Extra fees: how 50 turns into 100

One of the ongoing battles in the field of consumer protection is against low budget airlines and their offers that might often mislead consumers. And so, it has been reported on this blog previously that e.g. Ryanair en easyJet might be forced to make their air tickets' prices more transparable by getting rid of hidden fees (European Commission to investigate airlines' add-on charges to tickets). The issue was commented on broadly since low budget airlines offer cheap priced tickets only to add extra charges later for e.g. consumers using debit or credit card forms of payment. Since these were the only type of payments accepted by the airline, that left consumers often having to pay ca 50 GBP more for family tickets (4 tickets). The new European legislation will prohibit such surcharges on these payment methods (Pay in order to pay - EU intends to ban fees for paying by credit/debit cards) but Ryanair announced recently that only consumers who pay with debit cards will be released from having to pay the fee, and consumer who make use of a credit card will still need to make it (Ryanair is 'dodgy' blasts minister as budget airline tries to get round ban on hidden fees). Apparently there might be a loophole in the upcoming English legislation that leaves consumers unprotected against extra fees when they choose to pay with a credit card for an airline ticket. Hopefully, with the introduction of the Consumer Rights Directive this loophole will be removed.

European Data Protection & Privacy Conference

The 2nd Annual European Data Protection & Privacy Conference will take place in Brussels on the 6th of December 2011. The programme includes keynote presentations by Viviane Reding (on the view from the European Commission) and Cameron Kerry (on breaching the trans-atlantic gap on data protection), as well as sessions on: ensuring co-ordinated and harmonised data protection laws across the EU; the effect of the new privacy rules on the online lives of EU citizens; fighting terrorism and cyber-crime, and the balance between security and privacy rights; rebuilding consumer confidence in data protection laws; shape for globalised data protection and privacy laws in the 21st century.

You may find registration details here.

Cartel theory

While as consumers we might feel the consequences of cartels in practice, theoretical studies in law & economics can teach us something about the dynamics behind these attempts of firms to restrict competition among them (e.g. through price fixing or market sharing). In about 1,5 hours from now Martijn Han (Amsterdam Center for Law & Economics, ACLE) will defend his PhD thesis on the topic of 'vertical relations in cartel theory'. How do managers and firm owners behave in cartels? In what way may the functioning of buyer groups (cooperations of retailers) be explained? And how are economic damages resulting from a cartel distributed? Martijn did the math and reached some interesting conclusions, which may be further explored on his website.

Digital Single Market

On a website of The Institute of International and European Affairs (IIEA) you may find a speech of Malcolm Harbour, Chairman of the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Commitee of the European Parliament, concerning the next steps in creating the Digital Single Market.

Love food. Hate waste.

"Best before", "use by", "sell by" and "display until"... these are the most common labels that a consumer might find on food products that he purchases in a supermarket. Sometimes a product will have more than one of these labels with two different dates on it. Since these terms refer to different things that might happen to your food when the deadline mentioned on the label passes, it seems important that consumers are aware of the differences between these terms. Research shows, however, that consumers are often confused by different or multiple label which leads to them believing often that if any deadline mentioned on the label lapses, then the food product is not longer safe for consumption. This leads to consumers throwing away ca £12 billion worth of good food each year (5,3 million tonnes of edible food) in the UK (see the report on Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK prepared by Wrap). Currently in the UK a new regulation forces food producers to remove some of the labels ("sell by" and "display until") from the packaging in order to reduce consumers' confusion. Consumer organizations argue, however, that it might be a better idea to further educate consumers on the meaning of the labels. Do you know what to expect from a product with these labels?

"Best before" - after such a deadline the product is still edible. This means that consumers should not immediately throw the product away. When the deadline is over, the food product is still safe to eat, it only will not be at its 'best'. These are products that most consumers usually end up throwing away when they are still edible, which contributes to the enormous amount of food wasted every year. Products with "best before" label include, e.g., jams, snacks, dry or tinned goods.

"Use by" - food is unsafe to eat after such a deadline. These food products should be thrown away when the deadline is over. These products include, e.g. eggs, fish, meat, soft cheese, ready meals.

"Sell by" or "Display until" - these labels are used by the supermarkets for stock control reasons only and do not indicate time when the food product becomes unsafe. When such a deadline is over, the food in most cases may still safely be consumed (unless the "use by" date is the same as "sell by" date). These labels will be removed in the UK now.

Inspired by the news article in The Telegraph: "New rules scrap sell-by date".

See also Love Food Hate Waste website hosted by Wrap, raising awareness of the need to reduce food waste.

European E-commerce Conference

The 3rd Annual European E-Commerce Conference 2011: Ensuring a functioning single market for goods and digital services in Europe will take place in Brussels on the 22nd November 2011.

This conference invites policymakers and stakeholders to discuss issues pertaining to purchasing goods and services online. The plenary debate will focus on ways in which EU could ensure the success of the single market for goods and digital services in Europe. Parallel workshops enable participants to focus on such issues as: IPR, liability and copyright; consumer confidence online; future solutions for e-commerce; internet safety.

