Sanctions for Not Providing Essential Information in Credit Contracts - CJEU in Lexitor II (Case C-472/23)

Foto von Towfiqu barbhuiya auf Unsplash

The case concerned a debt collection agency (Lexitor), acting as an assignee of the rights of a consumer who had concluded a consumer credit agreement with a bank for an amount of approx. 9.000 EUR. In addition, the consumer was required to pay capital interest (approx. 4.500 EUR) and a commission fee (approx. EUR 1.100), whereas the Annual Percentage Rate of Charge (APRC) was specified at 11.18%. Lexitor argued that, since the APRC was partly calculated on the basis of unfair contract terms, the bank had failed to provide the correct APRC in the agreement. Consequently, Lexitor sought to recover the total sum of interest and costs as a sanction prescribed under national law. 

The first question was whether the creditor had failed to fulfil its obligation to provide the APRC in the credit agreement where the APRC was overstated due to certain contract terms being declared unfair. The Court emphasised that, although the actual APRC would indeed be overstated if calculated with reference to non-binding unfair contract terms, Article 19(3) of the Consumer Contract Directive (CCD; Directive 2008/48 on credit agreements for consumers) requires that the APRC be calculated based on the assumption that the credit agreement is to remain valid for the period agreed and that the creditor and the consumer will fulfil their obligations under the terms and by the dates specified in the credit agreement (para 34). Consequently, where the APRC is determined in accordance with the mathematical formula set out in Annex I to the directive - incorporating the total cost of credit to the consumer, including costs payable under the contract’s terms - the creditor does not infringe its obligation to provide the APRC in the credit agreement. This remains the case even if some of the terms on which the APRC was calculated are subsequently declared unfair and therefore not binding on the consumer (para 35).

The Court also addressed the question of whether listing various circumstances under which charges connected with the performance of the credit agreement may increase, without enabling the consumer to determine whether those circumstances have arisen, constitutes a breach of the creditor’s information obligation under the CCD. The Court referred to its established case law, holding that the terms of the credit agreement must be drafted transparently so that an average consumer can foresee, on the basis of clear and intelligible criteria, the changes that may be made to such charges (paras 41–44). Applying this principle to the contract terms in question, the Court concluded that where a credit agreement enumerates specific circumstances justifying an increase in charges without enabling the average consumer to ascertain whether those circumstances have materialised and their effect on the charges, this constitutes an infringement of the creditor’s obligation to provide information (paras 45–47).

Finally, the Court considered whether Article 23 CCD precludes national legislation that, in cases of infringement of the creditor’s obligation to provide information under Article 10(2) CCD, imposes a uniform penalty depriving the creditor of its right to interest and charges, irrespective of the seriousness of the infringement or its effect on the consumer’s decision. The primary concern was whether such a sanction would be proportional (para 51). Drawing upon its previous case law, the Court reaffirmed that Article 10(2) CCD sets out essential information that consumers must receive to assess the extent of their liability. A breach of this obligation may be sanctioned under national law by the forfeiture of the creditor’s entitlement to interest and charges (paras 53–54). The Court then turned to the specific circumstances of the case. Since the obligation to provide the APRC had not been infringed (first question), it focused instead on the conditions under which costs related to the performance of the agreement (such as commission fees) could be changed, considering this equally vital information under the CCD due to its impact on consumers’ financial obligations (para 55). The Court emphasised that the principle of proportionality does not preclude a Member State from imposing a uniform penalty depriving the creditor of its right to interest and charges for breaches of information obligations under Article 10(2) CCD, including those relating to the calculation of charges connected with contract performance, even where the gravity of the infringement may vary (para 57).

A Short Comment

The Court’s answers to the second and third questions are not surprising. It confirmed that the average consumer standard has been employed to assess the transparency of contract clauses under the CCD framework, as seen previously in BMW Bank, and has been extensively applied in consumer credit case law since Kásler. The response to the third question reaffirms that the information contained in a credit agreement (Article 10(2) CCD) is essential for the consumer to make an informed decision; consequently, failure to comply with this obligation may trigger sanctions under national law. The Court appears to have linked the proportionality of the sanction to the essential nature of the information provided.

The Court’s reasoning in relation to the first question, however, may be called into question. A literal interpretation of Article 19(3) CCD does not address the unfairness of terms used by the creditor but instead focuses on two distinct elements: first, that the APRC’s calculation is based on the assumption that the credit agreement remains valid for the agreed period; and second, that both parties will fulfil their respective obligations under the agreement. The unfairness of certain contract terms, on the other hand, means that they are null and void ab initio under Article 6(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive, with the consequence that no obligations arise from them.

The first part of Article 19(3) CCD assumes the continued validity of the credit agreement. However, since finding the terms at issue null and void is unlikely to render the agreement invalid - as they do not appear to be essential to the contractual obligation (see Profi Credit Polska III, paras 68–70), although this must be verified under national law - this part of Article 19(3) CCD would not apply here. The same reasoning extends to the second part of Article 19(3) CCD: if obligations based on unfair terms do not exist ab initio, there is no obligation to fulfil on the side of any of the party.

