Bill to require more transparency in contracts with imposed terms

Automatic summary, not yet reviewed

1. The bill proposes splitting the review of abusive clauses into two: a content control, which checks whether there is a fair balance between rights and obligations, and a transparency control, which checks whether the consumer truly understands what they are signing.
2. It creates a new chapter on transparency control: courts must apply it on their own initiative, and a lack of transparency makes the clause abusive without needing to prove economic harm. It covers both the main object of the contract and the rest of its terms, and information duties must be met from the start of the negotiation.
3. It establishes that a clause declared abusive is void from the outset: it cannot be moderated or integrated into the contract, and its effects disappear retroactively. Only as an exception, and with the consumer's consent, may the judge replace it with another permitted clause if voiding the contract would especially harm the consumer.
4. It extends transparency control to contracts between businesses: a business that merely adhered to imposed terms may request this protection in court, if it proves its situation.
5. It applies transparency control to insurance contracts, so that policyholders can understand the clauses that define the covered risk or limit their rights.
6. It applies transparency control to retail clients of financial products, who must request it in court, and it asks the Government to submit, within six months, a bill to strengthen preventive oversight by notaries and property registrars.

Who it affects

• Consumers and users: They can demand that imposed terms be truly understandable, and unclear clauses will be declared abusive.
• Businesses and professionals: They must draft contracts in an understandable way from the start of negotiations, and small businesses that merely adhered to imposed terms can benefit from transparency control.
• Policyholders: Insurance policies must be materially understandable, both on what defines the risk and what limits their rights.
• Retail clients of financial products: They can ask courts to review whether the information given by financial institutions meets transparency standards.
• Notaries and property registrars: They may not authorize or record contracts containing clauses declared abusive in a court ruling already recorded.

Words worth knowing

Cláusula abusiva (abusive clause)

A term imposed by a company in a contract that unfairly harms the consumer.

Contratación predispuesta (standard-form contracting)

A contract whose terms are written by one party (the company), while the other can only accept or reject them, without negotiating.

Control de transparencia (transparency control)

A court review of whether the contract is explained so that its meaning and its legal and economic consequences are understood.

Nulidad de pleno derecho (automatic nullity)

The clause is treated as if it never existed and has no effect at all.

De oficio (on the court's own initiative)

The judge applies it by themselves, without anyone asking.

It summarizes the text as it was introduced. It is written by artificial intelligence and may contain mistakes: the official text is what counts. Read the official text · How we make summaries