Unfair Trade Practices Research Articles

Contracting and Farmers’ Perception of Unfair Trading Practices in the EU Dairy Sector

AbstractIt is commonly asserted that unfair trading practices (UTPs) emerge largely as a result of contract incompleteness. In line with this view it is claimed that making contracts more complete will represent an antidote to UTPs. In this paper we argue that this does not need to be the case. This is because contracts, except for their potential to increase the surplus generated in the transaction, determine how this surplus will be divided. This, in turn, makes it possible for both trading partners to use contractual terms to turn the distributional conflict to their advantage. In the presence of unequal distribution of bargaining power this may lead to a situation in which the stronger party may succeed in tilting the contract in its favour by including UTPs in the contract content. Drawing insights from data collected in 2017 through a field survey among dairy farmers in France, Germany, Poland and Spain, we find support for this argument. Our estimation results show that contract completeness increases the likelihood of farmers reporting that their contracts with processors include the practices that may be considered as UTPs. Further, and also in line with this argument, contract completeness does not seem to affect UTPs during the contract execution or its termination.

Strengthening Consumer Rights: The Advent of Consumer Protection Act, 2019

No economy can flourish without the rights of the consumer being protected. A consumer is an indispensable actor of any economy as he is the person who buys or hires goods or services from the seller and in turn boosts employment in the country. Thus, protecting the rights of the consumer is important because in the present times the demands and expectations of the consumer have changed due to globalization and growing awareness. However, the availability of a large number of goods and services sometimes proves to be harmful to the consumer as not all sellers and service providers are genuine. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was established to address the grievances of the consumer and to protect their interests. It was a laudable step at that point of time and amended from time to time. However, the three-decade-old legislation failed to keep pace with the developments in the market and digital technology in the country. For example, the right to proceed against a person who had violated the rights of the consumer was not given in the Act, and the State and District Consumer Redressal Forums had to be approached, which only compensated consumers for the loss they had incurred. There was neither any collection of data nor any inquiry regarding injuries or deaths on account of defective products or services. In short, there was no regulatory body to control or keep a check on violation of the rights of consumers. Now, a new phase in Consumer Rights in India has begun with the Parliament passing the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and repealing the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 making the Consumer more powerful than before. The main highlight of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is that it establishes a Central Consumer Protection Authority which acts as a regulatory body to “promote, protect, enforce consumer rights as a class.” A clear shift from Caveat emptor (let the buyer be aware) to Caveat venditor (let the seller be aware) can be seen in the new provisions as the unfair trade practices and fraud done by the seller will now be penalized. The latest Act also makes provisions for punishment regarding unfair trade practices and misleading advertisements and many more changes which keep the rights of the consumer up to date with the contemporary changes in the market. This article deals with the major highlights of the concepts under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. A humble attempt has been made to discuss and evaluate certain changes which have been made under this Act in comparison to its old counterpart.

Relevancia práctica de la nueva normativa sobre comportamientos desleales en las relaciones entre empresas en la cadena agroalimentaria: la Directiva (UE) 2019/633

The work we present addresses the new challenges that arise in the European framework regarding the agri-food chain, following the recent approval of Directive (EU) 2019/633 of 17 April on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. The European Commission has dealt with small and medium-sized food and agricultural companies, producers and farmers in the food supply chain who represent a vulnerable sector in the agri-food supply chain. The new normative text aims to limit the possible unfair trading practices that are carried out in the supply chain and that involve the alteration of the equal opportunities of small and medium-sized food and agricultural companies, producers and farmers. Fundamentally due to the diverse negotiation capacity, in accordance with the proposals for the modernisation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

Data Breaches and Potemkin Privacy: How FTC Regulation Can Restore Authority and Agency to Online Users and Destroy the Data Oligarchy

Data Breaches and Potemkin Privacy: How FTC Regulation Can Restore Authority and Agency to Online Users and Destroy the Data Oligarchy

A study on consumer awareness on consumer rights and responsibilities: A special reference to the rural women of Assam

