Giesela Rühl, The Unfairness of Choice-of-Law Clauses, or: The (unclear) Relationship of Art. 6 Rome I Regulation and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive (ECJ of 28 July 2016, C 191/15, Verein für Konsumenteninformation ./. Amazon EU Sàrl), in: Common Market Law Review [CMLRev.] 55 (2018), S. 201-224.
Online-shopping is an integral part of modern life. More than ever before consumers buy goods over the internet rather than going to their local retail store. The by far most popular and most successful online-shop is Amazon, an American company that sells basically everything from books and DVDs to baby and beauty products to musical in-struments and gourmet food. Both in terms of total sales and market capitalization Ama-zon is the largest internet-based retailer in the world. In Europe, Amazon operates its online-shop through a subsidiary incorporated in Luxembourg which targets consumers from all over Europa via various websites in various languages under various top-level domains (e.g. amazon.de, amazon.fr, amazon.it, amazon.es). It naturally follows that the vast majority of contracts concluded by Amazon in Europe are international, cross-border consumer contracts which, in turn, give rise to a myriad of choice-of-law questions. In a recent judgment the ECJ had the chance to answer one of the: May choice-of-law clauses be unfair in the meaning of the Unfair Terms Directive and if so, under what conditions? In this article, Giesela Rühl, analyses the ECJ's decision and sheds light on some (unintended) consequences.
Meldung vom: 24.01.2018 13:15 Uhr