ADR and Justice in consumer disputes in the EU

This policy brief reports on the main conclusions from an international conference held at Wolfson College, Oxford on 18–20 April 2016, at which representatives from seven governments, ombudsmen, and academic experts assessed efforts to implement new dispute resolution mechanisms across EU Member States. The briefing also assesses the levels of trust the public holds in ombudsmen, and what drives this trust. It finds a number of mechanisms under development, and makes a range of recommendations for future approaches.

Arbitragem de consumo no direito brasileiro

This dissertation analyzes how the current Constitution and the Brazilian law establish consumer protection, arbitration and access to justice. Following we try to demonstrate why arbitration is a method rarely used in the resolution of consumer disputes in Brazil. It also examines the doctrinal and jurisprudential aspects of the conflict between the Brazilian Arbitration Law (Law nº. 9.307/96), which allows the arbitration clause in contracts of adhesion, and the Consumer Protection Code (Law nº 8.078/90) that in article 51, VII, considers as abusive the arbitration clause. Furthermore, analyzes new proposed bills under scrutiny by the National Congress on the issue and identifies the causes, in the Brazilian legal system, hampering the use of arbitration in consumer relations. Concludes that there are no principle obstacles preventing consumer litigations to be settled by arbitration. High costs, mistrust, oppression, misinformation of consumers and non-participation of the State, being a totally private institute, are factors that generate distrust, suspicion, and have prevented the development of arbitration in consumer relations in Brazil.

La responsabilité de l'intermédiaire de marché et la protection du petit investisseur : à la recherche d'un certain équilibre

"Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade de maîtrise, option droit des affaires"

Et s’il était possible d’obtenir justice en ligne ?

Peut-être mieux connu sous son appellation anglaise d' «online dispute resolution» ou ODR, le règlement en ligne des différends réfère à la migration, vers Internet, des modes alternatifs de résolution des conflits, dont font entre autres partie la négociation, la conciliation, la médiation et l'arbitrage. Cet article présente d'abord brièvement les quatre procédés d'ODR les plus souvent rencontrés en pratique, soit la négociation  automatisée, la négociation en ligne assistée par ordinateur, la médiation en ligne et l'arbitrage en ligne. Il examine ensuite les types de conflits qui trouvent actuellement une solution par l'entremise de l'Internet, conflits qui peuvent naître aussi bien sur la Toile qu'hors ligne. On y aborde, en troisième lieu, les avantages de la résolution en ligne des litiges, lesquels ont trait à la modicité, la rapidité, la souplesse et la convivialité, en insistant sur l'attrait tout particulier que cette nouvelle forme de justice présente pour les conflits résultant de la cyberconsommation. Puis, après un survol des arguments les plus souvent cités à l'encontre du règlement électronique des différends, on fait état du phénomène d'institutionnalisation de la résolution en ligne, qui investit aujourd'hui les cours de justice.

La résolution en ligne des conflits de consommation à l'aune de l'accès à la justice

Dans son sens le plus courant, mais aussi le plus étroit, la résolution des conflits en ligne (RCL) réfère à la migration, vers Internet, des modes alternatifs de règlement des conflits. Notre mémoire se concentre sur la transposition, en ligne, des seuls modes amiables de règlement des différends, dont font notamment partie la négociation et la médiation. La question guidant notre étude consiste à savoir si la résolution en ligne permet d’accroître l’accès du consommateur québécois à la justice. La première partie répond par l’affirmative, en démontrant en quoi la RCL permet de surmonter plusieurs obstacles à la fois objectifs et subjectifs auxquels se heurte le consommateur québécois souhaitant obtenir justice. Nous y présentons également certaines critiques récurrentes en matière de RCL et y répondons. Si cette première partie aborde essentiellement la question du pourquoi il est opportun de recourir au règlement électronique des litiges de consommation dans une perspective d’accès à la justice, la seconde s’intéresse à celle du comment. Notre hypothèse est que si le recours à la RCL est souhaitable pour améliorer l’accès du consommateur québécois à la justice, ce mode de règlement ne pourra véritablement porter ses fruits que s’il est encadré par l’État. Nous démontrons ainsi l’opportunité d’une intervention étatique en matière de règlement en ligne des différends de consommation. Selon nous, seule l’institutionnalisation de la RCL permettra de lever, en partie du moins, les barrières qui ont freiné, jusqu’à maintenant, le déploiement à grande échelle de ce procédé de règlement novateur.

Como os juízes pensam? Estudo empírico sobre o reconhecimento das decisões administrativas da ANEEL envolvendo relações de consumo no Juizado Especial Cívil do Estado do Rio de Janeiro

O estudo empírico busca verificar o quanto são reconhecidas pelo Judiciário as decisões administrativas da ANEEL envolvendo relações de consumo. Em especial, o tratamento dado às Resoluções 414/10 e 456/00. Na primeira parte, expõe-se o problema a ser investigado. Na segunda parte, descreve-se o objeto de pesquisa e a justificativa da escolha temática. Na terceira parte, descreve-se a metodologia utilizada. Na quarta parte, descreve-se e analisa-se os dados empíricos obtidos, apontando conclusões preliminares.