India is one of the biggest rural consumer markets in the world. Indian market have been witnessing several changes following on towards globalization, liberalization and privatization and a large scale entry of multinational company is a major outcomes of new economic order. In the words of Mahatma Gandhi (1890) “A consumer is the most important visitor on our premises; he is not dependent on us. We are dependent on him, he makes favor to us, not we favor on him”. This quote expresses the importance of a consumer in the business context. The Consumer Protection Act 1986 provides certain rights to consumers to protect themselves from unfair trade practices resorted by the seller. These rights are well defined by the Consumer Protection Act and there are agencies like the government, consumer courts and voluntary consumer organizations that work towards safe guarding the consumer rights. Each and every consumer should be aware of the consumer rights and responsibilities. For the existing study an attempt was made to find out the awareness level among the rural women. Three villages have been selected randomly from Jorhat sub-division following stratified random sampling method. A total of 120 respondents have been selected for the present study and interview method has been used to collect the data. The result of the study exposes various liabilities of the consumers and it has presented a clear scenario of the consumer’s awareness regarding their rights and responsibilities so as to know their demand. The findings of the study revealed that the age is negatively correlated with the awareness level for consumer rights and education and income are positively correlated with the awareness regarding rights of consumer. Majority of the respondents (60.83%) showed average awareness towards consumer responsibilities.

Unfair Trade Practices in India: A Comparative Analysis Between the Competition and Consumer Laws

The term Unfair Trade Practice (UTPs) broadly refers to a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice which is prohibited by a statute or has been recognised as actionable under law or by a judgement of the court. This research paper deals with the reason behind the incorporation of the concept of unfair trade practices to Consumer Laws rather making it a part of Competition Laws. Further the paper analyses the concept of unfair trade practices in India by comparing the provisions of Competition and Consumer Laws made for the concern. This research paper aims to highlight the position of UTPs in India and analyses the interface between competition law and consumer law in the theoretical framework and through the non-uniform understanding of ‘consumer welfare’ with respect to unfair trade practices that is interpreted in both the legislation. Further this paper in detail will be dealing with, in various headings, the evolution of UTPs in MRTP, Consumer and Competition Act, the abolition of the MRTP Act, various steps taken under the Sachar Committee and the Raghavan Committee, the establishment of Competition Commission of India (CCI) and Competition Act, 2002, the position of UTPs in Consumer and Competition laws, the reason of incorporation of UTPs in Consumer Laws, the various components of UTPs and the authorities and agencies dealing with UTPs.

China's Economy Is Not Overtaking America's

Most scholars and pundits, along with the general public, believe that China is an economic juggernaut set to overtake America as the world's dominant power. But the conventional wisdom is wrong. The United States is several times wealthier than China; and since the global financial crisis over a decade ago, the absolute gap between the two nations has been growing by trillions of dollars each year. China's economy is big but inefficient. It produces high output at high costs. Chinese businesses suffer from chronically high production costs, and China's 1.4 billion people generate massive welfare and security burdens. The United States, by contrast, is big and efficient, producing high output at relatively low costs. American workers and businesses are seven times more productive than China's, on average; and with four times fewer people than China, the United States has much lower welfare and security costs.The conventional wisdom about China, besides being wrong, has dangerous policy implications. For starters, it creates the impression that the United States and China are locked in “Thucydides' trap” in which a rising power challenges the ruling hegemon, and the two slide into a major war. This misguided notion, widespread in both countries, is driving a spiral of hostility. Slowing this spiral requires both sides to take a clear‐eyed look at the real balance of power, which is now, and will likely remain, highly skewed in America's favor.A second danger is that an exaggerated sense of China's rise continues to fuel the current trade wars. The United States should aggressively punish unfair Chinese trade practices, but do so through a reformed WTO, regional free trade pacts, and targeted investment restrictions and economic decoupling—not with unilateral tariffs.A third danger is that exaggerated fear of China's rise and America's decline could cause the United States to back off from many of its foreign policy commitments, divesting all obligations to maintaining the global order save those linked to vital national interests. Advocates of an “America First” foreign policy are probably right that the United States could improve its relative position by ditching allies and international institutions and letting the world burn. But one of the benefits of unrivaled wealth and power is that the United States can afford to pursue absolute gains, sacrificing a bit of relative advantage to make the United States and the world better off overall. As the most secure and powerful country in history, the United States can and should do more than ceaselessly struggle for power.

