airline's complaints bookUse the airline's *libro de reclamaciones*. Describe what happened, say what you want (refund, rebooking, payment for your bag) and cite the number of the decision closest to your case.
- Take the case to IndecopiIf the airline does not answer or insists on the clause: Reclama Virtual to reach an agreement, or a formal complaint (denuncia) if you want a sanction.
Want it drafted for you? Escrito listo — S/ 29 · available soon →
What people fail to ask in time
If the airline sticks to its clause, do you know when a *reclamo* is enough and when you need a formal complaint with Indecopi?
Find out before it matters →What most people believe — and what the law says
If I accepted it when I bought the ticket online, I can't complain.
A website's terms and conditions are an adhesion contract: you did not negotiate them. Article 49 of Ley 29571 makes abusive clauses in those contracts «inexigibles» (unenforceable), and Indecopi has already upheld as abusive clauses in the terms and conditions of three airlines.
The airline can change the flight or the conditions whenever it wants, because its terms say so.
In two of these cases, the Chamber upheld as abusive clauses that let the airline change the operation or the transport conditions for reasons other than unforeseeable events or force majeure (caso fortuito o fuerza mayor) (LATAM, clause 2.7; Star Up).
If airline staff gave me wrong information about travel requirements, that's my problem.
The Chamber upheld the sanction against Sky Airline Perú for a clause that «excluía la responsabilidad del proveedor por la información que sus dependientes brinden a los pasajeros respecto a los requisitos para viajar» (excluded the provider's liability for information its staff give passengers about travel requirements, article 50(a)).
Indecopi struck down every clause it looked at.
No. In Sky's case, the Chamber reversed the sanction for the clause on boarding companions: it found the clause did not breach the clarity requirement in article 48(a).
Frequently asked questions
How much did LATAM pay?
Resolution 0075-2025/SPC-INDECOPI does not say. The Commission had imposed a single fine of 63.7 UIT for both clauses, and the Chamber partly annulled it because each clause should have been sanctioned separately. The Commission must grade the fine again.
Are these clauses still in the airlines' terms?
We have not checked. LATAM and Star Up were ordered to remove or modify the clauses within 15 business days, and in Sky's case the decision itself says the companion clause had already changed. Check the terms in force on the day you bought your ticket.
Is Star Up S.A.C. the same as Star Perú?
The decision names the company as Star Up S.A.C., and we have not verified which trade name it uses. If you complain, use the name on your ticket or receipt.
Can I cite one of these decisions in my complaint?
Yes. Our reading is that they help show how the Chamber reasoned about a clause like the one being applied to you. Write the full number, for example «Resolución 3397-2024/SPC-INDECOPI». We have not verified that any of them is a binding precedent.
The exact law
Ley N.º 29571, Código de Protección y Defensa del ConsumidorArtículo 48read
Requirements for clauses in a consumer adhesion contract
«a. Concreción, claridad y sencillez en la redacción, con posibilidad de comprensión directa, sin reenvíos a textos o documentos que no se faciliten previa o simultáneamente a la conclusión del contrato [...] c. Buena fe y equilibrio necesario en los derechos y obligaciones de las partes, lo que en todo caso excluye la utilización de cláusulas abusivas.»
↳Artículo 49read
Definition of an abusive clause
«49.1 En los contratos por adhesión y en las cláusulas generales de contratación no aprobadas administrativamente, se consideran cláusulas abusivas y, por tanto, inexigibles todas aquellas estipulaciones no negociadas individualmente que, en contra de las exigencias de la buena fe, coloquen al consumidor, en su perjuicio, en una situación de desventaja o desigualdad o anulen sus derechos. 49.2 Para la evaluación de las cláusulas abusivas, se tiene en cuenta la naturaleza de los productos o servicios objeto del contrato, todas las circunstancias que concurren en el momento de su celebración, incluida la información que se haya brindado, así como todas las demás cláusulas del contrato o de otro del que este dependa. 49.3 El hecho de que ciertos elementos de una cláusula o que una cláusula aislada se haya negociado individualmente no excluye la aplicación de las normas sobre cláusulas abusivas al resto del contrato. El proveedor que afirme que una determinada cláusula ha sido negociada individualmente asume la carga de la prueba.»