Just label it: Consumer rights, GM food labelling, and international trade

In the United States, there has been fierce debate over state, federal and international efforts to engage in genetically modified food labelling (GM food labelling). A grassroots coalition of consumers, environmentalists, organic farmers, and the food movement has pushed for law reform in respect of GM food labelling. The Just Label It campaign has encouraged United States consumers to send comments to the United States Food and Drug Administration to label genetically modified foods. This Chapter explores the various justifications made in respect of genetically modified food labelling. There has been a considerable effort to portray the issue of GM food labelling as one of consumer rights as part of ‘the right to know’. There has been a significant battle amongst farmers over GM food labelling – with organic farmers and biotechnology companies, fighting for precedence. There has also been a significant discussion about the use of GM food labelling as a form of environmental legislation. The prescriptions in GM food labelling regulations may serve to promote eco-labelling, and deter greenwashing. There has been a significant debate over whether GM food labelling may serve to regulate corporations – particularly from the food, agriculture, and biotechnology industries. There are significant issues about the interaction between intellectual property laws – particularly in respect of trade mark law and consumer protection – and regulatory proposals focused upon biotechnology. There has been a lack of international harmonization in respect of GM food labelling. As such, there has been a major use of comparative arguments about regulator models in respect of food labelling. There has also been a discussion about international law, particularly with the emergence of sweeping regional trade proposals, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. This Chapter considers the United States debates over genetically modified food labelling – at state, federal, and international levels. The battles often involved the use of citizen-initiated referenda. The policy conflicts have been policy-centric disputes – pitting organic farmers, consumers, and environmentalists against the food industry and biotechnology industry. Such battles have raised questions about consumer rights, public health, freedom of speech, and corporate rights. The disputes highlighted larger issues about lobbying, fund-raising, and political influence. The role of money in United States has been a prominent concern of Lawrence Lessig in his recent academic and policy work with the group, Rootstrikers. Part 1 considers the debate in California over Proposition 37. Part 2 explores other key state initiatives in respect of GM food labelling. Part 3 examines the Federal debate in the United States over GM food labelling. Part 4 explores whether regional trade agreements – such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – will impact upon

‘Lemon Laws’: an inquiry into consumer protections and remedies for buyers of new motor vehicles

1. Under the Terms of Reference for the Committee’s Inquiry, ‘lemons’ are defined as ‘new motor vehicles with numerous, severe defects that re-occur despite multiple repair attempts or where defects have caused a new motor vehicle to be out of service for a prolonged period of time’. Consumers are currently protected in relation to lemon purchases by the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) located in Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA). The ACL applies as a law of Queensland pursuant to the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld). The voluntary recall and consumer guarantees law took effect on 1 January 2011. 2. In 2006, the Government of Victoria made a commitment to introduce a lemon law into the provisions of the then Fair Trading Act 1999 (Vic). The public consultation process on the proposal to introduce a lemon law for motor vehicle purchases in Victoria was conducted by Ms Janice Munt MP, with the assistance of Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV). CAV released an Issues Paper to canvas with industry and the community options for the development and introduction of a motor vehicle lemon law.(Consumer Affairs Victoria, Introducing Victorian motor vehicle lemon laws, Issues Paper, (September, 2007). 3. A CAV report prepared by Janice Munt MP was released in July, 2008 (Consumer Affairs Victoria, Motor Cars: A report on the motor vehicle lemon law consultations (July 2008) (Victorian Lemon Law Report). However, the Victorian proposal was overtaken by events leading to the adoption of a uniform consumer protection law in all Australian jurisdictions, the ACL. 4. The structure of this submission is to consider first the three different bases upon which consumers can obtain relief for economic loss arising from defects in motor vehicles. The second part of the submission considers the difficulties encountered by consumers in litigating motor vehicle disputes in the courts and tribunals. The third part of the submission examines the approach taken in other jurisdictions to resolving motor vehicle disputes. The final part of the submission considers a number of possible reforms that could be made to the existing law and its enforcement to reduce consumer detriment arising from the purchase of ‘lemon’ motor vehicles. 5. There are three principal bases upon which a consumer can obtain redress for defects in new motor vehicles under the ACL. The first is where the manufacturer admits liability and initiates the voluntary recall procedure provided for in s 128 of the ACL. Under this basis the manufacturer generally repairs or replaces the part subject to the recall free of charge. The second basis is where the manufacturer or dealer denies liability and the consumer is initiates proceedings in the court or tribunal seeking a statutory remedy under the ACL, the nature of which will depend on whether the failure to comply with the consumer guarantee was major or not. The third basis upon which a consumer can obtain redress is pursuant to public enforcement by the ACCC. Each basis will be considered in this part. What all three bases have in common is the need to conduct an investigation to identify the nature of the defect and how it arose.

The consumer litigation industry: chasing dragon kings in lawyer-client networks

The community of lawyers and their clients form a scale-free bipartite network that develops naturally as the outcome of the recommendation process through which lawyers form their client base. This process is an example of preferential attachment where lawyers with more clients are more likely to be recommended to new clients. Consumer litigation is an important market for lawyers. In large consumer societies, there always a signi cant amount of consumption disputes that escalate to court. In this paper we analyze a dataset of thousands of lawsuits, reconstructing the lawyer-client network embedded in the data. Analyzing the degree distribution of this network we noticed that it follows that of a scale-free network built by preferential attachment, but for a few lawyers with much larger client base than could be expected by preferential attachment. Incidentally, most of these also gured on a list put together by the judiciary of Lawyers which openly advertised the bene ts of consumer litigation. According to the code of ethics of their profession, lawyers should not stimulate clients into litigation, but it is not strictly illegal. From a network formation point of view, this stimulation can be seen as a separate growth mechanism than preferential attachment alone. In this paper we nd that this composite growth can be detected by a simple statistical test, as simulations show that lawyers which use both mechanisms quickly become the \Dragon-Kings" of the distribution of the number of clients per lawyer.