List of Abusive Clauses in Consumer Relations Amended

Provision 377/2026—issued by the Undersecretariat for Consumer Protection and Fair Trade under the Ministry of Economy and published in the Official Gazette on March 11, 2026—replaces the Annex to Resolution 53/2003 of the former Secretariat of Competition, Deregulation, and Consumer Protection, as amended by Resolutions 26/2003 of the Secretariat of Technical Coordination and 994/2021 of the Secretariat of Domestic Trade. The purpose of this update is to reaffirm consumer protection and to systematize the accumulated experience in the field, considering current legislation and the criteria developed by administrative and judicial authorities.

Provision 377, which implements article 37 of the Consumer Protection Law 24240 (LDC), establishes an updated and non‑exhaustive list of clauses that may not be incorporated in consumer contracts and which, if included, will be deemed not agreed upon.

Among the most significant innovations, Provision 377 introduces a new category of abusive clauses under paragraph (u), and defines them as those that “establish differentiated protections in consumer relationships conducted in person to the detriment of those conducted remotely, or vice versa.”

Moreover, Provision 377 repeals the absolute prohibition of clauses stipulating compound interest to the detriment of consumers, which was in force under the previous regime, and instead prohibits only those clauses providing for capitalization of interest beyond the parameters established in article 770 of the Argentine Civil and Commercial (CCCN).

Provision 377 also removes from the catalogue clauses that “distort the legal effects of deposits or down payments to the detriment of the consumer” (formerly paragraph ñ of the Annex to Resolution 53, as amended by Resolution 994).

Moreover, Provision 377 removes from the list certain clauses that had previously been expressly classified as abusive under Resolution 53. This does not imply that it is not allowed to include them, but rather that their prohibition comes from general principles and other specific provisions in the legal system. By way of illustration, Provision 377 excludes from the Annex clauses that:

• Establish commitment clauses or arbitration agreements (formerly paragraph o of the Annex to Resolution 53, as amended by Resolution 994). This prohibition is expressly codified in article 1651 CCCN, which excludes adhesion contracts from arbitration agreements regardless of their subject matter (including consumer contracts concluded by adhesion), as well as in paragraph (e) of Provision 377, which generally prohibits restrictions on the exercise of judicial actions (including clauses establishing forum selection agreements in jurisdictions other than the consumer’s domicile).
• Limit consumers’ ability to pursue collective actions (formerly paragraph y of the Annex to Resolution 53, as amended by Resolution 994). As in the previous case, this situation falls within the general prohibition included in paragraph (e) of Provision 377.

Finally, Provision 377 substantially maintains the wording in the remaining paragraphs, and introduces only formal modifications without altering the principles underlying the classification of abusive clauses, including those relating to:

1. infringement of the rights of children and adolescents (paragraph l),
2. discrimination based on age, gender, health status, or other circumstances (paragraph m),
3. restrictions on the consumer’s right of withdrawal in distance contracts beyond the limits established in the CCCN and supplementary legislation (paragraph n),
4. use and storage of personal data in violation of Law 25326 (paragraph ñ),
5. invocation of fortuitous event, force majeure, hardship, and/or frustration of legitimate expectations to the detriment of the consumer (paragraph r).

Any infringement of Provision 377 will entail sanctions in accordance with section 47 of the CPL.

Provision 377 entered into force the day it was published in the Official Gazette.