Advertisement

The Disclosure Backlash Case—Information Transparency in Effective Contractual Management

  • Ognyan SeizovEmail author
  • Alexander Wulf
Chapter

Abstract

This case study presents a problem which Internet-based companies often face, namely the fact that their terms of service are not sufficiently transparent. When customers fail to understand how a product or service is handled, a company is in a difficult position. On the one hand, it needs to preserve its business model which relies on the processing and sale of customer data to third parties. On the other, it has to improve disclosure practices to its clients if it wants to avoid extreme negative reactions among its customer base. Taking an Internet startup as an example, this case study demonstrates how the duty of Internet-based companies to inform their customers requires transparent information about both pre- and post-transactional processes. The case study implements all five steps of the CM Model and places special emphasis on knowledge management considerations as the best bringers of positive change in such circumstances.

References

  1. 1.
    Bakos, Y., Marotta-Wurgler, F., & Trossen, D. R. (2014). Does anyone read the fine print? Consumer attention to standard-form contracts. The Journal of Legal Studies, 43, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bar-Gill, O., & Board, O. (2012). Product-use information and the limits of voluntary disclosure. American Law and Economics Review, 14, 235–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ben-Shahar, O., & Schneider, C. E. (2014). More than you wanted to know: The failure of mandated disclosure. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Djonov, E. (2007). Website hierarchy and the interaction between content organization, webpage and navigation design: A systemic functional hypermedia discourse analysis perspective. Information Design Journal, 15, 144–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Duivenvoorde, B. (2015). The consumer benchmarks in the unfair commercial practices directive. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elshout, M., et al. (2016). Study on consumersʼ attitudes towards terms and conditions (T&Cs) final report. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Furnell, S., & Phippen, A. (2012). Online privacy: A matter of policy? Computer Fraud & Security, Issue 8, 12–19.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grinvald, L. C. (2015). Policing the cease-and-desist letter. USFL Review, 49, 411.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grundmann, S. (2002). Information, party autonomy and economic agents in European contract law. Common Market Law Review, 39, 269–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grynbaum, L. (2010). Pre-contractual information duties: The foreseeable failure of full harmonisation. In H. Schulte-Nölke & L. Tichy (Eds.), Perspectives for European consumer law (pp. 7–12). Munich: Sellier.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Helberger, N. (2011). Diversity label: Exploring the potential and limits of a transparency approach to media diversity. Journal of Information Policy, 1, 337–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Helberger, N. (2013). Forms matter: Informing consumers effectively. BEUC. [Online], [Cited: August 3, 2017.]. http://www.beuc.eu/publications/x2013_089_upa_form_matters_september_2013.pdf.
  13. 13.
    Holsanova, J. (2012). New methods for studying visual communication and multimodal integration. Visual Communication, 11, 251–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mak, V. (2012). The myth of the ‘empowered consumer’: Lessons from financial literacy studies. In: TISCO Working Papers on Banking, Finance and Services, Research report.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 41, 85–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nordhausen Scholes, A. (2009). Information requirements. In G. Howells (Ed.), Modernising and Harmonising Consumer Contract Law (pp. 213–236). Munich: Sellier.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Panzarasa, P., et al. (2016). Temporal patterns and dynamics of e-learning usage in medical education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64, 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pollach, I. (2005). A typology of communicative strategies in online privacy policies: Ethics, power and informed consent. Journal of Business Ethics, 62, 221–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Short, J. E., Todd, S. (2017). Whatʼs your data worth? MIT Sloan Management Review. [Cited: November 30, 2017.]. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/whats-your-data-worth/.
  20. 20.
    Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decision about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Waller, R. (2017). Graphic literacies for a digital age. In A. Black (Ed.), Information design: Research and practice (pp. 177–203). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wulf, A. J. (2014). Institutional competition between optional codes in European Contract Law. A theoretical and empirical analysis. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Court Cases and Legal Sources

  1. 23.
    European Court of Justice. Gut Springenheide GmbH and Rudolf Tusky v Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Steinfurt—Amt für Lebensmittelüberwachung. C-210/96, ECR I-4681. s.l.: European Court of Justice, July 16, 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 24.
    European Parliament. Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications). European Commission. [Online] July 12, 2002. [Cited: 11 13, 2017.]. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002L0058:en:HTML.
  3. 25.
    Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. European Commission. [Online] October 25, 2011. [Cited: 11 20, 2017.]. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011L0083&rid=1.
  4. 26.
    Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. European Commission. [Online] October 24, 1995. [Cited: November 13, 2017.]. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31995L0046&from=en.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SRH Hochschule BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations