The Development of Consumer Law in the US: Comparisons with the EU Experience

Author(s):  
Kathleen Gutman
Keyword(s):  
The Us ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 345-368
Author(s):  
Jie (Jeanne) HUANG

AbstractThis paper focuses on Internet intermediaries’ civil liabilities for contents produced by third parties. By comparing Chinese law with the laws of the US and EU, it argues that the US law grants broad civil immunity to Internet intermediaries, and the EU and China restrict civil immunity to intermediaries but in different ways. This is on account of how, in the US, Internet intermediaries enjoy civil immunity as long as they do not become content providers. In the EU, aside from mere conduit intermediaries, all other intermediaries are subject to the notice-and-take-down mechanism before enjoying civil immunity. In contrast, in China, even after an intermediary properly follows the notice-and-take-down mechanism, it may still be subject to civil liability under the Chinese Consumer Law. Further, this paper argues that the policy priority for the law for Internet intermediaries varies fundamentally in the three jurisdictions. The US law for intermediaries’ liability focuses on protecting freedom of speech. The EU emphasizes the protection of personal information as a fundamental human right. Contrastingly, Chinese policy priority is unclear. Consumer protection has boomed in public popularity and increasingly attracted the attentions of the legislature and judiciary in China. However, it is doubtable that the protection of consumers can provide a prevailing policy support for Chinese law in the same way as freedom of speech and the protection of personal information do under the laws of the US and the EU, respectively.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jie Huang

This paper focuses on Internet intermediaries’ civil liabilities for contents produced by third parties. By comparing Chinese law with the laws of the US and EU, it argues that the US law grants broad civil immunity to Internet intermediaries, and the EU and China restrict civil immunity to intermediaries but in different ways. This is on account of how, in the US, Internet intermediaries enjoy civil immunity as long as they do not become content providers. In the EU, aside from mere conduit intermediaries, all other intermediaries are subject to the notice-and-take-down mechanism before enjoying civil immunity. In contrast, in China, even after an intermediary properly follows the notice-and-take-down mechanism, it may still be subject to civil liability under Chinese Consumer Law. Further, this paper argues that the policy priority for the law for Internet intermediaries varies fundamentally in the three jurisdictions. The US law for intermediaries’ liability focuses on protecting freedom of speech. The EU emphasises the protection of personal information as a fundamental human right. Contrastingly, Chinese policy priority is unclear. Consumer protection has boomed in public popularity and increasingly attracted the attentions of the legislature and judiciary in China. However, it is doubtable that the protection of consumers can provide a prevailing policy support for Chinese law in the same way that freedom of speech and the protection of personal information does under the laws of the US and EU, respectively.


2014 ◽  
pp. 13-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Glazyev

This article examines fundamental questions of monetary policy in the context of challenges to the national security of Russia in connection with the imposition of economic sanctions by the US and the EU. It is proved that the policy of the Russian monetary authorities, particularly the Central Bank, artificially limiting the money supply in the domestic market and pandering to the export of capital, compounds the effects of economic sanctions and plunges the economy into depression. The article presents practical advice on the transition from external to domestic sources of long-term credit with the simultaneous adoption of measures to prevent capital flight.


2012 ◽  
pp. 132-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Uzun

The article deals with the features of the Russian policy of agriculture support in comparison with the EU and the US policies. Comparative analysis is held considering the scales and levels of collective agriculture support, sources of supporting means, levels and mechanisms of support of agricultural production manufacturers, its consumers, agrarian infrastructure establishments, manufacturers and consumers of each of the principal types of agriculture production. The author makes an attempt to estimate the consequences of Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization based on a hypothesis that this will result in unification of the manufacturers and consumers’ protection levels in Russia with the countries that have long been WTO members.


2013 ◽  
pp. 770-777
Author(s):  
Yelto Zimmer

The EU is about to abolish the sugar – and the isoglucose – quota system in 2016/17. Isoglucose made from corn occupies about 50% of the US sweetener market while its market share in the EU caloric sweetener market is less than 5%. Against this background, this paper analyses the economics of isoglucose production in Europe in order to understand its competitiveness vis-à-vis sugar. Key results: (1) Isoglucose will become a rather competitive product. The EU sugar industry will have to give up about 40% of its current processing and profit margin in order to sell sugar at the same price as isoglucose will be traded; (2) Once industrial sugar users move to isoglucose, they will tend to be “hooked-in,” giving the sugar industry a strong incentive to defend its market share; and (3) Since only about 30% of the current sugar market is able to switch to isoglucose, the sugar industry has the option to practice a mixed calculation. In an extreme scenario, the industry may even opt to cross-subsidize sales. Therefore it’s not clear whether investors in isoglucose will be able to gain a major market share in Europe.


2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-57
Author(s):  
FRANCO BRUNI ◽  

The article is devoted to problems in relations between the EU and Russia. Multiple methods are considered that are aimed at solving the problem of multilateralism in current conditions. The author selected and studied specific documents on essential aspects that are devoted to this topic. Studying the arising problems requires careful consideration since, in the modern world, cooperation between global actors such as the EU and Russia cannot be ignored. Despite all the challenges faced by the parties in their fields, all difficulties are conquerable, and the article provides specific methods for its solving. The article discusses some aspects and problems that require particular attention from specialists in this field. The author concludes that strong US–EU coalition could seem more coherent with history and with the traditional East–West divide. However, the recent evolution of the US attitude towards international relations weakens the probability of such coalition and its perceived payoffs. A more or less defensive Russia–China coalition has been tried with limited results; moreover, if it were possible and probable, the two western players would change their strategy to prevent it or to contain its depth. In fact, we live in a world where many talks of a serious possibility of G2 governance, a peculiar type of coalition where the US and China keep hostile and nationalistic attitudes but join forces to set the global stage in their favor, pursuing a qualitatively limited but quantitatively rich payoff. In such world, as a counterpart of this payoff, both the divided Europe and the economically much smaller Russia would lose power and suffer several kinds of economic disadvantages. Therefore, Greater Europe would be good for Russia and for the EU as well.


Author(s):  
Panagiotis Delimatsis

Secrecy and informality rather than transparency traditionally reign trade negotiations at the bilateral, regional, and multilateral levels. Yet, transparency ranks among the most basic desiderata in the grammar of global governance and has been regarded as positively related to legitimacy. In the EU’s case, transparent trade diplomacy is quintessential for constitutional—but also for broader political—reasons. First, even if trade matters fall within the EU’s exclusive competence, the EU executive is bound by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to inform the European Parliament, the EU co-legislator, in regular intervals. Second, transparency at an early stage is important to address public reluctance, suspicion, or even opposition regarding a particular trade deal. This chapter chronicles the quest for and turning moments relating to transparency during the EU trade negotiations with Canada (CETA); the US (TTIP), and various WTO members on services (TiSA).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document