It is also unclear how concluding that the APRC’s calculation, when partially based on unfair contract terms - leading to an overstatement of the APRC - does not infringe the information obligation under Article 10(2)(g) CCD, would contribute to achieving a high level of consumer protection. This raises at least three concerns.

First, in such cases, creditors would not face additional disincentives against using unfair terms in credit agreements. This appears inconsistent with Recital 20 of the CCD Preamble (“Creditors’ actual knowledge of the costs should be assessed objectively, taking into account the requirements of professional diligence”), which suggests that creditors could reasonably be expected to know when they are using unfair terms.

Second, since the APRC was overstated, it is unclear how the average consumer could accurately determine - not merely approximate - the extent to which the stipulated APRC would affect their future rights and obligations under the credit agreement. This appears to contradict the Court’s reasoning in its response to the second question, where the transparency of information is deemed crucial for consumer decision-making.

Third, it also seems to conflict with the Court’s reasoning in Pereničová and Perenič, here it held that an incorrect APRC constitutes false information regarding the total cost of credit and the price under Article 6(1)(d) of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD), as it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to make a transactional decision they would not have otherwise taken (para 41). However, the Court may have drawn a distinction between cases where the actual APRC is lower than that stipulated in the contract (Lexitor II) and those where it is higher (Pereničová and Perenič), as well as between the transparency requirements under the CCD and those under the UCPD. Yet, these distinctions are not explicitly addressed in the commented judgment. Further clarification from the Court on this point would be necessary to provide much-needed clarity.

Price calculation indications in online offers: Misleading or not? CJEU in NEW Niederrhein Energie und Wasser (Case C‑518/23)

 On 23 January, the CJEU provided further clarity on what amounts to a misleading omission in an invitation to purchase under the UCPD (Case C‑518/23). The case concerns an online electricity tariff calculator operated by the German company NEW Niederrhein Energie und Wasser. Based on customer input, the calculator generates a tariff offer that the customer can accept, resulting in a contract with NEW. However, the generated tariff appears lower than the actual price as it fails to indicate a variable percentage increase – a ‘compensatory’ amount charged by the electricity distribution network operators for the use of low-tariff electricity for high-tariff purposes. The legal question is whether this missing information constitutes a ‘misleading omission’ under Art. 7(1) and (4)(c) UCPD.

The CJEU first confirmed that the tariff offer generated by the calculator qualifies as an ‘invitation to purchase’ under Art. 7(4)(c) UCPD and that information about the compensatory amount constitutes material information thereunder (‘the manner in which the price is calculated’). Thus, this information must be included in the invitation to purchase to enable the average consumer to make an informed transactional decision (para 33). However, Art. 7(4)(c) UCPD does not prescribe how price calculation methods should be communicated (para 37). More broadly, the UCPD does not contain ‘any specific details concerning the question of the degree to which material information must be communicated, and by what medium this must be done’ (para 40). As such, it cannot be implied that pricing indications must enable the consumer ‘to calculate that price himself or herself and thus reach a final numerical result’ (para 39). Instead, such indications can be displayed in various ways, such as a percentage range, a conditional percentage or a fixed percentage with an indication that it may vary over time (para 41).

Then, referring to the general scheme of Art. 7 UCPD, the CJEU established that the required extent of price calculation indications in the invitation to purchase should be assessed ‘on the basis of the factual context of that invitation and the medium of communication used’ (para 46). As to the latter, the tariff calculator does not seem to impose limitations of space or time (Art. 7(3)UCPD). The CJEU continued to highlight a couple of factors as to the ‘factual context’, which, of course, are ultimately for the national court to ascertain. First, since the electricity distribution network operators in Germany retain different and fluctuating percentages for the compensatory amount, it would require ‘disproportionate resources’ for NEW to indicate to consumers the exact percentage in real time (para 49). Second, the generated price offer contains a link to NEW’s general terms and conditions, which do include information on the applicability of the compensatory amount and that it has been set at 25% by the local network operator of the area of NEW’s registered office (para 50). If such information is visibly displayed and consumers’ acceptance is technically conditional on their consent to the terms and conditions, the omission of the percentage increase in the generated price offer does not constitute a misleading omission.

In conclusion, the UCPD does not require the inclusion of the specific percentage of a variable price component in an invitation to purchase, as long as it ‘indicates the applicability in principle of such a percentage, together with a possible scale and the components having an impact on that percentage’ (para 52). There you go: while a specific percentage is off the hook, some general indication of price variability is nonetheless required. The CJEU seems to suggest that an indication in the company’s terms and conditions is sufficient – thereby expecting the average consumer to read them. But why can’t the CJEU ask for such an indication to be included in the displayed price offer itself? Is the CJEU asking too much from the average consumer? Or do national courts still have the discretion to exercise their faculty of judgment (see para 36)?