↳Artículo 50read
Abusive clauses with absolute ineffectiveness
«Son cláusulas abusivas de ineficacia absoluta las siguientes: a. Las que excluyan o limiten la responsabilidad del proveedor o sus dependientes por dolo o culpa, o las que trasladen la responsabilidad al consumidor por los hechos u omisiones del proveedor. b. Las que faculten al proveedor a suspender o resolver unilateralmente un contrato, salvo disposición legal distinta o la aplicación de normas prudenciales debidamente sustentadas emitidas por la autoridad correspondiente. c. Las que faculten al proveedor a resolver un contrato sin comunicación previa o a poner fin a un contrato de duración indeterminada sin un plazo de antelación razonable, salvo disposición legal distinta o la aplicación de normas prudenciales debidamente sustentadas emitidas por la autoridad correspondiente. d. Las que establezcan a favor del proveedor la facultad unilateral de prorrogar o renovar el contrato. e. Las que excluyan o limiten los derechos legales reconocidos a los consumidores, como el derecho a efectuar pagos anticipados o prepagos, o a oponer la excepción de incumplimiento o a ejercer el derecho de retención, consignación, entre otros. f. Las que establezcan respecto del consumidor limitaciones a la facultad de oponer excepciones procesales, limitaciones a la presentación de pruebas, inversión a la carga de la prueba, entre otros derechos concernientes al debido proceso. g. Las que establezcan la renuncia del consumidor a formular denuncia por infracción a las normas del presente Código. h. Las que sean contrarias o violatorias a normas de orden público o de carácter imperativo.»
↳Artículo 51read
Abusive clauses with relative ineffectiveness
«De manera enunciativa, aunque no limitativa, son cláusulas abusivas atendiendo al caso concreto, las siguientes: a. Las que impongan obstáculos onerosos o desproporcionados para el ejercicio de los derechos reconocidos al consumidor en los contratos. b. Las que permitan al proveedor modificar unilateralmente las condiciones y términos de un contrato de duración continuada, en perjuicio del consumidor, salvo que obedezca a motivos expresados en él y el consumidor goce del derecho a desvincularse del mismo sin penalización alguna. Lo dispuesto en el presente literal no afecta las cláusulas de adaptación de los precios a un índice de ajuste legal ni la fijación de tarifas de los servicios públicos sujetos a regulación económica. c. Las que establezcan la prórroga automática del contrato fijando un plazo excesivamente breve para que el consumidor manifieste su voluntad de no prorrogarlo. d. Las que establezcan cargas económicas o procedimientos engorrosos para efectuar quejas ante el proveedor, así como las que establezcan procedimientos engorrosos para proceder a la reparación del producto no idóneo, o supongan cualquier acto previo o acción por parte del consumidor que imposibilite la debida protección de sus derechos. e. Las que permitan al proveedor delegar la ejecución de su prestación a un tercero cuando aquel fue elegido por sus cualidades personales. f. Las que establezcan que el proveedor puede cambiar unilateralmente en perjuicio del consumidor el tipo de moneda con la que fue celebrado el contrato.»
Resolución N.º 0075-2025/SPC-INDECOPIRuling on the fineguidance
Indecopi Consumer Protection Chamber, case 0049-2023/CC3 (proceeding opened by Indecopi against LATAM Airlines Perú S.A. over abusive clauses)
«cuando correspondía que se sancione por cada una de ellas»
Resolución N.º 0076-2025/SPC-INDECOPISummary and operative partguidance
Indecopi Consumer Protection Chamber, case 0042-2023/CC3 (proceeding opened by Indecopi against Sky Airline Perú S.A.C. over abusive clauses)
«excluía la responsabilidad del proveedor por la información que sus dependientes brinden a los pasajeros respecto a los requisitos para viajar»
Resolución N.º 3397-2024/SPC-INDECOPISummary and operative partguidance
Indecopi Consumer Protection Chamber, case 0048-2023/CC3 (proceeding opened by Indecopi against Star Up S.A.C. over abusive clauses)
Also searched as: unfair airline terms peru indecopi · latam terms and conditions abusive clause peru · sky airline fine indecopi clauses · star up abusive clauses · can the airline change my flight whenever it wants peru · airline limits baggage liability to insurance peru · indecopi decision abusive clause airline
Related
What are you owed when your flight is delayed or cancelled in Peru?
Your flight is hours late at the gate — at what point does the airline owe you anything?
ConsumerLost or damaged luggage on a flight in Peru? Deadlines to complain and what the airline pays
Your bag never came out on the carousel: how many days do you have before you lose the right to claim?
ConsumerBumped from a flight in Peru? What the airline owes you, and what not to sign
The counter offered you a voucher and asked you to sign: what you're owed before you accept.
What this page already lets you do
- Name the rule that protects you
- Copy the exact article and send it
- Follow the steps, in order