EU Consumer Research Articles

Protecting Vulnerable Consumers in the Digital Single Market

The article argues that in a digital environment there is a need for a paradigm shift which includes reversing the expectations placed on consumers by EU law to be the arbiter of markets, to behave as ‘average’ consumers with additional protection granted for those deemed ‘vulnerable’. This is because we ought to expect vulnerability to be the norm rather than the exception. The information paradigm prevalent in EU consumer law also needs to be altered to solve the systemic vulnerability problems rife in digital markets. It should no longer be about consumers defending themselves (using rather imperfect instruments in the process), but about businesses behaving fairly and skilled enforcers ensuring obligations are fulfilled. Fairness in digital markets should be by design and not something that is offered to consumer simply as a remedy after the damage has already occurred. Vulnerable consumers, EU consumer law, fairness, unfair commercial practices, dark patterns, Digital Services Act, Digital Market Act, General Product Safety Regulation, Artificial Intelligence Act, Consumer Credits Directive

The Unreliability of Online Review Mechanisms

Online reviews have an undeniable impact on the market and are an important source of consumer information. From a legal perspective, online reviews actively influence consumers’ decisions to enter into a contract. Moreover, online reviews convey pre-contractual information that consumers find relevant and easy to understand, unlike the pre-contractual information disclosed as a result of EU law–based information duties. From this perspective, online reviews could potentially be seen as a complement of the flawed EU law–based information paradigm and regulatory improvement options based on reviews could be explored. However, the unreliability of online reviews is an obstacle that haunts consumers, practitioners, regulators, and academics alike. This unreliability has previously been identified as a reason not to award online reviews a more significant role in the EU law–based regulatory framework of pre-contractual information in consumer contracts. This paper explores the merits of this argument by discussing how the unreliability of online reviews is currently regulated. This paper takes a broad perspective on regulation, focusing not only on EU consumer legislation, but also looking at standardization, soft law, self-regulation, and the role of national consumer authorities. Overall, this paper argues that there are sufficient measures in place to shift the debate from the unreliability of reviews to reviews’ potential role in the protection of consumer informational interests.

Quo Vadis Consumer Dispute Resolution? UK & EU cross border consumer dispute resolution in the post Brexit landscape

The United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union challenges the existing framework for cross border consumer dispute resolution and exacerbates the negative effect of the EU’s harmonisation approach in this area. Both EU and UK consumers face an uncertain future after the transition period. This paper will analyse and evaluate key challenges to UK and EU consumer cross border dispute resolution after the transition period ended on 31 December 2020. The paper will consider procedural impediments to UK consumers enforcing consumer rights against EU/EEA traders as well as to EU consumers enforcing rights against UK traders. The paper will also consider the jurisdictional impact of UK’s status and its effect upon the reciprocal enforcement of consumer court judgments/ADR decisions between the EU and UK. Finally, the paper suggests that a Lugano+ approach would help to mitigate the impact of the impediments to effective consumer dispute resolution between EU and UK entities. In doing so, it first takes a preliminary look at the existing paradigm of cross border cooperation in consumer dispute resolution. The chapter also includes some thoughts on the normative clashes facing the creation of a new relationship in this area.

The 2020 European Union report on pesticide residues in food.

Under European Union legislation (Article 32, Regulation (EC) No 396/2005), the EFSA provides an annual report which examines pesticide residue levels in foods on the European market. This report is based on data from the official national control activities carried out by EU Member States, Iceland and Norway and includes a subset of data from the EU‐coordinated control programme, which uses a randomised sampling strategy. For 2020, 94.9% of the overall 88,141 samples analysed fell below the maximum residue level (MRL), 5.1% exceeded this level, of which 3.6% were non‐compliant, i.e. samples exceeding the MRL after taking the measurement uncertainty into account. For the subset of 12,077 samples analysed as part of the EU‐coordinated multiannual control programme, 1.7% exceeded the MRL and 0.9% were non‐compliant. To assess acute and chronic risk to consumer health, dietary exposure to pesticide residues was estimated and compared with health‐based guidance values. Dietary exposure to pesticides for which health‐based guidance values were available is unlikely to pose a risk to EU consumer health. In the rare cases where dietary exposure for a specific pesticide/product combination was calculated to exceed the health‐based guidance value, and for those pesticides for which no health‐based guidance value could be established, the competent authorities took appropriate and proportionate corrective measures to address potential risks to consumers. Recommendations are proposed to increase the effectiveness of European control systems, thereby continuing to ensure a high level of consumer protection throughout the EU.

