Consumer Rights Act 2015: Unfair Terms
Unfair Contract Terms [Part 2, Sections 61-76]
Rule: Contract terms between traders and consumers must be fair and transparent. Unfair terms are not binding on the consumer. Part 2 replaces the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 for consumer contracts.
Effective: October 1, 2015
Section 61: Scope of Part 2
61.1 — Application
Part 2 applies to:
- Contract terms between traders and consumers
- Consumer notices (statements of rights/obligations not necessarily contractual)
Part 2 does NOT apply to:
- Terms that reflect mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions
- Terms that reflect provisions of international conventions to which UK or EU is party
AI agent implications:
- All consumer contract terms must be reviewed for fairness
- Standard terms and conditions are covered
- Privacy policies and disclaimers are “consumer notices” covered by transparency requirements
- Cannot hide behind “this is required by law” unless actually mandated
Section 62: Requirement for Contract Terms to Be Fair
62.1 — The Fairness Test
Rule:
“An unfair term of a consumer contract is not binding on the consumer.”
Fairness standard: A term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer.
Three-Part Test for Fairness
| Element | What It Means |
|---|---|
| 1. Contrary to good faith | Term exploits consumer’s disadvantage, acts against fair dealing principles |
| 2. Significant imbalance | Rights/obligations heavily skewed in trader’s favor |
| 3. Detriment to consumer | Consumer is worse off than they should reasonably expect |
All three must be present for term to be unfair.
62.2 — Factors in Assessing Fairness
Courts consider:
- Nature of the subject matter — what the contract is for
- All circumstances existing when term agreed — context of transaction
- All other terms in contract — how terms interact
- Terms of related contracts — other agreements affecting the consumer
Examples of Unfair Terms
| Term | Why Unfair |
|---|---|
| ”We can change prices at any time without notice” | Significant imbalance — consumer locked in, trader has unilateral power |
| ”No refunds under any circumstances” | Contrary to good faith — excludes statutory rights (also void under Section 31/47/57) |
| “You agree to pay our legal costs if we sue you, but we won’t pay yours if you win” | Significant imbalance — asymmetric liability |
| ”We’re not liable for any loss you suffer, even if caused by our negligence” | Excludes liability for negligence causing death/injury (void under Section 65) |
| “This contract automatically renews for 5 years unless you cancel 6 months in advance” | Excessive penalty for consumer, locks them in unfairly |
Examples of Fair Terms
| Term | Why Fair |
|---|---|
| ”Prices may increase by RPI + 2% annually” | Transparent, predictable, reasonable cap |
| ”30-day notice required for cancellation” | Reasonable notice period |
| ”Late payment interest at 4% above Bank of England base rate” | Reflects genuine costs, not punitive |
| ”We’ll repair faulty goods within 21 days” | Adds to consumer rights, doesn’t restrict them |
62.3 — Contract Still Binding Despite Unfair Term
Key principle: If a term is unfair, only that term is not binding. The rest of the contract continues.
Exception: If removing the unfair term makes the contract impossible to perform, the whole contract may be void.
62.4 — Burden of Proof
Trader must prove:
- Term was individually negotiated, OR
- Term is fair
Consumer does NOT have to prove unfairness — presumption favors consumer.
Section 63: Contract Terms Which May Be Regarded as Unfair
63.1 — The Grey List (Schedule 2)
Schedule 2 provides 20 types of terms that may be regarded as unfair. These are indicative examples, not exhaustive.
Important: Being on the grey list doesn’t automatically make a term unfair — it triggers closer scrutiny.