Passenger rights when flights are cancelled - CJEU in flightright (C-642/23) and Qatar Airways (C-516/23)

On January 16 the CJEU issued two judgments further interpreting Regulation 261/2004 on air passenger rights, in the cases flightright (C-642/23) and Qatar Airways (C-516/23). 

flightright (C-642/23)

A passenger booked via a tour operator a flight operated by Etihad Airways from Düsseldorf (Germany) to Brisbane (Australia), via Abu Dhabi (UAE) with an open return ticket. The flight from Düsseldorf to Abu Dhabi was cancelled and the tour operator declared insolvency before reimbursing the cost of the ticket. The passenger's father contacted the air carrier on their behalf and agreed to a change of the reservation, as well as a few steps of compensation, consisting of redeemable miles for EA flights to the value of the payment made, additional miles of ca 380 Euro, and further 5.000 Etihad Guest Miles. The passenger was required to set up a loyalty account with EA to obtain compensation, which they did. Unfortunately, the credit of the miles did not take place.

The legal question in this case was whether the passenger validly accepted the offer of the air carrier, to be compensated in redeemable miles/flight vouchers, considering that they have not provided their 'signed agreement' as is required by Art. 7(3) Regulation 261/2004. Could the action of setting up a loyalty account with the air carrier, to which the miles would have been transferred, be equivalent to a handwritten signature? (para 18) The question is highly relevant, considering that the Regulation 261/2004 priorities monetary compensation for passengers, while in practice air carriers often attempt to provide compensation via vouchers. The requirement of a signature can prevent passengers from unknowingly or erroneously agreeing to give up their right to monetary compensation, demanding their free and informed consent (para 22). Previously, the CJEU recognised that also other forms of providing express, definitive and unequivocal acceptance of reimbursement in vouchers are acceptable, e.g., a consumer filling in a form on air carrier's website and choosing in it compensation in vouchers (para 23). A handwritten signature is, therefore, not required (para 25). However, setting up a loyalty account with an air carrier does not need to amount to this form of acceptance, as a passenger may have had other intention when taking this action (para 27).

Qatar Airways (C-516/23)

Passengers in this case reserved return flights with Qatar Airways from Frankfurt am Main (Germany) to Denpasar (Indonesia), with a stopover in Doha (Qatar). They benefitted from a promotional campaign for health professionals, which allowed them to make a reservation by only paying for taxes and charges related to the booking. QA cancelled reserved flights. Further, no flights were operated to Denpasar by this carrier during the following period of 1.5 years. When the flight route was renewed the passenger demanded re-routing of their previously cancelled flights. As the carrier did not comply, passengers reserved the new flights themselves, paying partially with their frequent flyer programme's benefits for the new flights.

As per Article 3(3) Regulation 261/2004 its provisions do not apply to passengers travelling 'free of charge or at a reduced fare not available directly or indirectly to the public', the first question was as to the applicability of passenger protection rules to this situation. The CJEU decided that Regulation 261/2004 remains applicable here. The main arguments are based on the literal and contextual interpretation. First, the phrase 'free of charge' is normally interpreted in a way, which precludes passengers who pay taxes and other charges from being included in its scope (para 25). Second, other rules regulating air travel (Art. 23 of Regulation No 1008/2008) consider taxes and charges as elements of the total price of the plane ticket (para 26). Third, reduced fare is available to the public, even if it is not available to all members of the public, but e.g. only to health professionals (paras 34-36, 38). 

Finally, Article 8(1)(c) Regulation 261/2004 allows passengers to ask for re-routing of their flights at a later date, at the passenger's convenience. Could this occur years later though? The Court highlights that the decisive factors here are: passenger's convenience and wish to be re-routed at a specific date, limited only by seat availability (para 54). There does not seem to be a temporal link required then between the date of the cancellation and when re-routing is to occur (para 55). This interpretation cannot be invalidated by airlines stating that following it may demand from them payment of unreasonable operating costs. The CJEU recalls that passenger protection may justify even substantial negative economic consequences for certain economic operators (para 59).

Both these cases provide a useful clarification of provisions that were previously less challenged but contain terms ripe for various interpretation.

Suppliers sharing names with producers beware - CJEU in Ford Italia (C-157/23)

 

Photo by Benjamin Scheidl on Unsplash

In December the CJEU issued the judgment in the Ford Italia case (C-157/23), which focused on the scope of the notion of an apparent producer, that is a person presenting themselves as a producer by putting their name, trade mark or another distinguishing feature on a consumer product, pursuant to Article 3(1) of the old Product Liability Directive. As the new Product Liability Directive contains the same provision (Article 4(10)(b)), this judgment is bound to shape the interpretation of an apparent producer's notion going forward. 

The CJEU followed the advice of AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona, which we commented on previously ('Unintentionally becoming an apparent producer...'). The literal interpretation of Article 3(1) of the PLD requires apparent producers to take action to mislead consumers as to their participation in the production process by 'putting' their name etc. on a product. The CJEU explains that such active steps do not need to be limited to a physical act of placing a name etc. on a consumer product. Instead, we should look into the 'conduct of a person who uses the affixing of his or her name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on a product in order to give the impression of being involved in the production process or of assuming responsibility for it' (para 40). This is a very liberal approach, as what suffices is the sole fact of apparent producers benefiting from presenting themselves as actual producers, stemming from consumers believing the product's quality will be higher as if they have bought it directly from the actual producer (para 41).