Pilot Study on Poultry Meat from Antibiotic Free and Conventional Farms: Can Metagenomics Detect Any Difference?

Antibiotic free farms are increasing in the poultry sector in order to address new EU regulations and consumer concerns. In this pilot study, we investigated whether the efforts of raising chickens without the use antibiotics make any difference in the microbiome of poultry meat eaten by consumers. To this aim we compared the microbiomes characterizing caeca and the corresponding carcasses of two groups of chickens reared, one reared on a conventional farm and one on an antibiotic-free intensive farm. The results showed a clear separation between the taxonomic, functional and antibiotic resistant genes in the caeca of the birds reared on the conventional and antibiotic free farm. However, that separation was completely lost on carcasses belonging to the two groups. The antibiotic-free production resulted in statistically significant lower antimicrobial resistance load in the caeca in comparison to the conventional production. Moreover, the antimicrobial resistance load on carcasses was much higher than in the caeca, without any significant difference between carcasses coming from the two types of farms. All in all, the results of this research highlighted the need to reduce sources of microbial contamination and antimicrobial resistance not only at the farm level but also at the post-harvest one.

Consumer Protection Regime in Islamic Finance and It’s Comparison with EU Consumer Law

Consumer Protection Regime in Islamic Finance and It’s Comparison with EU Consumer Law

Bezpieczeństwo konsumentów w kontekście programu polityki konsumenckiej Unii Europejskiej na lata 2020–2025

The article aims to present the need to ensure the safety of consumers in the European Union after 2020 in the context of the implemented consumer policy. The considerations focus in particular on the analysis of the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council of 13 November 2020, which is the EU consumer program. The safety of consumers is related to guaranteeing them legal protection in the field of four basic levels: health, economic, information and education, and pursuing claims. The article indicate the impact of the pandemic of COVID-19 on the safety of consumers in the European Union.

'Apes Gone', but What about Consumer Protection? Applying EU Consumer Law to the Transfer of NFTs

'Apes Gone', but What about Consumer Protection? Applying EU Consumer Law to the Transfer of NFTs

Informed Consent in EU Consumer Law: The Polish Perspective

Informed Consent in EU Consumer Law: The Polish Perspective

Impediments of National Procedural Law to the Free Movement of Judgments. Volume I. Ed. by Burkhard Hess, Pietro Ortolani; Implementing EU Consumer Rights by National Procedural Law. Volume II. Ed. by

Impediments of National Procedural Law to the Free Movement of Judgments. Volume I. Ed. by Burkhard Hess, Pietro Ortolani; Implementing EU Consumer Rights by National Procedural Law. Volume II. Ed. by, 10.1628/rabelsz-2022-0090, Jahrgang 86 (2022) / Heft 4, 0033-7250 (1868-7059), The Rabel Journal of Comparative and International Private Law

Do EU consumers think about meat reduction when considering to eat a healthy, sustainable diet and to have a role in food system change?

This paper aims to highlight the position of meat reduction in what EU consumers think “eating a healthy and sustainable diet” involves and who has a role to play in achieving food system change. The data are based on the Eurobarometer 93.2 survey (mid 2020). The participants were asked to make their own selections out of a variety of food-related items and actors, linked to meat (“Eating meat less often”) and other aspects of diets (“Eating more fruit and vegetables”). Their responses were analyzed separately in two EU regions: Northwest Europe—consisting of the 10 richest EU countries with the highest scores on economic and social sustainable development indicators— and the East and the South. Three principal components of dietary thinking were distinguished, relating to 1) nutrition issues, 2) easy “light green” issues and 3) more demanding “deeper green” issues, respectively. The analysis also distinguished three types of actors in the value chain (food chain actors, supporting actors, and governmental actors). In Northwestern Europe, a majority of consumers saw a role for themselves in making the food system more sustainable and a large minority saw meat reduction as part of a healthy and sustainable diet. Both responses were much less common in the East and South. In the Northwest, meat reduction was relatively strongly related to “deeper green” thinking but also weakly to nutrition-focused thinking, whereas the opposite was found in the East and South. However, meat reduction had no prominent position in their considerations. For policy-makers, therefore, it is crucial that both nutrition and environment can be motivating factors for consumers to consider meat reduction, albeit to different degrees.

