Consumer Protection Against Unfair Contract Terms: a Comparative Analysis Between Moldovan Law, Armenian Law and European Law

Abstract

The paper examines consumer protection against unfair terms in standard-form (adhesion) contracts through a comparative analysis of Moldovan law, Armenian law, and European Union (EU) law. It takes as a benchmark the EU test of a “significant imbalance contrary to good faith,” the transparency requirements, and the sanction that renders unfair terms non-binding, and maps these against national preventive and remedial mechanisms. The methodology combines doctrinal and legislative analysis (special consumer statutes, civil code provisions, and sector-specific regulations—financial services, telecommunications, and digital content/data) with selected case law and institutional enforcement practice. The findings indicate notable convergence with the EU acquis, alongside gaps concerning black/grey lists of clauses, courts’ ex officio control, the effectiveness of injunctive actions, and the treatment of common subscription-economy terms (unilateral price changes, automatic renewal, unjustified limitations of liability, and pre-formulated arbitration clauses). Building on this, the article advances targeted policy recommendations: strengthening the material and procedural framework for unfair-terms control; explicitly codifying indicative lists; issuing trader compliance checklists; broadening standing for consumer associations; and improving enforcement, sanctions, and ADR/ODR interfaces. The study’s contribution is applied and practice-oriented, outlining a feasible roadmap for alignment and good practice for authorities, courts, businesses, and consumer assistance centres, with positive effects on legal certainty and market trust in both domestic and cross-border transactions. JEL: K12, D18, K23, K33, K41