According to a preliminary ruling of the ECJ The Supreme Court for Civil Matters ruled contrary to its previous point of view: A choice of law clause in the general terms and conditions with consumers is legally void, if the clause doesn’t contain an additional reference to the compulsory protective norms of the state of the habitual residence of the consumer. Since the clause in question didn’t contain such a reference it was non-transparent and therefore abusive. (2 Ob 155/16g)
Consumer Protection Act applies also for Choice of Law Clauses