Behavioral and Comparative Analysis of the Information Paradigm in Consumer Law

This article examines the issue of information asymmetry in consumer law and deliberates on the necessity of regulation of the status of a consumer and their protection mechanisms. It is evident that the relevant Georgian law, by and large, does not guarantee the sufficient safeguarding level and thus the approximation to the respective EU legislation cannot be deemed successful in toto. Furthermore, this article analyzes the Draft Law of Georgia on the Protection of Consumer Rights and displays the possible challenges. In addition, the special emphasis is on consumer credit contracts. In the wake of the growing importance of behavioral analysis and its impact on the law and economics, the standard of an in- formed and rational consumer, which constitutes a cornerstone of the EU consumer law, is now highly debated. By reviewing some findings in behavioral law and economics, along with the international legislation and case law, it is argued that some im- plications of behavioralism should be taken into account in the field of consumer law.

Intermediary Liability in the EU Digital Common Market

The European Union is committed to its transition towards climate neutrality and digital leadership, and synergies to be created in the EU Digital Common Market provide ample opportunities to achieve these goals: While from an economic perspective, the maximisation of market opportunities and the creation of a globally competitive digital economy are desirable, the transition must be technologically and ecologically sustainable and additionally compatible with established EU consumer protection standards. The latter is especially relevant in terms of the liability of online intermediaries for digital services, taking into account the rapid transformation of the digital architecture and the emergence of new major digital platforms for sales and services. This chapter, which is based on the Bachelor thesis handed in by Sander Sagar and supervised by Thomas Hoffmann for graduation at TalTech Law School, Tallinn University of Technology, intends to elucidate how the transition towards a common digital market is legally established in practice using as an example the adoption of the intermediaries’ liability regime to a digitalized environment from the E-Commerce Directive to the Digital Services Act.

The proposal for a new EU Consumer Credit Directive: towards responsible lending in the digital age?

ABSTRACT Large-scale irresponsible consumer credit lending across the EU, along with the growing digitalisation of the market place, in the last decade or more has exposed serious limitations of the 2008 Consumer Credit Directive in ensuring adequate consumer protection in the unsecured credit markets. To remedy the shortcomings of the current regulatory regime, the European Commission’s Proposal for a New Consumer Credit Directive seeks to introduce a number of important changes. This article discusses the proposed changes and critically assesses their potential to ensure responsible lending in the digital age. It concludes that the adoption of the revised directive would represent a major step forward in combatting irresponsible lending practices and protecting European consumers against overindebtedness in the digital market place. At the same time, however, the effectiveness of the new consumer credit directive will depend to a considerable extent on its implementation and application in the Member States.

Validity of choice of court agreements, abusive terms in air carriage contracts, assignments and compensation, is there room for anyone else? (Comments on CJEU Judgment Delayfix, c-519/19)

In Delayfix case, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has interpreted the formal and substantive validity of a “choice of court agreement” included in an air carriage of passenger’s contract. But, for the first time, the CJEU has openly declared the unfair nature of these choice of court agreements, not only for the passengers, but also for third parties assigned by them. In opposition with former case law on the effects of a choice of court agreement for assignees. In carriage of passengers’ contracts, third parties are usually agencies devoted to the defense of air passenger rights and collection of credits who claim for the compensation rights in accordance with the rights conferred by Regulation 261/2004. From the EU Private International Law approach, the preliminary ruling is of interest, being the Brussels I bis regulation the instrument for clarifying whether this choice of court agreement should be deemed as enforceable or not, regarding the requirements of Article 25 Brussels I bis due to these contracts are not considered as consumer contracts. To the analysis of the merits and substantive law, contrarily than under EU Private International law rules these contracts are considered as Business to consumer (B2C) contracts, and Directive 93/13/CEE and other EU Consumer rules must be applied so as to determine the unfair nature of these clauses in these contracts.

