Consumer protection or the legislator’s paternalism towards the consumer are common phrases. In my opinion, it is not possible to accept the idea they convey because of the contradictions between the model of the consumer and the seller’s obligation to provide information, as well as between the protection of the consumer rights and the adequacy of the rights allocated to him/her in this field. What prompts reflection is the change of the rules concerning liability of the seller which consists in abandoning the structure of non‑conformity of goods in favour of returning to the warranty. For if the consumer was protected, why should the legislature suddenly stop this protection? My intention is to verify whether the consumer was indeed treated by the legislature in a paternalistic way. Therefore I shall analyse the seller’s liability and obligation to provide information, and then on the basis of the legislative material I shall find out what in fact was the reason for the introduction of the structure of non‑conformity of goods and the subsequent changes in the regulations.