In May 2025, the Court of Justice of the EU (“CJEU”) ruled on five cases applying EU consumer protection law. This blog post provides an overview of the decisions.

• Three of these cases relate to the EU Unfair Contract Terms Directive (“UCTD”), which protects consumers from unfair terms in contracts with businesses. It applies to standard terms that have not been individually negotiated and ensures they are transparent, clear, and balanced. If a term is found to be unfair, it is not binding on the consumer—and its use can expose businesses to enforcement actions, including fines, under national laws.
• The fourth case relates to the EU Directive on Misleading and Comparative Advertising (“DMCA”), which aims to protect businesses and consumers by prohibiting advertising that misleads or distorts competition. It also sets out conditions for permitted comparative advertising—comparing one product or service with another—to ensure fairness and accuracy.
• The fifth case concerns the EU Directive on Electronic Commerce (“DEC”), which sets transparency obligations for online commercial communications. Specifically, it requires that online promotions clearly disclose the conditions for benefiting from the offer, ensuring that consumers are fully informed before making a decision.

We have summarized these cases below.

Cases on the UCTD

• Case C‑324/23 (Myszak) – decided on May 8, 2025 – on whether a Member State law may preclude a consumer from bringing an action seeking interim relief of the execution of a contract that allegedly includes unfair clauses pursuant to the UCTD.

Background: in this case, the applicants (consumers) sought interim relief before the Polish courts to suspend payments under a credit agreement with a bank on the basis that the applicants’ claim is invalid for containing unfair terms. The key issue was that, under Polish law, such interim measures cannot be granted while the bank is the subject of a resolution procedure governed by the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive.

Judgement: the CJEU decided that the Polish law may not limit the protections of the UCTD while the bank concerned is under resolution. This means that the applicants should be able to seek interim relief. The Polish court will now have to decide whether to grant such relief.

• Case C-410/23 (Pielatak) – decided on May 8, 2025 – on whether a farmer that purchases electricity for his agricultural operation and for his domestic use is considered a “consumer” under the UCTD.

Background: this case examines a fixed-term electricity contract concluded by a farmer for both agricultural and household use. The key issue was whether such a dual-purpose customer qualifies as a consumer under the UCTD, and whether the imposition of a contractual penalty for early termination is compatible with the Electricity Directive, which prohibits charges for switching suppliers or terminating contracts.

Judgement: the CJEU ruled that a farmer may be considered a “consumer” if the professional use of an electricity contract is minimal compared to personal use. It also found that national laws allowing early termination penalties in fixed electricity contracts are permissible, provided the penalties are fair, transparent, agreed in advance, and subject to proportionality review under the UCTD.

• Joined Cases C‑6/24 and C‑231/24 (Abanca Corporación Bancaria) – decided on May 8, 2025 – on the fairness of acceleration clauses.

Background: this case concerns a loan agreement containing an acceleration clause allowing the bank to demand full repayment after default, with a one-month notice period. The key question was whether such a clause may be considered unfair under the UCTD, whether effective consumer remedies must be provided by national law or be contractually stipulated, and what constitutes a reasonable period for the consumer to avoid acceleration.

Judgement: when assessing the fairness of an acceleration clause, national courts must consider whether the consumer had adequate and effective means to avoid early repayment or mitigate its consequences. This includes evaluating whether the time given to repay overdue amounts was practically sufficient. The presence of similar protections in national law—such as grace periods in comparable contracts—is a particularly relevant factor in this assessment.

Case on the DMCA

• Case C-697/23 (HUK-COBURG Haftpflicht-Unterstützungs-Kasse) – decided on May 8, 2025 – on whether “comparative advertising” covers online comparison services offered by companies that are not competitors.

Background: the key question in this case was whether using a points-based or numerical grading system to compare insurance policies on a website constitutes permitted comparative advertising under the DMCA, and especially if the grading reflects objective, verifiable criteria or misleading, subjective assessments.

Judgement: because the company providing the points-based and numerical grading system does not compete with insurance companies—that is, it does not sell the goods or services being compared—the concept of “comparative advertising” does not apply. This holds true even if the service acts as an intermediary, enabling consumers to contract with actual sellers. Such services operate in a distinct market and therefore fall outside the scope of comparative advertising regulations.

Case on the DEC

• Case C‑100/24 (bonprix) – decided on May 15, 2025 – on whether an online advertisement offering a deferred payment method (purchase on invoice) constitutes a “promotional offer” under the DEC.

Background: this case concerned an online advertisement offering the option to “purchase on invoice”, without initially disclosing that this option was subject to a prior creditworthiness check. The issue was whether such a payment arrangement qualifies as a “promotional offer” triggering transparency obligations under the DEC, for example, about the creditworthiness check.

Judgement: The CJEU held that a payment option, such as purchase on invoice, can constitute a “promotional offer” if it provides an objective and certain advantage—such as deferred payment—that is capable of influencing consumer behavior. If so, the trader must clearly and unambiguously present the conditions for benefiting from the offer (including credit checks) at the point where the consumer first encounters the advertisement.

*             *             *

Covington & Burling regularly advises companies on all aspects of EU consumer protection law, as well as intersections with privacy, cybersecurity, and product safety laws. We closely monitor the decisions of the Court of Justice of the EU. We are happy to assist you with any inquiries related to compliance with EU consumer protection law.

This blog post was written with the contributions of Ryoko Matsumoto.