強化企業經營者的資訊義務，是保護消費者最常採用的方式，蓋這樣的解決方案，一方面可維護消費者的自主決定權，另一方面，這類程序面的工具比較容易實施與具有可預測性。對於企業經營者從事特種交易時，應揭露之資訊項目，歐陸立法例不斷擴充之趨勢，企業經營者基本資料、商品基本資訊、無條件解除權、價格與費用、交付條件、其他資訊等，均在揭露之列，相較之下，我國消保法的規定，略顯得簡單，如關於瑕疵擔保責任、契約期間、數位內容之運作與相容性、價格計算方式、額外運送或交付費用、退回商品之額外費用、售後服務等資訊，尚付之闕如。另外，無條件解除權為消保法賦予消費者之重要權利，對於解除權存在與否、權利行使期間、行使方式、解除後之法律效果，均應說明，從保護消費者之意旨來看，實不宜限制解除權行使方式。關於違反資訊義務之法律效果，消保法參考外國立法例，就未告知解除權者，明定延長解除權期間。至於其他資訊義務之違反，其法律效果為何，消保法未有明文，只能依民法規定予以處理，以定企業經營者違反義務時之損害賠償責任。

The best way to protect consumers is to intensify the information duty of businesses. It could protect the decision-making power of consumers on the one hand and be easy to carry out and be predicable. When businesses do off-premises contract or distance contract, they should disclose the background of businesses, basic information about goods, right of withdrawal, price and expense, condition of delivery and etc. In contrast to Directive 2011/83/EU on Consumer Rights, the information requirements in Consumer Protection Law is too simple because the warranty of free from any defect, length of contract, function and interplay of digital content, calculation of price, additional expense of delivery, additional expense of goods return and after sale service are lacked. Right of withdrawal is a fundamental right of consumers, so the existence of right, period, manner and consequence of right exercise should be informed. It infringes consumer right to limit the manner of right exercise. In contrast to right of withdrawal, the consequence of infringing prohibition of consumer law is uncertain and should be amended.