Is There a Jurisprudential Justification for the Recognition of a Right of Publicity in Kenya?

Publicity rights fall in the intersection between classic intellectual property rights law, unfair trade practices law and privacy rights law. This is an area that has recently experienced notable judicial decisions in Kenya which have not gained ample exposure and therefore worth looking into as an area for potential emerging jurisprudence. A look at the existing practices across different jurisdictions in the world reveals various positions and approaches with respect to publicity rights. On one hand, there are jurisdictions in which publicity rights are categorized within the broad spectrum of personality rights while in other jurisdictions these rights are treated as proprietary rights. Some jurisdictions also have a hybrid approach that amalgamates both proprietary and personality rights approaches. Publicity rights cut across four broad legal areas; tort, property, privacy and unfair trade practice law. These rights also have common similarities with copyright and trademark rights although they are not synonymous. A significant number of countries which recognize a right of publicity have a mixture of elements of these areas either as a form of common law approach based on the tort of passing off or specific statutory enactments on publicity rights. Legal practice and development in each jurisdiction has to be considered in the knowledge that each country has developed specific publicity rights mechanisms in response to the practical socio-economic needs and realities obtaining in each particular jurisdiction. This study surveys the legal landscape with respect to personality rights in Kenya and takes a brief look at several other select jurisdictions in an attempt to answer the question whether there is a jurisprudential justification for the recognition of a publicity right in Kenya.

In Search for a Jurisprudential Justification for the Recognition of a Right of Publicity in Kenya

Abstract Publicity rights fall in the intersection between classic intellectual property rights law, unfair trade practices law and privacy rights law. This is an area that has recently witnessed notable judicial decisions in Kenya which have not gained ample exposure and is therefore worth looking into as an area for potential emerging jurisprudence. A look at the existing practices across different jurisdictions in the world reveals various positions and approaches with respect to publicity rights. On one hand, there are jurisdictions in which publicity rights are categorized within the broad spectrum of personality rights, while in other jurisdictions these rights are treated as proprietary rights. Some jurisdictions also take a hybrid approach that amalgamates both proprietary and personality rights approaches. Publicity rights cut across four broad legal areas: tort, property, privacy and unfair trade practice law. These rights also have common similarities with copyright and trademark rights, although they are not synonymous. A significant number of countries which recognize a right of publicity have a mixture of elements of these areas, either as a form of common law approach based on the tort of passing off, or specific statutory enactments on publicity rights. Legal practice and development in each jurisdiction must be considered in the knowledge that each country has developed specific publicity rights mechanisms in response to the socio-economic needs and realities existing in its particular jurisdiction. This study surveys the legal landscape with respect to development of personality rights in Kenya. It also takes a brief look at several other select jurisdictions in an attempt to answer the question whether there is a jurisprudential justification for the recognition of a publicity right in Kenya.

US Trade Actions Against China: A Supply Chain Perspective

In 2018, the United States (US) Administration initiated several trade actions, including tariffs on China for unfair trade practices outlined by the US Trade Representative (USTR). In response, China filed requests for consultations with the World Trade Organization (WTO) and has implemented or threatened to implement increased tariffs on US products. In this article, the implications of current and potential US trade actions and responses by China on the US and global economy are estimated. We employ a dynamic supply chain model based on the widely used Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) Data Base and model. Our analysis finds that US gross domestic product (GDP) would be reduced by a projected –0.86 per cent in 2030 (or US$227.8 billion in 2017 dollars), as the role of the USA in global supply chains declines significantly. China’s GDP would also decline considerably by 2.84 per cent as a result of the actions imposed against it, while the rest of the world gain, as they fill the gaps left by US and Chinese producers. JEL: F16, C68

Online News and Advertising: What Role for Competition Law?