Grey List Categories
| Category | Examples |
|---|---|
| 1. Excluding or limiting liability | ”Not liable for any loss,” “Liability capped at £10” |
| 2. Binding consumer but not trader | ”You must perform, but we can cancel anytime” |
| 3. Excessive deposit forfeiture | ”£5,000 non-refundable deposit on £6,000 contract” |
| 4. Cancellation penalties | ”Cancel = pay 80% of full contract price” |
| 5. Unilateral variation | ”We can change terms without notice or reason” |
| 6. Unilateral price increases | ”Prices may rise at any time” (without right to cancel) |
| 7. Automatic contract extension | ”Auto-renews for 3 years unless 6 months’ notice given” |
| 8. Final/conclusive evidence clauses | ”Trader’s records are conclusive proof” |
| 9. Limiting evidence | ”Consumer can only rely on written statements” |
| 10. Unilateral performance | ”We decide if we’ve performed correctly” |
| 11. Restricting consumer rights | ”No right to claim breach of contract” |
| 12. Limiting assignment | ”Consumer can’t transfer contract, but we can” |
| 13. Jurisdiction clauses | ”Any disputes must be litigated in [inconvenient location]“ |
| 14. Excluding legal remedies | ”Your only remedy is repair, no refund or damages” |
Schedule 2, Paragraph 5: Terms Permitting Unilateral Variation
General rule: Terms allowing trader to change contract without valid reason are unfair.
Exceptions — unilateral variation IS fair if:
- Trader has valid reason specified in contract, AND
- Consumer has right to terminate if changed, AND
- Consumer is informed of changes in reasonable time
Examples:
| Scenario | Fair? |
|---|---|
| Subscription service: “We can change prices annually in line with RPI” | ✅ Fair — valid reason (inflation), predictable |
| Mobile contract: “We can change data allowance at any time” | ❌ Unfair — no valid reason, impacts core service |
| Software: “We can update features, but you can cancel if you don’t like changes” | ✅ Fair — consumer can exit |
| Gym membership: “We can change opening hours without notice” | ❌ Unfair — no notice period |
Schedule 2, Paragraph 6: Terms Permitting Price Increases
General rule: Terms allowing price increases after contract formed are unfair UNLESS:
- Valid reason for increase (e.g., costs beyond trader’s control), AND
- Consumer has right to cancel if price increases
Special exception for financial services: Price variation in financial services is fair if:
- Changes track publicly available index or rate (e.g., Bank of England base rate)
- Consumer informed promptly
- Consumer has right to cancel without penalty
Examples:
| Scenario | Fair? |
|---|---|
| Energy supplier: “Prices may increase to reflect wholesale costs” | ✅ Fair — if consumer can switch provider |
| Hotel booking: “Room rate may increase up to check-in” | ❌ Unfair — consumer already committed |
| Variable rate mortgage: “Interest tracks BoE base rate” | ✅ Fair — transparent index, consumer can refinance |
| Subscription: “Price may double next year at our discretion” | ❌ Unfair — excessive, no objective reason |
Section 64: Exclusion from Assessment of Fairness
64.1 — Core Terms Exempt from Fairness Assessment
Two types of terms cannot be assessed for fairness:
- Main subject matter terms — what the contract is fundamentally about
- Price terms — how much the consumer pays
BUT ONLY IF:
- Terms are transparent (Section 68), AND
- Terms are prominent (Section 64(2))
What “Transparent and Prominent” Means
Transparent (Section 68):
- Plain and intelligible language
- Legible format
Prominent (Section 64):
- Brought to consumer’s attention in such a way that average consumer would be aware of it
- Not hidden in fine print
- Consumer can make informed decision about contract based on term
Examples: Core Terms That Are Exempt
| Term | Exempt? |
|---|---|
| ”Subscription: £9.99/month for unlimited streaming” | ✅ Yes — transparent price for main service |
| ”Flight ticket: London to New York, £450” | ✅ Yes — transparent price for main subject matter |
| ”Gym membership: 12 months minimum term, £50/month” | ✅ Yes — IF prominently displayed |
Examples: Terms That Look Like Core Terms but Aren’t Exempt
| Term | Exempt? | Why Not? |
|---|---|---|
| ”Price includes 20% ‘admin fee’” | ❌ No | Not transparent — what is admin fee? |
| ”Cancellation fee: 6 months’ payments” | ❌ No | Not the price — it’s a penalty term (subject to fairness) |
| “Subscription auto-renews at double price after 12 months” | ❌ No | Not prominent if buried in T&Cs |
| ”Delivery: £5.99 (but £29.99 for Highlands)“ | ⚠️ Maybe | Depends if Highlands surcharge was prominent at checkout |
64.3 — Terms in Foreign Language
If contract terms are in a language other than English (in England, Wales, NI) or other than Gaelic/English (in Scotland), consumer can challenge term as not transparent.