Rethinking Product Liability Rules for Online Marketplaces: A Comparative Perspective

Over the past decade, the rise of online marketplaces such as Amazon.com has profoundly changed the retail landscape. The current pandemic has further accelerated consumers’ shift towards online buying in general and online marketplaces in particular. As a result, traditional distribution chains have been replaced by a market structure which is dominated by digital intermediaries. While this development has increased consumer choice, it has also enabled the influx of unsafe and defect products to US and EU consumer retail markets. It is a matter of controversy whether and how product liability rules, which have been designed for the traditional distribution chain model, can be applied to online intermediaries. Against this background, this Article explores how courts and lawmakers on both sides of the Atlantic are trying to adjust the existing product liability framework to the new reality of the platform economy. The comparative analysis shows that the regulatory strategies in Europe and the US differ considerably. While US law focusses on indirect regulation through product liability, EU law puts its emphasis on direct regulation through public enforcement of product safety rules and market surveillance by public authorities. In this regard, the proposal for a Digital Services Act, published by the European Commission in December 2020, will not bring much of a change. The Article calls for a reform of the EU Product Liability Directive that takes inspiration from recent developments in US product liability law. This could lead not only to a more balanced regulatory framework within the EU, but also to a trans-Atlantic convergence in the field of product liability. Building on the findings of the comparative analysis, the Article outlines several options for law reform and discusses how the regulatory design of product liability rules could affect the market structure and competition in the platform economy. The paper will be presented at the 2021 Consumer Law Scholars Conference in Boston (March 4-5, 2021).

EU State Aid Law and Consumer Protection: An Unsettled Relationship in Times of Crisis

As a result of the global lockdown, countries around the globe are now facing multiple crises at the same time: a health crisis, a financial crisis, and a colla

EU Consumer Law in 2020

The paper presents an overview of the main developments in EU consumer law in 2020. It discusses the challenges for consumer protection related to the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, legislative developments in the field of collective redress and digital markets as well as selected judgments of the Court of Justice, with a focus on the consumer notion, unfair terms in financial markets and consumer protection in the platform economy.The French version of this contribution will be published in “Annuaire de droit de l’Union européenne 2020” (Éditions Panthéon-Assas, forthcoming).

Algorithmic Transparency and Explainability for EU Consumer Protection: Unwrapping the Regulatory Premises

The principles of transparency and explainability are landmarks of the current EU approach to artificial intelligence. Both are invoked in the policy guidelines as values governing algorithmic decision-making, while providing rationales for existing normative provisions, on information duties, access rights and control powers. This contribution addresses the debate on transparency and explainability from the EU consumer market perspective. The consumers’ position relative to algorithmic decision-making is considered, and their risks concerning mass surveillance, exploitation, and manipulation are discussed. The concept of algorithmic opacity is analyzed, distinguishing technology-based opacity that is intrinsic to design choices, from relational opacity toward users. The response of EU law is then considered. The emerging approach to algorithmic transparency and explainability is connected to the broader regulatory goals concerning transparency in consumer markets. It is argued that EU law focuses on adequate information being provided to lay consumers (exoteric transparency), rather than on understandability to experts (esoteric transparency). A discussion follows on the benefits of transparency, on its costs, and on the extent to which transparency can be implemented without affecting performance. Finally, the merits of a transparency-based regulation of algorithms are discussed and insights are provided on regulating transparency and explainability within the EU law paradigm.

Labelling Settlement Products: When EU Consumer Law Meets Public International Law (But Ignores International Trade Law)

How should products produced in occupied territories be labelled for export? In recent years, Courts in the UK and Canada addressed this technical yet politically-charged question, in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. More recently, the Court of Justice of the EU was asked to determine the mandatory requirements under EU consumer law of indication of origin of products produced in settlements situated in territories occupied by the State of Israel, namely the Golan Heights, theWest Bank and East Jerusalem. In Organisation juive européenne the Court of Justice established that although EU consumer law refers to the need to supply information regarding the country of origin or the place of provenance, those provisions should be interpreted as requiring that foodstuffs originating in an occupied territory must bear not only the indication of that territory but also the indication of that provenance (i.e. indication that it comes from an ‘Israeli settlement’). In imposing broad labelling requirements, the Court heavily relied on both the notion of ‘ethical considerations’ under EU consumer law and on international law, boldly addressing some of the contentious legal and political issues at stake. In adopting this approach, the Court contributed to the harmonious reading of EU consumer law and public international law. Yet its heavy reliance on public international law should be contrasted with its failure to rely on international trade law, a neglect that contributed to selective and discriminatory treatment of Israeli settlement products. Moreover, in imposing broad labelling requirements, the Court shifted its focus from the EU and its Member States to the ultimate EU consumers, thereby advancing the private enforcement of international law in lieu of public enforcement. settlement products; interface between public international law and international trade law, EU-Israel relations