In the given case it did not matter then that Ford Italia did not put their name or trade mark on the car that has been sold to a consumer, which car proved defective. It was sufficient that they shared (a part of) their name and trade mark with the actual producer, Ford WAG, and it was present on the car. Moreover, CJEU emphasised that apparent and actual producers are jointly and severally liable, which means consumers may choose to raise a claim against the apparent producer (para 44). National procedural rules may then allow such apparent producers to have recourse from the actual producer (para 47).

As a side note, it is worth it to note para 45 of this judgment. In it the CJEU addresses interpretation of Art. 3(3) of the PLD, which requires suppliers to promptly identify the actual producer in order not to be held liable instead of them. The CJEU recalls the historical background to this provision, which seems to suggest that more could be required from suppliers in such cases than simply 'referring' consumers to actual producers, with whom consumers may not be familiar. As Italian courts in the Ford Italia cases wanted the supplier to 'implicate' the actual producer in the actual proceedings, rather than simply identifying them, this may indeed prove to be the proper course of action.

European 'consumer' notion: Continued broad application in 2024

Happy New Year to all our Readers! A couple of posts ago we have commented on the changes that the Compass Banca judgment may bring to the average consumer benchmark (see "Who is the average consumer?..."), although we will need to carefully follow the practical application of this judgment by national courts. Still, it was reassuring for the CJEU to emphasise in para 44 of this judgment that a commercial practice contrary to professional diligence would escape prohibition if it were "only to mislead a very credulous or naïve consumer". 

What we failed to find time to comment on last year was a judgment in Zabitoń case (C-347/23) and an opinion of AG Rantos in Arce case (C-365/23); both pertain to the scope of the notion of a consumer.

Photo by Madhur Shrimal on Unsplash   

Zabitoń judgment follows the paradigm shifting cases of YYY. (Concept of 'consumer') (see our comment here) and Lyoness Europe (see our comment here). When a married couple, a police offer and a school principal, purchased a residential property with the purpose of leasing it for consideration, the question arose whether they could be considered consumers when entering into a mortgage loan contract to purchase this property. It was clear that they were not planning to use this property for their own accommodation. The Court indicates that they could indeed be considered consumers, provided they purchased a single residential property for such a purpose, as they would then not be acting in the professional capacity in the field of property management (para 32). This judgment clearly discounts consumers' financial gain from a conclusion of a transaction as a factor in the determination of the consumer's (non-)professional capacity (paras 34-35). The Court further confirms then a broad interpretation of the consumer notion in applying substantive consumer protection framework. 

   Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

This broad interpretation is further confirmed by AG Rantos in his opinion in the case Arce. Here, a teenager, an aspiring basketball player, was represented by their parents, in concluding a contract with a company providing sports development, career support and coaching services. The question was whether this was a B2C contract, considering that the young sportsperson at the moment of its conclusion had not yet begun their professional career and was not employed by any club. There was, however, a clear intention (desire?) of such a professional employment happening soon after the contract's conclusion, which indeed then occurred. AG Rantos draws a distinction between the consumer notion's scope in procedural and substantive matters. While in cases concerning procedural consumer rights, such as Wurth Automotive (C-177/22) the notion of a consumer is interpreted narrowly and, specifically, "current and future purposes of the conclusion of the contract" are considered, this is different when substantive consumer rights are to be applied. AG Rantos recognises this difference and consequently advises the CJEU to consider the teenager a consumer as "at the time when the contract at issue was concluded, the young sportsperson was not a professional" (para 57). After all, Article 4(1) Unfair Contract Terms Directive requires assessment of unfairness at the date the contract was concluded. "Any other more 'dynamic' interpretation of the status of 'consumer', consisting in maintaining that that status may be lost over time, would run counter to the very wording of that provision" (para 58). 

CJEU on Buy Now Pay Later (C-409/23): not consumer credit unless it is

Not that fresh, still hot: last month, the CJEU issued a remarkable decision in Case C-409/23 (Arvato), a preliminary ruling request from the Dutch Supreme Court concerning so called "buy-now-pay-later" (henceforth: BNPL) schemes and their qualification in the context of European consumer credit rules. 

While payment in instalments, with our without intermediaries, has been around for a pretty long time, not all European consumer markets are equally permeated BNPL schemes, which are very popular and common - for instance - in the Netherlands. In these schemes, consumers can conclude online transactions in a webshop and only pay at a later stage, when they receive an invoice by a third party that takes up the invoicing and provides payment security to the seller. If this reminds you of a credit card, that's not odd at all: these services essentially aim to provide services akin to those of a credit card, without the long-term credit contracts (and eligibility controls) associated to traditional models. Some, in fact, even go as far as to provide an own app-environment through which consumers can reach web shops. 

In return for these services, BNPL companies sometimes charge sellers/service providers a fee; they usually also charge consumers a small - even nominal - fee. According to consumer advocates, however, a significant portion of their revenue comes from consumer non-performance, in the form of late payment interests and debt collection fees. Civil law courts are then confronted with claims aiming to force consumers to pay their growing debts; in the Netherlands, many (but not all!) local courts have started to treat these contracts as credit contracts, even though officially in most cases the BPNL company has formally just been assigned the original credit by the seller. Why?