Burden on trader: Show consumer fully understood non-English terms.
Section 65: Bar on Exclusion or Restriction of Negligence Liability
65.1 — Death or Personal Injury from Negligence
Absolute prohibition:
“A trader cannot by a term of a consumer contract or by a consumer notice exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence.”
Such terms are:
- Void (no legal effect)
- Criminal offence to rely on them (Section 76)
Examples of Void Terms
| Term | Status |
|---|---|
| ”We’re not liable if you’re injured on our premises” | ❌ VOID — death/personal injury from negligence |
| ”Use at your own risk — no liability for accidents” | ❌ VOID — cannot exclude injury liability |
| ”Maximum liability for personal injury: £1,000” | ❌ VOID — cannot limit injury liability |
| ”We’re not liable for damage to your property” | ⚠️ Subject to fairness test (Section 62) — property damage CAN be limited/excluded if fair |
65.2 — Other Loss from Negligence
For losses other than death/personal injury, trader can exclude/limit negligence liability, BUT ONLY IF:
- Term is fair under Section 62
- Term is transparent under Section 68
Examples:
| Term | Acceptable? |
|---|---|
| ”Not liable for loss of data” | ⚠️ Subject to fairness test — may be unfair if core service is data storage |
| ”Liability for property damage capped at £500” | ⚠️ Subject to fairness test — may be fair if clearly stated and reasonable |
| ”No liability for economic loss” | ⚠️ Subject to fairness test — context-dependent |
Section 68: Requirement for Transparency
68.1 — Transparency Requirement
Rule:
“A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.”
Transparent means:
- Plain and intelligible language
- Legible format
Consequence of non-transparency:
- Term may be interpreted against the trader (contra proferentem rule)
- Term more likely to be found unfair under Section 62
What “Plain and Intelligible” Means
Plain language:
- Avoids jargon and technical terms where possible
- Short sentences — average 15-20 words
- Active voice preferred over passive
- Everyday words over formal/archaic language
Intelligible:
- Logically structured — grouped by topic
- Clear headings — consumer can find relevant terms
- Consistent terminology — don’t call the same thing different names
Examples:
| Term | Plain and Intelligible? |
|---|---|
| ”We’ll refund you within 14 days if goods are faulty” | ✅ Yes — clear, simple, direct |
| ”The contract is voidable ab initio upon non-conformance with implied statutory warranties pursuant to the Sale of Goods Act” | ❌ No — jargon, legalistic, opaque |
| ”Termination pursuant to clause 7.3.2(b)(iv) shall be effected by written notice” | ❌ No — overly formal, internal cross-references confusing |
68.2 — Legibility
Legible format means:
- Font size — minimum 10-12pt for body text
- Contrast — dark text on light background
- Structure — headings, paragraphs, white space
- Not hidden — all terms easily accessible
Examples of illegible formats:
| Format | Legible? |
|---|---|
| 8pt grey text on grey background | ❌ No — too small, poor contrast |
| Wall of text, no headings | ❌ No — impossible to navigate |
| Terms behind “click here to expand” 5 layers deep | ❌ No — not accessible |
| PDF scanned at low resolution | ❌ No — not readable |
Section 69: Contract Terms That May Have Different Meanings
69.1 — Interpretation Against the Trader (Contra Proferentem)
Rule: If a term (or consumer notice) could have different meanings, the meaning most favorable to the consumer applies.
