9. Competition Law and Consumer Protection Against Unfair Commercial Practices: A More- than- Complementary Relationship?

2020 ◽  
pp. 127-138
2004 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 141-176
Author(s):  
Matthias Leistner

On 18 June 2003 the Commission presented its Proposal for a Directive concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the Internal Market (the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive). The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive Proposal is based upon the Green Paper on European Union Consumer Protection of 2001 and the reactions to this document in the consultation process as laid down in the follow-up document of 2002. The Proposal tackles the field of unfair competition law insofar as the protection of consumers is concerned.


2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 128-155
Author(s):  
Paul K. Gorecki

In a 2019 article in the Competition Law Journal Andrews and Fitzgerald argue that the decisional practice of the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC), Ireland's competition agency, in clearing three Phase II mergers, demonstrates an ‘openness to resolving identified competition issues via remedy packages even in highly complex [merger] cases’. However, from a competition economics perspective, based on an examination of one these three cases, the Berendsen (Elis)/Kings Laundry transaction, the remedy package does not mitigate the competition concerns identified by the CCPC. Indeed, the remedy is likely to exacerbate these concerns. The merger should have been prohibited. This article suggests two ways in which the CCPC's merger procedures can be revised so as to ensure greater congruency between the procedural and competition economics perspectives.


2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 194-207
Author(s):  
Klemen Podobnik

The author attempts to show that the seeming absorption of a large-scale, general geo-blocking prohibition in the field of competition law (antitrust) is unsystematic, and can negatively influence the further development of European competition law and policy and related goals. The positive implications of the GBR regime in the area of consumer protection law (and for trade regulation as such) are not negated. The author, however, attempts to underscore the fact that, in certain constellations, legislative instruments should be very clearly designated, their nature and scope concisely labelled. Formal oversights, such as omission of clear denominations or even plain wrong designations can – in certain circumstances – lead to functional consequences. For this reason the author stresses the view that the GBR is a legislative instrument of market regulation and consumer protection and has no real appreciable link to antitrust.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-210
Author(s):  
Talya Ucaryilmaz

Recent works in legal scholarship have shifted the focus of competition law to the economic analysis of law. Yet today we face the revival of the fairness concerns in competition polices. This article concerns itself with the nature of the interdependent relationship between competition law and consumer protection law as ancillary to the necessary relationship between law and morality. Hereby it aims to revisit their raison d’être to discuss that fairness and equity do not lack economic foundations. For an efficient market structure, private property and good faith in contractual relations are essential. This article aims to scrutinise the latter, while showing its objective criteria: Honesty, trust and reasonableness, as the moral essence of competition and consumer protection laws. These criteria provide efficient means to address moral aspects of fairness in competition law as it is best illustrated within its relation to consumer protection without compromising their economic foundations. Keywords: competition law, consumer protection, fairness, good faith, honesty, trust


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document