The advantage of considering BNPL as credit contracts is technical but also quite substantial: in many cases, Dutch courts are then able to invalidate the credit contract based on breach of core information requirements, leaving the consumer with, in essence, only the principal to pay. This is a particularly favourable outcome when, as is not rarely the case, the original purchase is only worth a small amount but the collection fees and default interest have been cumulating for a while. 

Whether BNPL should, under current rules, be considered a credit contract depends in no small part on how one interprets the "old" Consumer Credit Directive, which excludes certain transactions from its scope. In particular, Article 2(2)(f) of that Directive excludes contracts "where the credit is granted ‘free of interest and without any other charges’ or [...] under the terms of which ‘only insignificant charges are payable’". Dutch courts, however, have been considering the collection fees and late-payment interest as part of the cost of credit, making the contract (maybe free of interest but) not "without any other charges" or including only "insignificant charges". The Dutch Supreme Court was unsure whether this approach was in line with the Directive and asked the CJEU to solve the question for them - do default interest and out-of-court collection fees count as "cost of credit" in the context of assessing whether a credit contract has been entered?

The Court of Justice answers the question over a succinct few paragraphs: first (para 44), it notes that the letter of the law points to "interest" and "other charges" to only be relevant when "provided for at the time of conclusion of the credit agreement". This suggests excluding default interest and collection fees because "the non-performance by a consumer of his or her payment obligation and the duration of any such non-performance are, in principle, unforeseeable at that time". Second (para 46), considering such interests and charges as part of the cost of credit would largely hollow out the exception established at article 2(2)f since only contracts providing absolutely no consequence for non-performance by the debtor would be covered. Hence, in principle where credit is provided for free or against a negligible fee the fact that fees and interests will have to be paid in case of non-performance does not turn the relationship into a credit contract under the Directive. 

However, the Court observes (para 49-50), both the Dutch government and the referring Court suggest that default interest and collection fees are to be considered integral part of the provider's business model; the Directive, at the same time, requires Member States to make sure that its provisions cannot be circumvented "as a result of the way in which agreements are formulated". In light of the above, national courts have to make sure they guarantee the effectiveness of the Directive, and in particular

ascertain whether, in reality, the creditor is seeking to circumvent its obligations under Directive 2008/48 by anticipating, from the time the credit agreement is concluded, the non-performance by the consumer of the payment obligation in order to seek an economic advantage from the latter’s liability for interest and default charges. To that end, it will be for that court to examine all the circumstances present at the time when the agreement in question was concluded and other relevant information, such as, inter alia, the statutory or contractual origin of the interest and default charges, the periods within which that interest and those charges become payable and the amount of that interest and those charges.

This is a difficult task for national courts. Pending a decision by the Dutch Supreme Court, our sources suggest that local courts are reacting in different ways: some are just assuming that they can go ahead with treating the contracts as consumer credit; other courts are asking BNPL providers additional information about their business model in order to ascertain whether they do, indeed, plausibly expect a significant percentage of "their" customers to incur late payment fees; some are de-prioritising affected cases while awaiting a result, and some others, finally, are assuming that the CJEU's decision means BPNL is not credit after all. 

The uncertainly is naturally limited in time - the article 2(2)h in the Consumer Credit Directive 2023 explicitly limits the exemption to cases in which deferred payment is offered by the provider of the underlying good or service, with the exclusion of commercial third parties; however, it is also rather consequential for all actors involved - providers, debtors and courts.  

Who is the average consumer? CJEU in Compass Banca (C-646/22)

On the 14th of November, the CJEU published its long-awaited decision on Compass Banca (Case C-646/22; we have previously discussed it here). In this case, the CJEU, for the first time, elaborated on who the ‘average consumer’ is, especially in light of the persistent critiques from behaviouralists, and further clarified the assessment of and the consequences for unfair commercial practices under the UCPD (Directive 2005/29/EC).

The case involves a commercial practice by the Italian company Compass Banca which the Court termed ‘framing’ – a term typically associated with a specific type of cognitive bias rather than a concrete commercial practice. Namely, Compass Banca presented an offer for a personal loan alongside an unrelated insurance product, leaving consumers with the impression that it was not possible to obtain the loan without taking out the insurance. In particular, there was no cooling-off period between the signing of the two contracts. Even though Compass Banca claimed that it was made clear to consumers that the loan was not contingent on the insurance, the Italian consumer authority requested a seven-day cooling-off period to be granted and, upon Compass Banca’s failure to comply, found the practice of framing an ‘aggressive’ and thus ‘unfair’ commercial practice under the UCPD. Compass Banca challenged this decision in court, which invited questions reaching the CJEU.

The CJEU’s ruling

The first question concerns the extent to which behavioural insights about individuals’ cognitive biases should inform the concept of the ‘average consumer’, a notion that lies at the heart of the UCPD as a benchmark for assessing the effects of a particular commercial practice on consumers’ decision-making processes. Such an explicit reference makes this (abstract and somewhat academic) question not merely ‘hypothetical’ and justifies its admissibility (paras 37-39). Probably unsurprisingly, however, the Court avoided adopting academic terms like ‘homo economicus’ and ‘bounded rationality’ which were used by the referring court. This, of course, does not really make a difference to the substantive reasoning.

