Purpose – The text addresses the problem of planned obsolescence from the point of view of consumer protection, based on the decisions of Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato which ...condemned Samsung and Apple on the grounds of the prohibition of unfair commercial practices. It aims to consider the scope of the applicable similar norms in Portuguese and Brazilian legal systems. Methodology – Analysis of the grounds relied on those decisions, as well as the relevant doctrine regarding planned obsolescence and consumer protection from a comparative law perspective. Findings – The text demonstrates which norms can ensure consumer protection in the case of technical or functional planned obsolescence, especially considering the communication dimension, which focuses on the right to information.
In the digital economy, consumer vulnerability is not simply a vantage point from which to assess some consumers’ lack of ability to activate their awareness of persuasion. Instead, digital ...vulnerability describes a universal state of defencelessness and susceptibility to (the exploitation of) power imbalances that are the result of the increasing automation of commerce, datafied consumer–seller relations, and the very architecture of digital marketplaces. Digital vulnerability, we argue, is architectural, relational, and data-driven. Based on our concept of digital vulnerability, we demonstrate how and why using digital technology to render consumers vulnerable is the epitome of an unfair digital commercial practice.
(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2023 8(2), 631-646 | Article | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. – II. Personalised marketing and its potential to exploit ...consumer vulnerabilities. – II.1. Personalised marketing. – II.2. Potential to exploit consumer vulnerabilities. – III. Consumer protection against personalised marketing: shortcomings of the current EU legal framework. – III.1. The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. – III.2. Three main obstacles in effectively protecting consumers. – IV. Recent legislative changes and proposals: only a partial solution. – IV.1. Introduction. – IV.2. Modernisation Directive. – IV.3. Digital Services Act. – IV.4. Artificial Intelligence Act. – IV.5. Conclusion. – V. Research and policy agenda: towards future-proof marketing law. – V.1. An overall redesign of EU marketing law. – V.2. Research and policy agenda. – VI. Conclusion. | (Abstract) While companies used to advertise primarily via mass media, marketing (in particular online) is becoming increasingly personalised. Personalised marketing offers benefits to consumers, but can also exploit their vulnerabilities. For example, personalised marketing enables companies to specifically target psychological weaknesses in consumers. This threatens their autonomy and increases the power asymmetry between companies and consumers. EU marketing law, and in particular the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, aims at protecting consumers against economic harm by reducing power asymmetries between companies and consumers. This Article will discuss to what extent EU marketing law is future-proof in terms of its fitness to effectively protect consumers against personalised marketing techniques. It will be argued that the law is currently unfit to effectively protect consumers, and that recent legislative changes and proposals only address this problem to a limited extent. It is argued that a “quick fix” to make EU marketing law future-proof is not available, and that an overall redesign of EU marketing law is necessary to protect consumers against the personalised marketing techniques of today and tomorrow.
The loot box, a feature of online video games, contains randomised virtual items of importance to gameplay. Comparisons are drawn between chance-based loot boxes and the legal and psychological ...definitions of gambling, leading to concerns that the format may be an unregulated form of quasi-gambling. Globally, several jurisdictions have intervened to control the loot box, some applying national gambling laws, while others have implemented more general rules, an alternative described as “consumer protection”. In 2020, a study commissioned on behalf of the EU Parliament recommended that loot boxes and in-game purchasing systems be regulated from a “consumer protection” perspective. This paper questions firstly whether the debate on product-specific rules for loot box games was conducted in reverse, commencing with a set of potential solutions, while research on harms is still at an early stage. It interrogates the “consumer protection” route, critiquing proposals that borrow from the conceptually and structurally distinct areas of gambling law and consumer protection law, without first resolving the tensions between them. The paper proposes that an alternative paradigm of “player protection” may be the better route towards solving the regulatory puzzle of loot boxes. The paper secondly argues for the EU and its Member States to adopt an interim approach, relying on existing legislation to tackle immediate concerns and facilitate testing of remedial measures, but which leaves the door ajar to alternative options, including regulation under national gambling law frameworks. It examines the UCPD as an immediate solution and considers how the updated UCPD Guidance addresses questions of potentially exploitative game design.
The potential of artificial intelligence (AI) and its manifold applications have fueled the discussion around how AI can be used to facilitate sustainable objectives. However, the technical, ethical, ...and legal literature on how AI, including its design, training, implementation, and use can be sustainable, is rather limited. At the same time, consumers incrementally pay more attention to sustainability information, whereas businesses are increasingly engaging in greenwashing practices, especially in relation to digital products and services, raising concerns about the efficiency of the existing consumer protection framework in this regard. The objective of this paper is to contribute to the discussion toward sustainable AI from a legal and consumer protection standpoint while focusing on the environmental and societal pillar of sustainability. After analyzing the multidisciplinary literature available on the topic of the environmentally sustainable AI lifecycle, as well as the latest EU policies and initiatives regarding consumer protection and sustainability, we will examine whether the current consumer protection framework is sufficient to promote sharing and substantiation of sustainability information in B2C contracts involving AI products and services. Moreover, we will assess whether AI-related AI initiatives can promote a sustainable AI development. Finally, we will propose a set of recommendations capable of encouraging a sustainable and environmentally-conscious AI lifecycle while enhancing information transparency among stakeholders, aligning the various EU policies and initiatives, and ultimately empowering consumers.
PDF
