In its ruling of 3 October 2019 (Case C-272/18 – VKI./.TVP), the ECJ had to deal with the question of the law applicable to fiduciary partnership interests, which has hardly been discussed so far but is of practical relevance. The decisive point of departure was the characterization under conflict of laws. Due to the equal legal status of the fiduciary partners (so called “Quasi-Gesellschafter” under German law) and the direct limited partners, it could be argued that the trust agreement should fall under the applicable company law regime rather than being classified as an ordinary contract. In its ruling, the ECJ did not answer this question for the entire trust agreement, but dealt solely with some of the clauses, which were qualified as contractual obligations falling under the Rome I Regulation. Consequently, the ECJ decided that for cases involving consumers as holders of the fiduciary partnership interest the special provision of Art. 6 Rome I Regulation applies. For consumer contracts, however, the ECJ had already previously ruled that choice of law clauses which do not clarify their limited effect as specified in Art. 6(2) Rome I Regulation are unfair and therefore void. As a result, the consumer’s right of residence applies. The following article analyzes the judgment in consideration of the concept of the ”Quasi-Gesellschafter” under German company law. It shows the dogmatic weaknesses in the ECJ's reasoning from a conflict-of-laws perspective and points to the crucial questions the court has left open. Finally, the consequences arising from a possible discrepancy between the law applicable to the trust agreement and the company law regime will be lined out.