With reference to recital 18 of the UCPD (which came from the Court in the first place), the Court restated that the ‘average consumer’ is an individual ‘who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, taking into account social, cultural and linguistic factors’. The CJEU highlighted the nature of the ‘average consumer’ as an objective criterion which is independent of any specific consumer’s knowledge, but ‘not statistical’, which nonetheless allows national courts to take into account ‘more realistic’ considerations when exercising their own faculty of judgment to determine the ‘typical reaction of the average consumer’ (paras 48-51, recital 18 UCPD). With this understanding, the Court continued to clarify the two prongs of the average consumer benchmark: ‘reasonably well-informed’ and ‘reasonably observant and circumspect’. (I read it as the former relates to obtaining information/its availability, while the latter to processing information/its effectiveness.) As to the former, in view of the trader’s mandatory information obligations, it should be understood as ‘referring to the information which can reasonably be presumed to be known to any consumer, taking into account the relevant social, cultural and linguistic factors, and not to the information which is specific to the transaction in question’ (para 52). The lack of information is thus not excluded from the assessment of the effects of a commercial practice. Here, I think the Court was indicating that being ‘reasonably well-informed’ does not require consumers to actively seek out material information that the trader is legally obliged to provide.

Similarly, the nature of being ‘reasonably observant and circumspect’ does not exclude considering the influence of cognitive biases, should such biases be likely to affect a reasonable average consumer to materially distort their behaviour (para 53). The Court then recalled its several cases which acknowledge that an average consumer may be deceived, may have varied levels of attention regarding different goods and services, may be subject to an erroneous perception of a piece of information and may be simply unable to understand the technical details in certain transactions (paras 54-56). While these cases were usually discussed as ‘deviations’ from the average consumer standard, the Court used them as ‘evidence’ to confirm that a ‘reasonably observant and circumspect’ consumer is not a perfectly or particularly observant and circumspect one (adverbs used by AG Emiliou in para 42). Nonetheless, the Court cautioned that the existence of constraints like cognitive biases does not automatically make them legally relevant and decisive in finding an unfair commercial practice: ‘it is still necessary for it be duly established that, in the particular circumstances of a specific situation, such a practice is of such a kind as to affect the consent of a person who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, to such an extent as to materially distort his or her behaviour’ (para 57). There seems to be a high bar for courts to apply behavioural insights. In all, the Court concluded by sticking to the classic definition of a rational consumer while accepting the possibility of constraints that can impair consumers’ decision-making capacity, such as cognitive biases.

The second question concerns whether the practice of ‘framing’ in this case is in all circumstances aggressive or at least unfair. First, the Court found that framing is not categorically blacklisted in all circumstances, since it does not correspond to any practice listed in the ‘complete and exhaustive list’ of Annex I (para 68). Second, the Court indicated that neither can framing be found aggressive, in most cases, when applying the general test under Art. 8 UCPD: there is no ‘harassment’ and ‘coercion’ in their usual meaning in daily language (para 72), and there is no ‘undue influence’ as framing ‘does not, as such, imply the existence of acts of pressure, even if that practice is likely to create a bias of framing’ (para 75). Third, it is still possible that a non-aggressive practice can be a misleading one in the sense of Arts. 6-7 UCPD. In this case, the Court noted that framing leaves consumers with the (misleading) impression that it was impossible to get a loan without taking out the insurance (para 80) – though Compass Banco has claimed otherwise (para 82). Ultimately, it is for national courts to assess the unfair nature of a commercial practice (para 83).

The third and fourth questions ask: Should framing be found unfair, do the UCPD and Art. 24(3) of Directive 2016/97 on insurance distribution preclude the national authority from requiring a cooling-off period to be granted in order to put an end to the unfair practice? Regarding Directive 2016/97 the question was answered negatively, as Art. 24(3) only requires the possibility of buying a good or service separately without the ancillary insurance (as a package). As to the UCPD, the Court held that while it precludes ‘a general or preventive obligation to comply with a certain cooling-off period’ in an ex-ante manner (para 91), it does not preclude national authorities’ ex-post ‘power to issue directions to that trader’ once there has been an established unfair commercial practice (para 92). However, the measure taken cannot restrict the freedom to provide services (per Art. 4 UCPD) and must respect the rights codified in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in particular the freedom to conduct a business under its Art. 16 (paras 94-95). In this light, the principle of proportionality mandates that a measure is only acceptable when ‘there are no other equally effective means of putting an end to that practice which are less prejudicial to the freedom to provide services and the freedom of the trader concerned to conduct his or her business’ (para 96). In short, requiring a cooling-off period is fine, unless there are less intrusive alternatives. Here, the Court took a rather constitutionally informed approach to the enforcement of consumer protection, though one might wonder why consumer protection itself (Art. 38 of the Charter) was not brought to the balancing exercise.

