The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Ottília Lovasné Tóth v ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt. can be seen as a missed opportunity, first, in elaborating on Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13, in particular whether the two criteria set by the article, of a term causing a ‘significant imbalance’ and it being contrary to ‘good faith’ should be assessed separately; and, second, at clarifying the status of the transparency requirement found in Article 5 of the directive. This case note focuses on the latter question taking into account the repercussions of the judgment of the CJEU in Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Amazon EU Sàrl. In the latter case the CJEU introduced an information duty about the existence of mandatory rules such as Article 6(2) of Rome I Regulation. The CJEU with its decision in Ottília Lovasné Tóth decided to limit the scope of the judgment in Amazon to the particular circumstances of that case.