This paper examines the effects on competition, freedom of speech and democracy as a whole, of the use of behavioral targeting in the online news sector, and the institutional alternatives available to tackle them. It also relies on new empirical research on behavioral tracking in the online news sector. By revealing the network of parties involved in the process and the users’ data they share, this research demonstrates the central role of social platforms in shaping demand and the different levels of competition existing between ad networks, publishers and newspapers. Accordingly, the paper begins by mapping out the relationships between advertisers, publishers, data aggregators and other third parties. It then considers the different dimensions of competition in the collection and elaboration of the data needed to perform behavioral targeting, therefore also discussing whether competition law intervention would be justified. The paper also considers the effects of digital platforms and targeting on the quality of news reporting, on the diversity of information disseminated and on democracy as connected to the competitive dynamics established in the market. Targeted advertisement and tailored web-pages are part of a new type of behavioral targeting hinging on the elaboration of data obtained from the digital identities of the users. In the market for news, information (and ultimately ideas) the creation of a tailored digital environment may bring about not only economic effects but also distortions of the democratic process. In Part I, this paper presents the mechanisms through which behavioral targeting is made possible on the internet in particular through audience targeting. Part II describes the structure of this industry and examines the characteristics of ‘algorithmic curation’. It also reports the result of the empirical analysis performed by recording all tracking cookies on a selection of 100 different news websites and examines the (potential) competitive issues existing between publishers, ad networks and newspapers. Part III explores the different legal tools available to tackle unfair trading practices and anti-competitive conducts in this market. Part IV discusses whether competition law may expand its reach beyond the pricing mechanisms, promoting the protection of constitutional rights and public interest concerns, such as the one to correct information, and compares the application of competition laws to the other institutional alternatives.

Improving market outcomes: A qualitative assessment of the Greek dairy supply chain

This study provides a qualitatative assessment of the overall outcomes of the dairy supply chain in Greece. Based on the framework of the Taskforce for Agricultural Markets, a questionnaire survey with in-depth interviews was conducted to farmers, industries and supermarkets in Greece in order to gain knowledge about trading practices, market transparency, risk management, contracts, access to finance and the role of Producer Organizations. The analysis did not reveal significant unfair trading practices and showed positive prospects for the overall supply chain.

Identifying Business-to-Business Unfair Trading Practices in the Food Supply Chain: The case of Cyprus

Unfair Trading Practices (UTPs) between businesses in the food supply chain have a significant impact on the various stakeholders involved, and on the environment. So far, no attempt has been made at the Member State level for the identification of UTPs in the food supply chain and their impact on the relevant stakeholders. This study drew on this gap and attempted to identify the UTPs that exist in the Cypriot food supply chain, assess their impact on the involved stakeholders and provide guidelines that will assist the transposition of EU relevant Directive to the national law. To achieve this goal, the study was based on a quantitative survey of a representative sample of businesses using a specific questionnaire. The results showed that particular UTPs do appear in the food supply chain with a different frequency, while the majority of businesses have been victims of UTPs in the last five years. Notably, the estimated cost of UTPs as a percentage of the business annual turnover is considered important ranging from 5.7% for retailers to 31.9% for farmers. Thus, most participants agree that UTPs in the agricultural food sector should be regulated by national legislation. We argue that the national legislation for UTPs should be a mix of policies that integrate private, administrative and judicial methods of monitoring and enforcement. Policy and decision makers should seek to reinforce the role and the bargaining power of small businesses in the food supply chain. This might be accomplished through the development of efficient producers’ organizations, short food supply chains, interbranch organizations and strategic partnerships.