Comments

This case adds an interesting (but definitely not conclusive) annotation to the controversial notion of the ‘average consumer’. The Court wants to keep the baby and the bathwater: the average consumer is indeed ‘observant and circumspect’ (which receives heavy criticism) but only ‘reasonably’ so (which allows considerable leeway and flexibility). While the Court stressed that its analysis was specifically made ‘within the meaning of [the UCPD]’, its reasoning would most likely have broader implications as the average consumer benchmark is creeping into other consumer instruments. 

To some, the Court has said nothing new in this case – nowhere in EU law has it ever committed to interpreting the average consumer as ‘homo economicus’. To others, this decision may be celebrated as a victory for behavioural law and economics. However, the wording of the decision suggests (‘an individual’s decision-making capacity may be impaired by constraints, such as cognitive biases’) that cognitive biases are not the decisive nor the only factors that can ‘impair’ a consumer’s decision-making capacity. (Here, I would prefer ‘influence’ over ‘impair’ as we don’t want to reinforce ‘observant and circumspect’ and marginalise ‘reasonably’.) Indeed, while behaviouralists have commendably challenged the predominant information paradigm for better consumer protection, it has been pointed out that their critique lacks a social dimension – how choices are shaped not only by our individual cognitive capacities but also by our interpersonal interactions, social practices, cultural preferences and institutional set-ups. In this regard, the Court made reference ‘to the fact that a loan applicant is normally in need, to the complexity of the contracts presented for signature by the consumer, to the concurrent nature of the combined offer and to the short period granted to take up the offer concerned’ (para 80) – which appears to be a list of factual and contextual factors that should be considered when ascertaining how ‘reasonably observant and circumspect’ the average consumer should be in this case. And this list clearly goes beyond cognitive biases (so does the list by AG Emiliou in para 40).

In any case, determining the average consumer’s typical reaction should not be reduced to an empirical exercise solely aiming for a realistic approximation of real-life consumer behaviour, even with the help of behavioural science and even AI. This is clear in recital 18 of the UCPD (‘in line with the principle of proportionality’, ‘taking into account social, cultural and linguistic factors’, ‘not a statistical test’) and from the Court. Instead, delegating national judges ‘to exercise their own faculty of judgement’ ultimately asks them the normative question of how much protection should be afforded to the consumers in our political economy. So if we take this normative dimension seriously, we can explore other ways to flesh out the benchmark beyond what was discussed in this case. But then, to what extent should realistic considerations inform this normative assessment? And what assumptions, insights, frameworks, theories or imaginaries should serve as the normative guideline for judges to fill in the definition? 

Like it or not, the average consumer is here to stay, and the debate is certain to persist. How ‘reasonable’ the average consumer should be expected to be, what and who should inform this definition, and therefore what the desirable level of consumer protection should be – these questions will continue to puzzle academic debates, judicial reasonings and even political processes. 

Price reductions to be determined on the basis of the ‘prior price’ (C-330/23 Aldi Süd)

 Guest post by Laura Bakola (PhD candidate at Leiden University)

In September the CJEU issued a judgment on price indications and the obligation of the trader to announce a price reduction on the basis of the ‘prior price’ of the product. The case comes after the amendment introduced by Directive 2019/2161, as regards the better enforcement and modernisation of consumer protection rules (hereafter Omnibus Directive), to Directive 98/6 on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers (Price Indication Directive, hereafter PID). According to the amendment, any announcement of a price reduction shall indicate the prior price applied by the trader for a determined period of time prior to the application of the price reduction (Article 6a(1) PID); the prior price means the lowest price applied by the trader during a period of time not shorter than 30 days prior to the application of the price reduction (Article 6a(2) PID).

The case involved a supermarket chain which had issued an advertising brochure containing product offers. One of the brochures contained price indications that were presented in the following manner:

Concerning the first price indication, a percentage was used, but the reduction was not determined on the basis of the lowest price charged in the trader’s stores in the 30 days prior to the offer, the latter being the same as the selling price. Concerning the second price indication, the statement ‘price highlight’ was used, while indicating a higher price than the lowest price charged in the 30 days prior to the offer. Against this background, the questions asked by the referring court pertained to the interpretation of Article 6a(1) and (2) PID; namely, whether these provisions require that a price reduction announced by a trader in the form of a percentage, or in the form of a promotional statement intended to highlight the advantageous nature of the announced price, must be determined on the basis of the ‘prior price’, within the meaning of Article 6a(2) PID.

According to the Court, although Article 6a(1) PID does not make it possible to determine whether the price reduction must be calculated on the basis of the prior price, as defined in paragraph 2 of that Article, account should be taken of the Directive’s objectives, as well as the specific objectives pursued by the provisions in question (paras 20-21). As regards the objectives pursued by the Directive, these are the improvement of consumer information and facilitating comparison of the selling price of products, in order to enable consumers to make informed choices (Article 1 and Recital 6 PID); the selling price of products must be unequivocal, easily identifiable and clearly legible, so that that information is precise, transparent and unambiguous (Article 4(1) and Recital 2 PID). Furthermore, both the Omnibus Directive and the PID were intended to achieve a high level of consumer protection (Recital 1 Omnibus Directive and Recital 2 PID). Interpretation of Article 6a PID as meaning that it suffices to mention the ‘prior price’, without using it as the basis for calculating the price reduction, would undermine the aforementioned objectives, in particular that of improving consumer information (para 24). As regards the specific objectives pursued by Article 6a PID, these were intended to prevent traders from deceiving the consumer, by increasing the price charged before announcing a price reduction and thus displaying false price reductions (para 25). Mentioning the ‘prior price’ for mere information purposes, without using it as the basis for calculating the price reduction, would undermine that specific objective, by allowing traders to mislead consumers through price reduction announcements which are not real (para 26).