Why this matters:
- Ambiguity is interpreted against the drafter (trader)
- Encourages traders to write clear terms
- Consumer gets benefit of the doubt
Examples:
| Ambiguous Term | Consumer Interpretation Wins |
|---|---|
| ”Delivery within 5-10 working days” | Consumer can claim breach after 5 days (not 10) |
| “Refund or replacement at our discretion” | Consumer can argue they’re entitled to refund (not just replacement) |
| “Cancellation fee may apply” | Consumer can argue no fee applies (word “may” creates option, not certainty) |
Section 70: Enforcement of Law on Unfair Terms
70.1 — Who Can Enforce
Public enforcers:
- Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) — lead enforcer
- Trading Standards departments (local authorities)
- Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) — financial services
- Other regulators as designated
70.2 — What Enforcers Can Do
| Power | Description |
|---|---|
| Investigate | Request documents, evidence of contract terms used |
| Seek undertakings | Trader agrees to stop using unfair terms |
| Obtain injunctions | Court order preventing use of unfair terms |
| Collective enforcement | Stop unfair terms affecting all consumers, not just complainant |
70.3 — Complaints Procedure
Consumer route:
- Complain to trader first
- If unresolved, report to Trading Standards or Citizens Advice Consumer Service
- Regulator investigates and may take enforcement action
- Consumer can also bring individual court claim
Key difference from individual claims:
- Regulators can get injunctions stopping trader using term against all consumers
- Individual consumer action only resolves their own case
Section 71: Complaints About Contracts
71.1 — CMA’s Role
Competition and Markets Authority (CMA):
- Maintains database of reported unfair terms
- Publishes guidance on fair terms
- Takes enforcement action against widespread unfair terms
- Coordinates with other enforcers
CMA guidance on contract terms:
- CMA unfair contract terms guidance
- Updated regularly with case examples
Section 73: Enforcement of the Law on Consumer Notices
73.1 — Consumer Notices Covered
Consumer notice: Any announcement, statement, or notice (written or oral) that:
- Relates to rights or obligations between trader and consumer
- Is NOT necessarily part of a contract
Examples of consumer notices:
| Type | Examples |
|---|---|
| Disclaimers | ”No refunds,” “Not liable for lost property” |
| Warning signs | ”Enter at your own risk,” “No liability” |
| Policy statements | Privacy policies, return policies |
| Receipts/tickets | Terms printed on tickets or receipts |
Same standards apply:
- Must be fair (Section 62)
- Must be transparent (Section 68)
- Cannot exclude negligence liability for death/injury (Section 65)
Examples in Practice
| Consumer Notice | Enforceable? |
|---|---|
| Hotel sign: “Not liable for items lost from rooms” | ⚠️ Subject to fairness test — may be unfair if trader negligent |
| Car park: “Cars parked at owner’s risk” | ⚠️ Cannot exclude injury liability; property damage subject to fairness test |
| Receipt: “No refunds after 7 days” | ❌ Unfair — purports to exclude statutory rights (Sections 19-24) |
| Website: “We may collect and sell your data” | ⚠️ Subject to GDPR, transparency requirements |
Section 76: Offence of Purporting to Use Unfair Terms
76.1 — Criminal Offence
Offence: Trader relies on a term which is not binding on consumer due to:
- Being unfair (Section 62), OR
- Excluding/restricting negligence liability for death/injury (Section 65), OR
- Excluding consumer statutory rights (Sections 31, 47, 57)
Penalty:
- Fine on summary conviction
- Trading Standards can prosecute
76.2 — What “Relies On” Means
Trader relies on unfair term if they:
- Enforce the term against consumer
- Refuse consumer rights citing the term
- Take payment under the term
- Intimidate consumer by citing the term
Examples of criminal conduct:
| Scenario | Offence? |
|---|---|
| Trader refuses refund citing “no refunds” term | ✅ Yes — Section 31 makes exclusion void |
| Trader sues consumer under unfair cancellation penalty | ✅ Yes — relying on unfair term |
| Trader sends threatening letter citing void term | ✅ Yes — intimidating consumer with void term |
| Trader displays “No liability for injuries” sign | ✅ Yes — purporting to exclude Section 65 rights |
76.3 — Due Diligence Defence
Trader can defend by proving:
- Took all reasonable precautions, AND
- Exercised all due diligence to avoid committing offence
Example: Trader inherited terms from predecessor, immediately updated terms when discovered issue, did not enforce problematic terms.