Comments on Trump's Trade War: An Indian Perspective

Noor Aini Khalifah, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia: With the backdrop of the decreasing hegemony of the United States and the emerging of two Asian giants, China and India, the article “Trump's Trade War: An Indian Perspective” succinctly captures the current scenario with references to history and the possibilities that the future may hold. From the perspective of leaders and domestic politics, it is always “better” to blame foreigners (“others”) for one's lack of competitiveness.The article highlights Trump's trade war and India's protectionist sentiment via the “Make in India” strategy, which does not bode well for either a liberalized world trading system or a liberalized FDI environment. The asymmetry of capital flows and labor flows between developed and developing countries is another source of contention in Trump's trade war. Both India and China's trade surplus with the United States led Trump to think that there exists “unfair trade practices” in these relationships. The U.S. trade deficit with China is about 20 times that of India in 2018.This article also addresses concern about China's growing geopolitical ambitions whereby both the United States and India aligned their interests in combatting the rise of China. Prior to Trump's tariffs, the strategic partnership between the United States and India was in tandem with Trump's vision of a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” region. India's prior concern of “cheap” Chinese imports has gained momentum following Trump's trade war against China. India's allegation of “unfair competition” from “cheap” Chinese imports led India to resort to antidumping provisions under the auspices of WTO with the recent imposition of antidumping duties on imports of Chinese steel products. China in turn was the sole or one of the complainants of over two-thirds of the Indian antidumping cases (839 cases) brought to the WTO during 1995–2016, out of a total of 5,286 cases reported to the WTO.The United States is an important export destination for India with about double the amount of exports (US$ 42.2 billion) compared to source of imports (US$ 22.3). On the other hand, India's imports from China were US$ 62.3 billion and exports were US$ 10.2 billion, making India's trading relation with China more significant than that with the United States. It is difficult, however, to estimate the amount of China's trade with India that is conducted by U.S. affiliates domiciled in China.The chronology of events relating to U.S.–India trade by Prema-chandra Athukorala was quoted from many sources including Prime Minister Modi's article in the Wall Street Journal (2017), U.S. Department of State, U.S. Trade Representative (2018; 2019) as well as WTO reports. Data exhibited in the tables were mainly from USITC databases. The commodity composition of U.S. imports from India include semiprecious stones and jewellery (20.5 percent), chemical products (18.28 percent), cut and polished diamonds (16.48 percent), textiles and textile products (15.05 percent), machinery and mechanical appliances (9.31 percent), and mineral products (6.04 percent) amounting to 86 percent of imports in 2018. Overall, U.S. imports from India are based on India's comparative advantage in the production of final goods portraying minimal involvement in production networks. However, Foxconn Technologies’ and Wistron's plans of opening plants in Chennai amid Trump's trade war with China could help India regain missed opportunities from global production sharing. Hence, Trump's trade war with one Asian giant has a spillover effect on another Asian giant.

Dispute Resolution on Unauthorized Liquidation of Futures Positions at the Leading Stock Exchange in India: A Case Study

The paper studies compliances of Futures Trading rules and regulations of the Stock Exchange .in the derivate market in India. The paper applies case method approach to study the trading practices of trading members of the Exchanges. It investigates the derivative market’s misuses and abuses by the trading members of the Exchange. The paper provides guidance for the appropriate regulatory framework to curtail violations of rules and regulations in Indian derivative market, and enables the investor protection. The results may be generalized in the emerging markets. Hence, researchers are encouraged to study results further in other developed countries. The paper finds that these practices are not only violation of trading rules of the Stock Exchange but also unfair and unethical trading practices. The research findings and results may lack generalizability in a case study approach.

Regulations of Digital Platform Markets Under the Japanese Antimonopoly Act: Does the Regulation of Unfair Trade Practices Solve the Gordian Knot of Digital Markets?

When it comes to digital platform markets, the competition authorities of Japan, the EU, and the United States share a similar approach toward the regulation of mergers. Additionally, they share a common approach with respect to exclusive dealings but apply slightly different rules concerning a refusal to deal in the regulation of monopolization. However, the regulation of Unfair Trade Practices (UTPs) in Japan is unique in that it is possible to regulate a vertical nonprice restraint imposed by a company with a market share between 20% and 50%. The author explores the regulation in the digital platform markets by the UTPs under the Japanese Antimonopoly Act and examines the possibility of the regulations by the UTPs as an alternative method. This article argues that it is desirable, especially in the case of private suits, that the assessment of market definition and the burden of proof be simplified.

Regulating Unfair Trading Practices in the EU Agri-food Supply Chain: a Case of Counterproductive Regulation?

