How Coca-Cola's World Cup Promotion Sparked a Legal Complaint in Brazil

The FIFA World Cup is more than a football tournament; it stirs passion and captures the attention of billions worldwide, making it one of the most powerful commercial platforms on earth. Global brands compete to associate their products with the excitement and sense of belonging the sport inspires. But when that marketing targets children and adolescents, boundaries of advertising should be drawn. 

In Brazil, an official Coca-Cola and Panini promotion linked to the 2026 FIFA World Cup has brought this issue into the legal arena. The advertising campaign offers 14 exclusive stickers found only on soft drink bottle labels to complete their World Cup album.  

As part of the Brazil Food Policy Program advocacy strategy, the Global Health Advocacy Incubator’s partner, Instituto de Defesa de Consumidores (IDEC), filed a complaint alleging the campaign violates Brazilian consumer protection law. 

GHAI's Legal Advisor, Global Luján Abramo, JD, LL.M sat down with IDEC team members Mariana Ribeiro, Tamara Andrade, Christian Printes and Laís Amaral to unpack the case and what it means for the fight against ultra-processed product (UPP) marketing in Brazil and beyond. Below are edited excerpts from the interview.  

 1. Why did IDEC file a complaint against the Coca-Cola Company and Panini? 

This promotion uses two practices prohibited by the Consumer Protection Code: it ties access to the exclusive stickers on the purchase of soft drinks and it relies on abusive and deceptive practices to associate UPPs with a sporting event that holds great appeal for children and young people, using collectability and exclusivity to drive repeat purchases. With this complaint, the objective is for the authorities to assess the legality of the campaign and strengthen the protection of consumer rights. 

2. Legally, why is this case important for the Brazilian Food Policy Program coalition work? 

This single case addresses many of the practices employed by the UPP industry the Brazilian coalition is combating, such as deceptive and abusive advertising, exploitation of children's hypervulnerability, digital gamification, use of influencers without clear identification of paid advertising and tied selling.  

The case represents an opportunity to test the response of government and administrative consumer protection agencies to a campaign linked to a major sporting event. Furthermore, it allows for the combined application of Brazil’s child protection laws and Consumer Protection Code. In addition, it reinforces the idea that mandatory front-of-package nutritional warning labeling can have its effect neutralized by parallel advertising strategies, a strategic point for advancing stricter regulations on UPP advertising in Brazil. 

3. How did you apply learnings from similar cases in Brazil? 

This complaint was built using the methodology developed by the Food Advertising Observatory (OPA), which receives complaints about potentially deceptive and/or abusive advertising, analyzes possible irregularities and refers cases to the competent authorities.  We evaluated everything from the Terms of Use of the promotional campaign to the strategies adopted in the digital environment, such as the use of digital influencers, appeals to family bonds and collecting mechanisms. 

We also took into account important lessons learned, such as the 2025 complaint against Bimbo do Brasil and Meta for an abusive, child-directed ad campaign for Ana Maria snack cakes. The cases recently reported by OPA highlight the increase in digital advertising of UPPs. 

4. In the complaint you argue that the companies used child-directed advertising. How did you come to that conclusion? 

Sticker albums have strong appeal for children, tapping into their love of collecting, belonging and fun, especially during a moment as exciting and widely watched as the World Cup. This ad campaign reinforces this interest by promoting content with digital influencers, offering exclusive stickers and providing virtual environment experiences. 

These elements meet Brazilian legal criteria for abusive advertising directed at children. Furthermore, by linking the possibility of completing a collection with strong emotional appeal to the purchase of soft drinks, the campaign creates an incentive to consume products not recommended by important international bodies and by Brazil's own Ministry of Health, through its Dietary Guidelines. Children are in a phase of forming eating habits and brand loyalty and should be protected from advertising practices that exploit their vulnerability to encourage the consumption of products harmful to health. 

5. What are the broader public health implications and how can this case inform future Brazil food policy work? 

This case highlights how promotional campaigns drive children and adolescents to drink more of their products. Brazilian law imposes restrictions on advertising directed at children and adolescents, but the absence of specific regulations for advertising of unhealthy foods and digital advertising, as well as insufficient oversight of such irregular practices, allows campaigns like the one reported to be broadcast. 

The exploitation of shared feelings and values, such as the World Cup, an event with enormous power in Brazil, dangerously associates them with unhealthy products and habits. These strategies can weaken important public policies and consolidate harmful commercial practices that escape current regulations. For the Brazilian food policy coalition, this complaint reinforces the importance of monitoring new advertising strategies from the UPP industry, especially in the digital environment, to push for regulatory advances and prevent setbacks in public policies already in place.