It follows that the selling price of a product in a price reduction announcement cannot be the same as the ‘prior price’, within the meaning of Article 6a(2) PID, or be higher than it (para 27). The Court also clarified (para 28) that assessment of a commercial practice consisting of displaying a price reduction, which is not determined on the basis of the ‘prior price’, will be made with regard to the relevant PID provision and not the provisions of Directive 2005/29 on unfair commercial practices (UCPD). Article 6a PID specifically regulates aspects linked to price reduction announcements, thus constituting lex specialis in relation to the UCPD.

In light of the above, the Court ruled that Article 6a(1) and (2) of the PID must be interpreted as requiring that a price reduction of a product announced by a trader in the form of a percentage, or in the form of a promotional statement intended to highlight the advantageous nature of the announced price, must be determined on the basis of the ‘prior price’, within the meaning of 6a(2) PID.

The judgment in case C-330/23 Aldi Süd is a welcome ruling, clearing up the interpretation of Article 6a(1) and (2) PID. However, as business practices evolve in response to regulatory changes, problematic price promotion techniques are not expected to cease. The onus is then on enforcement authorities to ensure application of the rules, thus achieving transparency of price indications in consumer markets.

New rules on authorised push payment fraud in the UK

Yesterday was a big day for UK consumers when the new rules on compensating victims of authorised push payment fraud (APP fraud) came into force.

APP fraud is when consumers are tricked into sending money to the fraudster. It can happen in various ways, e.g. via impersonation fraud, romance fraud or email takeover fraud. The point is that the consumer makes the transfer of the money (and therefore the transaction is authorised by the consumer), and this fact differentiates the type of fraud from others where the consumer does not consent to the transaction e.g. when the consumers' bank card is stolen and is used for purchases (unauthorised transaction). APP fraud is the most prevalent fraud in the UK, and in Europe. The number of consumers affected increases year by year.

UK reforms started under the pressure of the consumer group Which? by submitting a Super-Complaint to the Payment Systems Regulator, noting the increasing prevalence of APP fraud and calling for rules to tackle the problem. They pointed out that the general rule of shifting the liability for the loss from the consumer onto the bank applied to all unauthorised transactions, but it does not apply to authorised transactions, and they argued that there are no legitimate reasons for maintaining this exception.

In 2019 the Contingent Reimbursement Model Code was adopted. This voluntary code was signed by most major retail banks. However, although the Code established the desired main rule, it had numerous exceptions, such as effective warnings and gross negligence. After a while, it became apparent that the Code was not as effective as it could be, and the Government decided to take action. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, in Section 72, deals with the payment service provider's liability for fraudulent transactions, empowering the Payment Systems Regulator to bring rules in the area. These rules (PSR Specific Direction 20) entered into force yesterday:

• the new rules apply to all payment service providers, not just banks
• the rules protect individuals, microenterprises and charities
• rules apply to UK domestic payments only and using some payment systems
• the rules provide for mandatory reimbursement except when consumers were complicit in fraud or grossly negligent, the Regulator, however, clarified that the gross negligence exception is a high bar and does not apply to vulnerable consumers
• firms can choose to have a £100 excess (except in the case of vulnerable consumers)
• the maximum amount claimed can be £85,000, or firms can opt for a higher threshold internally
• reimbursement amount is shared 50-50 between sending and receiving bank
• there are set claims and reimbursement deadlines.

The new rules are certainly welcomed. APP fraud caused a lot of consumer detriment, and the lack of effective rules led to legal uncertainty. It is a positive development that there are much fewer exceptions in the new rules. However, exceptions and limits do exist, e.g. the rules do not apply to international transactions, and there is uncertainty about how the gross negligence exception will be enforced and who will be considered vulnerable consumers for the purposes of the exceptions. These nuances will need to be carved out by practice, and the Financial Ombudsman Service, which handles consumer complaints, is likely to play a key role.

Although these rules apply to UK domestic transactions only, they are helpful to know given the prevalence of APP fraud in other countries, including EU Member States and can be beneficial in developing PSD3. 

New IACL conference announcement - February in Montpellier

If you have missed this week's first European conference of the International Association of Consumer Law, do not worry, you will have a chance to share your research and exchange ideas with colleagues in the field soon again. On 27 and 28 February 2025 at the University of Montpellier (France) we will reconvene at the European Congress of Consumer Law. This congress will be bilingual, with some sessions held in English and some in French language (which means that you do not need to speak French to join and participate). The conference will celebrate the work of Professor Jean Calais Auloy and have two themed sessions (devoted respectively to consumer information and to new consumption habits and unfair practices), as well as one session on all other issues of consumer protection. The call for papers is below. Send in your abstracts by October 25.