Unfair trading practices (UTPs) imposed by parties with superior power in the context of a vertical relationship are an issue at the periphery of competition law, private law, and, sometimes, sectoral regulation. For a long time, the mainstream competition law approach has been to relegate such issues to other areas of law and regulation. In the EU, where complaints about the prevalence of such practices in the agricultural and food supply chain have been voiced for decades, the approach of the European Commission has been to pursue a strict separation between competition issues and fair-trading issues. This article questions the reasonableness of such a strict division of labour. Taking the sum of various initiatives undertaken to regulate UTPs in the agri-food supply chain as a case study, it argues that the effect of limiting competition law enforcement on this issue has been counterproductive. The article firstly explains the background of the problem and the issue of UTPs in the agri-food supply chain. Secondly, it maps the various legislative developments which have taken place at the EU Member State level. Thirdly, by referring to Grabosky’s (1995) regulatory studies typology of counterproductive regulation, the article focuses attention on some of the perverse side effects which arise when regulation of power imbalances and UTPs occurs at the national level in the context of an integrated market like the EU. In light of the analysis, it expresses doubt that these pitfalls will be fully corrected by Directive 2019/633 on UTPs in the food supply chain. The conclusion is that national legislative developments have not been able to make up for the lack of supra-national enforcement of EU competition law on this issue and have possibly even exacerbated the problem at hand. The article concludes that supranational competition law enforcement can play a key role in addressing the fundamental problems underlying business-to-business unfair trading practices. It argues that this role cannot be played by other instruments in the context of an integrated market with multi-level governance. This article shows that while competition law may not be capable of solving all the problems with UTPs, it remains indispensable in safeguarding the proper functioning of the internal market as well as the interests of consumers and taxpayers.

Protection of a Weaker Party in Public Interest – Material Scope of the Directive on Unfair Trading Practices in Business-to-Business Relationships in the Agricultural and Food Supply Chain

The article focuses on the scope of the Directive (EU) 2019/633 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. It discusses recent developments in regulatory approach to unfair trading practices. It analyses steps taken towards uniformity in this area of law within the EU and contemplates whether there is a need for further harmonisation. The article attempts to evaluate the scope of the UTP Directive, focusing mainly on a material scope inherently linked to the notion of “agricultural and food products” and characteristics of unfair trading practices. It also discusses whether Member States should consider widening the national regulations beyond food supply chain so that their scope would cover vertical relationships in every sector of the economy.

Ekonomska konfrontacija SAD i Kine - paradoksalni rezultat

The paper analyzes the confrontation between the United States and China in the recent trade war that resulted in the new trade deal between the two countries at the beginning of this year. After giving a short background, the paper gives an overview of the U.S. - China economic relations, the trade war and the results of the new trade deal. The general conclusion is that the trade war initiated by the United States through the introduction and raising of tariffs was ineffective with the U.S. bearing the costs. The overambitious quantitative goals of the new trade deal are unrealistic and will probably not be achieved. The trade war also undermined the international order of which the rules of conduct of international trade are a significant part. The trade war as well as the U.S. opposition to the appointments of appellate judges in the WTO have undermined this organization as the institutional foundation of international trade. Paradoxically, in order to oppose what are perceived as unfair trade practices within the system of free trade by China, the U.S. has adopted state-managed trade. The new trade deal with China will only strengthen the U.S. interdependence with China as well as the Chinese system of state capitalism that in the U.S. view was seen as the root of the problem in its trade with China. In short, the trade war and the resulting deal were self-defeating in terms of the goals that they were supposed to achieve.

Freight Expectations: Post-pandemic Prospects for Global Trade

The World Trade Organization (WTO) has predicted that global trade in goods will drop by between 13% and 32% in 2020 as a result of the pandemic. The last time trade volumes dropped substantially, during the financial crisis of 2008, they recovered – but not at pre-crisis rates of growth. Before the current pandemic, there had already been several other pre-coronavirus trends that undermined the global trade in goods, including concerns over the Chinese government, new technology, and environmental issues. With the exit of the relatively free-trading UK, the EU is in danger of succumbing to more protectionist voices. In the US, Donald Trump was elected on a platform that included promises to address what he saw as unfair trade practices. The current economic slowdown has also potentially exposed the fragility of global supply chains and exacerbated those concerns over trading with China. While it can be expected that global trade will bounce back in 2021, the nature of the recovery is not yet clear, but it may not recover to the same level or trajectory as seen prior to lockdown. This paper examines the factors that will determine whether the recovery in trade volumes will follow the WTO’s optimistic or pessimistic scenario.