The paper presents an overview of the jurisprudential experience in Argentina since the introduction of the figure of punitive damages in the Consumer Protection Act in 2008. Similarly, it is outlined the reasoning made by judges when they deal with a case of punitive damages, in the form of a deductive syllogism to see where the core of the disagreements in this matter lies, to provide a starting point that allows to reach an agreement on the implementation of punitive figure; to conclude whether the reception of the figure of punitive damages has been an advance, a regression or a plateau in the Argentine private law. This research is based on the study of edited and unpublished sources on the subject in the Argentine doctrine, in the collection and analysis of case material from the entry into force of Article 52 bis of the Consumer Protection Act.