{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022975929978118162, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.1, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Transparency revisited – on the role of information in the recent case-law of the CJEU

The European Court of Justice has recently had the chance to bring the understanding of transparency requirements in the Unfair Terms Directive a few steps ahead. Through the Invitel and RWE cases, indeed, substantive improvements have been made in the understanding of what transparency entails, at least with regard to clauses allowing for changes in the price(s) to be paid by consumers in the context of long-term contracts. Even more interesting progress can be observed as to giving transparency a proper function in consumer relations. These developments, suggesting a potential shift towards an ‘ex post’ perspective on contractual information, seem to provide some good reasons to take transparency (more) seriously - even for those who are more critical of information requirements as a means of ‘helping’ consumers.