If a consumer contract falls within Article 6(1) of Regulation No 593/2008, the parties may choose the applicable law under Article 3, but that choice cannot deprive the consumer of the protection of provisions from which the law otherwise applicable under Article 6(1) does not allow derogation by agreement - namely, the law of the country where the consumer has his or her habitual residence. Because Article 6(2) is mandatory and exhaustive, it cannot be set aside even in favour of legislation allegedly more favourable to the consumer.

A non-negotiated choice-of-law term in a trust agreement between a professional and a consumer for the management of shares in a limited partnership, selecting the law of the Member State of the partnership's seat, is unfair where it gives the consumer the impression that only that law applies and does not inform the consumer that, under Article 5(2) of the Rome Convention and Article 6(2) of Regulation No 593/2008, the consumer also enjoys the protection of the mandatory provisions of the national law that would apply without that term.

Under Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13, a non-negotiated term in the general terms and conditions of a seller or supplier which states that an online consumer contract is governed by the law of the Member State where the seller or supplier is established is unfair, in so far as it misleads the consumer into thinking that only that law applies, without informing the consumer that Article 6(2) of Regulation No 593/2008 also gives the consumer the protection of the mandatory provisions of the law that would apply without that term; that is for the national court to ascertain in the light of all the relevant circumstances.