Mind the gap: the consideration of financial technologies and blockchain in the reform of the Vertical Agreements Block Exemption Regulation

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 116-121
Author(s):  
Lucy M.R. Chambers
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Market Power ◽  
Technological Innovation ◽  
Digital Economy ◽  
Public Consultation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Ex Ante ◽  
Block Exemption

This article seeks to draw attention to two areas of technological innovation relevant to the digital economy that the European Commission (‘Commission’) seems so far to have missed in its evaluation of the effectiveness of and reforms required to the Vertical Agreements Block Exemption Regulation (‘VBER’) and the associated Guidelines: fintech and blockchain technologies. In particular, this article seeks to demonstrate that vertical agreements can produce novel solutions in certain fintech markets, whilst also creating potential novel issues around exclusion, bundling and market power when used in the context of blockchain technologies. It is hoped that the results of the public consultation will bring some of these issues to the Commission's attention, because without taking these issues into consideration the Commission risks missing the opportunity to make ex ante changes to the VBER to ensure that it is ready for potential future innovations in the digital economy.

Response of the CEIPI to the Public Consultation of the European Commission on the Review of the European Union Copyright Rules

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sttphanie Carre ◽  
Christophe Geiger ◽  
Jean Lapousterle ◽  
Franck Macrez ◽  
Thho Hassler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Public Consultation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public

scholarly journals CONSULTATION ON THE WHITE PAPER ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE - A EUROPEAN APPROACH

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 157-167
Author(s):  
Inês Fernandes Godinho ◽  
Cláudio R. Flores ◽  
Nuno Castro Marques
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Value Chain ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
White Paper ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Public Consultation ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
The Public ◽  
Regulatory Proposals

SUMMARY From 19 February to 14 June 2020, the European Commission held a Public Consultation on several policy and regulatory proposals that are currently being considered in the area of Artificial Intelligence (AI). This consultation was centered on two main documents presented by the Commission: the White Paper on Artificial Intelligence[1] and the “Report on the safety and liability implications of Artificial Intelligence, the Internet of Things and robotics”[2]. The consultation also included an online survey[3], where the central themes of those two documents were covered in a summarized way. In November 2020, the results of the consultation were presented, as well as the texts accepted for publication[4]. In order to participate in this pre-legislative process, a working group was created within the Faculty of Law and Political Science of the Lusófona University of Porto, which presented a contribution that was accepted and published by the European Commission[5]. The White Paper is centred in one powerful objective which is “to enable a trustworthy and secure development of AI in Europe, in full respect of the values and rights of EU citizens”, and for that presents two central ideas considered essential to attain it that are to create an ecosystem of excellence along the entire value chain and an ecosystem of trust that ensure compliance with EU rules, including rules protecting fundamental rights and consumers’ rights. The text that follows is divided in two main parts: Part I is focused on presenting an overview on the three main topics pointed out at the consultation: Excellence, Trust and Liability; Part II corresponds to text of the contribution submitted in the Public Consultation held by the European Commission. Keywords: Artificial Intelligence; Liability; Cybercrime; Ethics; Competition

scholarly journals Social media and sentiment in bioenergy consultation

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria Uren ◽  
Daniel Wright ◽  
James Scott ◽  
Yulan He ◽  
Hassan Saif
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
New Media ◽  
Sentiment Analysis ◽  
Opinion Mining ◽  
Public Consultation ◽  
Short Paper ◽  
Consultation Process ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Uk

Purpose – This paper aims to address the following challenge: the push to widen participation in public consultation suggests social media as an additional mechanism through which to engage the public. Bioenergy companies need to build their capacity to communicate in these new media and to monitor the attitudes of the public and opposition organizations towards energy development projects. Design/methodology/approach – This short paper outlines the planning issues bioenergy developments face and the main methods of communication used in the public consultation process in the UK. The potential role of social media in communication with stakeholders is identified. The capacity of sentiment analysis to mine opinions from social media is summarised and illustrated using a sample of tweets containing the term “bioenergy”. Findings – Social media have the potential to improve information flows between stakeholders and developers. Sentiment analysis is a viable methodology, which bioenergy companies should be using to measure public opinion in the consultation process. Preliminary analysis shows promising results. Research limitations/implications – Analysis is preliminary and based on a small dataset. It is intended only to illustrate the potential of sentiment analysis and not to draw general conclusions about the bioenergy sector. Social implications – Social media have the potential to open access to the consultation process and help bioenergy companies to make use of waste for energy developments. Originality/value – Opinion mining, though established in marketing and political analysis, is not yet systematically applied as a planning consultation tool. This is a missed opportunity.

scholarly journals Analysis of submissions to the EU’s public consultation on tobacco traceability and security features

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Gallagher ◽  
K A Evans-Reeves ◽  
A B Gilmore ◽  
A Joshi
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Tobacco Industry ◽  
Public Consultation ◽  
Multiple Choice Questions ◽  
Consultation Process ◽  
Trade Associations ◽  
Policy Positions ◽  
Illicit Trade ◽  
Lobbying Effort ◽  
T System

Abstract Background The Illicit Trade Protocol (ITP) requires all Parties to establish a tobacco track and trace (T&T) system. In 2016, the European Commission held a public consultation on T&T implementation in which interested parties were asked to respond online to 22 multiple-choice questions and were given additional opportunities to leave comments if desired. In May 2019, the EU's T&T system became operational. This paper explores tobacco industry influence over and policy positions within the consultation process. Methods The Illicit Trade Protocol (ITP) requires all Parties to establish a tobacco track and trace (T&T) system. In 2016, the European Commission held a public consultation on T&T implementation in which interested parties were asked to respond online to 22 multiple-choice questions and were given additional opportunities to leave comments if desired. In May 2019, the EU's T&T system became operational. This paper explores tobacco industry influence over and policy positions within the consultation process. Results Of the 197 consultation responses analysed, 131 (66.4%) had financial links to the tobacco industry. 89 respondents were trade associations, 74 of which were financially linked (33 had TTC members). 29 (22.1%) of the financially-linked respondents were not transparent about their links. There was a clear divide in the policy preferences of respondents with and without a financial link. Collectively, respondents with a financial link supported an industry-operated solution. Conclusions There was an extensive lobbying effort by the tobacco industry over the EU's T&T system, with TTCs' interests being represented repeatedly through multiple trade associations. The transparency requirements regarding consultation respondents' affiliations with relevant stakeholders (such as tobacco manufacturers) should be improved for future tobacco-related consultations. Key messages There was an extensive lobbying effort on the part of the tobacco industry Several respondents with financial links to the tobacco industry did not disclose these. Collectively, respondents with a financial link to the tobacco industry supported an industry-operated solution which would not have met the requirements of the ITP.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document