You may register for this event via this website.

Who you gonna call?

While we are all awaiting a following episode on the harmonization of European Contract Law, the European Commission beings to anticipate what will happen when that series will be over. Imagine that we have harmonized European Contract Law in the form of the Optional Instrument that citizens of the Member States and businesses registered in the Member States may choose to apply to their contract instead of a national law system. This means that their contractual relations will be regulated by the provisions of the Optional Instrument, in as far as the Optional Instrument will have substantive rules on that matter. Would you choose, however, to have the Optional Instrument governing your contractual relations if you knew that in case there is a conflict between you and the other party and you end up needing legal counsel and maybe even judicial decision - it would be difficult to find lawyers and judges specializing in European Contract Law to an extent that would enable them giving you a helping hand???

That's one of the questions that I've been wondering about for a long time now, and it surprised me that this subject wasn't further elaborated on by the European Commission. Apparently, they waited until the end of the process of substantive harmonisation was in sight, before they set up plans regarding its enforcement. Maybe I'm too much used to multi-tasking myself... Commissioner Reding mentioned yesterday:

"An independent, well-trained and efficient judiciary is essential for a functioning judicial area and single market in Europe. It caters for good and prompt judicial decisions strengthening predictability and legal certainty. As European law is part of everyday life, citizens and businesses want to know that they can count on a knowledgeable and well-trained judiciary across the Union enabling them to exercise their rights and get justice. But judges and lawyers delivering such justice need to know the rules to be able to apply them effectively. That’s why I want to set a clear and ambitious target for expanding training in how the judiciaries in Europe apply European law. This will help cement our efforts to create an EU-wide area of justice, improving the way the internal market operates. Judicial training is central to a modern and well-functioning judiciary capable of reducing the higher risks and higher transactions costs that impede economic growth. European judicial training is therefore a much needed investment to develop justice for growth." 

The plan is to give some training on European law to half of the legal practitioners in the EU (which means to 700,000 people) by the end of 2020. 

More on that may be found in the press release: European Commission sets goal of training 700,000 legal professional in EU. There is also a website for the European judicial training initiatives and European e-Justice Portal.

Back to the sixties

On 12 September, a Directive was adopted that extends copyright of performing musicians from 50 years to 70 years after recording. The Directive somewhat narrows the gap between composers (who already enjoy copyright protection till 70 years after death) and performers, and is one of the outcomes of the European Commission's strategy on intellectual property rights. Good news for rock stars and for session musicians who were in danger of remaining without a pension? Critics point out that not all arguments in favour of copyright extension seem valid: a large share of the additional royalties are likely to go directly to record companies to which the rights on the recordings have been transferred, and there appears to be no conclusive evidence that an increased copyright term will encourage further investments in new music nor that it will make available more works. In this view, not creativity, but lobbying seems to be rewarded... (The European Commission's term extension proposal: Fair concern or fruit of industry lobbying?)

What does the extension of copyright mean for consumers? It is submitted that the new rules will not affect retail prices, since 'empirical studies show that the price of sound recordings that are out of copyright is not lower than that of sound recordings in copyright' (see the FAQ on the new Directive). Furthermore, according to the Commission, the answer to questions of intellectual property 'is in the single market'. In that context, it will be interesting to see whether rules on IP-protected digital content (e.g. downloaded music) will be included in a proposal for an instrument of European contract law.

EESC calls for more action on passengers' rights

Last week, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) organized a public hearing on passengers' rights. Views were shared on the current problems and suggestions were made for the upcoming revision of the passengers rights. One of the problems is that passengers have little awareness of their rights and that if they do know about their rights and take action, their claims are often denied. There was also discussion on the problems disabled passengers currently face. Keith Taylor, Member of the European Parliament, promised to try to improve the position of people with disabilities and to fight for revised legal provisions that are clear, simple, transparent and fair. The EESC's opinion on the revision of the passengers' rights legislation is expected next month.

Photo: EESC website

Raise of the online cross-border transactions

The European Commission's works on the Optional Instrument that it supposed to further harmonize European Contract Law are progressing rapidly (see: Contract law - work in progress). We are awaiting the final draft of the Optional Instrument to be published this autumn. One of the main reasons that is being given as a justification for the need for the Optional Instrument is that it would lead to strengthening of the internal market. Consumers would gain more confidence as to their rights and the scope of the protection that they may expect when they conclude online transactions with businesses from other Member States than their own, which would increase the amount of these transactions. It is interesting to mention then that the number of such transactions being concluded is raising rapidly without the Optional Instrument being implemented, too. Research shows that e.g. the number of EU consumers buying goods and services online doubled to 40% compared to 20% in 2005. Many of these transactions are cross-border (see: Online shopping doubles in five years). That makes one wonder whether we should not leave the market to further develop on its own, without introducing further harmonization measures.