Practical Application for AI Agents
E-Commerce Terms and Conditions
When reviewing T&Cs for consumers:
✅ Compliant terms:
- “We’ll refund faulty goods within 14 days”
- “You can cancel within 30 days for any reason”
- “Prices may increase by CPI annually (you can cancel if increased)”
- “We’re liable for losses caused by our negligence”
❌ Non-compliant terms:
- “No refunds under any circumstances”
- “Not liable for any loss, including our negligence”
- “We can change terms at any time without notice”
- “You waive all consumer rights”
Customer Service Agents
When consumer challenges a term:
- Check if term is unfair — apply Section 62 three-part test
- Check if term is transparent — is it clear?
- Check if term is prominent — was consumer aware?
- If term likely unfair: don’t enforce it (risk criminal offence under Section 76)
- Escalate for legal review
Contract Drafting Agents
When generating consumer contracts:
- Use plain language — avoid jargon
- Make key terms prominent — price, duration, cancellation rights
- Don’t exclude statutory rights — automatic void
- Balance obligations — avoid significant imbalance
- Allow unilateral variation only with valid reason + cancellation right
- Price increases only with transparency + cancellation right
Compliance Checklist for AI Agents
- All contract terms reviewed for fairness (Section 62)
- Terms use plain and intelligible language (Section 68)
- Terms are legible (font size, contrast, structure)
- Price terms are prominent at point of purchase
- Main subject matter clearly explained
- No exclusion of death/injury negligence liability (Section 65)
- No exclusion of statutory consumer rights (Sections 31, 47, 57)
- Unilateral variation clauses include valid reason + consumer cancellation right
- Price increase clauses include valid reason + consumer cancellation right
- Cancellation penalties are reasonable
- Consumer notices (disclaimers, signs) comply with fairness + transparency
- Agent does not rely on terms that may be unfair (risk criminal offence)
Interaction with Other Consumer Rights
| Part 1 Statutory Rights | Part 2 Protection |
|---|---|
| Goods must be of satisfactory quality (Section 9) | Cannot exclude via unfair term (also void under Section 31) |
| Digital content must be as described (Section 36) | Cannot exclude via unfair term (also void under Section 47) |
| Services must be performed with reasonable care (Section 49) | Cannot exclude via unfair term (also void under Section 57) |
Effect:
- Double protection — statutory rights cannot be excluded (Sections 31/47/57) AND any term purporting to exclude them is unfair (Section 62)
- Reinforces consumer protections
Key Case Law Principles
Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank (2001):
- Unfairness assessed at time contract made, not when enforced
- All circumstances considered, including bargaining power imbalance
- Term allowing post-judgment interest at contractual rate was fair
Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National (2009):
- Core terms (main subject matter, price) exempt from fairness if transparent
- Bank charges for unauthorized overdrafts were price for service, not penalties
- Terms must be transparent and prominent to qualify for exemption
ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015):
- £85 parking charge for overstaying was not a penalty
- Served legitimate interest (parking space turnover)
- Prominently displayed, consumer had choice to park elsewhere
Key Takeaways
- Unfair terms are not binding on consumer — trader cannot enforce them
- Fairness = good faith + significant imbalance + consumer detriment — all three required
- Core terms exempt IF transparent and prominent — price and main subject matter
- Grey list (Schedule 2) triggers scrutiny — 20 indicative examples
- Cannot exclude death/injury negligence liability — void + criminal to rely on
- Transparency = plain language + legible format — mandatory
- Ambiguity interpreted against trader — consumer gets benefit of doubt
- Enforcers can stop unfair terms industry-wide — CMA, Trading Standards, regulators
- Criminal offence to rely on void terms — fines for enforcement
- Consumer notices covered — disclaimers, signs, policies must be fair
Citation
Part 2 — Unfair Terms, Consumer Rights Act 2015
Related: