Unfairness of standard term electing supplier’s law as governing law

  • August 18, 2016
  • By Hunters Law

Where a consumer enters into a contract in the course of electronic commerce (e.g. by email or through a website), the seller’s general terms of business will normally specify that the contract is to be subject to the law of the State in which the seller is established.  In Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Amazon EU Sarl, the ECJ held that where the seller and the consumer are based in different Member states such a term is unfair unless it is made clear that the consumer’s rights under the mandatory provisions of the law of the country in which he is habitually resident are not prejudiced.

The case was referred to the ECJ by the Austrian Supreme Court following an injunction claim by an Austrian consumer protection association against Amazon EU. Amazon EU is established in Luxembourg but enters into electronic sales contracts with consumers from multiple countries, including Austria.

Amazon’s terms and conditions provided that Luxembourg law applied to its contracts with consumers.

The ECJ held that such a standard term is unfair insofar as “it leads the consumer into error by giving him the impression that only the law of that Member State applies to the contract, without informing him that under article 6(2) of the Rome I Regulation he also enjoys the protection of the mandatory provisions of the law that would be applicable in the absence of that term”. The applicable law will be determined by a national court in the light of the circumstances and is likely to be the law of the consumer’s habitual residence.

Sellers and suppliers trading cross-border within the EU must carefully consider the wording of the choice of law clause in their standard terms and conditions and make it clear that the consumer cannot be deprived of the protection afforded to him by mandatory provisions of the law of his habitual residence.

For queries in relation to commercial matters, please contact the partner at Hunters having responsibility for your legal matters, or for new enquiries please contact a member of our Business Services Team.

Related News

Jan 30, 2023
Stephen Morrall and Sophia Smout examine the new rules on flexible working in People Management
Dec 12, 2022
Stephen Morrall comments on the new flexible working rights in Personnel Today
Oct 18, 2022
Stephen Morrall comments on gig economy rulings challenging pension enrolment in Law360
Sep 20, 2022
Stephen Morrall and Annabelle Woosnam discuss the legal rights for gig economy employees to a pension in People Management
Jul 06, 2022
Stephen Morrall and Annabelle Woosnam discuss pensions in the gig economy, in Employee Benefits
Feb 18, 2022
Gregor Kleinknecht discusses Trademarks, Design Rights and Copyright to Promote Business Growth and Innovation in University of Buckingham Press
Feb 11, 2022
Stephen Morrall comments on what COVID rules means for workers and employers in Mail Online, This is Money, Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail and MSN Money
Jan 14, 2022
Gregor Kleinknecht comments on the General Court clarifying the law on rights of representation before EU courts in Managing IP
Nov 30, 2021
Stephen Morrall and Aman Khokhar explore how employers can best determine worker status in People Management
Nov 17, 2021
Richard Baxter examines whether Brexit creates uncertainty for online software sales agents in Reports Legal

© Hunters Law LLP 2023 | Privacy NoticeLegal & Regulatory | Cookies Policy | Complaints Procedure.

Hunters Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (number 657218)