Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Unfair Commercial Practices, Digital Asymmetry and Reversal of Burden of Proof

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Kreation Innovation Märkte - Creation Innovation Markets

  • 310 Accesses

Abstract

The paper starts from the premise that digital vulnerability is universal, structural, and architectural. Digital vulnerability is to be translated into the legal concept of digital asymmetry, so as to avoid confusion with existing concepts of vulnerability, which build on individual deficiencies in capacity. Digital asymmetry cannot be overcome through more and better information, nor can it be controlled by the prohibition of misleading advertising. It has to be classified as a form of aggression in the meaning of Arts. 8 and 9 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. The burden of demonstrating compliance by digital architecture with consumer law lies with the supplier.

I dedicate this contribution to my highly esteemed dear colleague Reto Hilty in gratitude for many years of wonderful co-operation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Lagioia et al. (2022).

  2. 2.

    ECJ of April 23, 2009, C-261/07 – VTB-VAB, paragraph (para.) 48; ECJ of January 1, 2010, C-304/08 – Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft, para. 35; ECJ of November 9, 2010, C-540/08 – Mediaprint Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag, para. 17.

  3. 3.

    Howells G, Micklitz H-W and Wilhelmsson T (2006).

  4. 4.

    Since ECJ of June 27, 2000, C-240/98 to C-244/98 – Océano Grupo Editorial and Salvat Editores.

  5. 5.

    Johnston A (2016) 93–138; Reich N (2016) 139–158.

  6. 6.

    Unberath H and Johnston A (2007).

  7. 7.

    Micklitz H-W (2018), 329–31 with reference and discussion to the relevant case law of the ECJ.

  8. 8.

    BGH of June 23, 2020, KVR 69/19 – Abuse of a dominant position by Facebook.

  9. 9.

    BVerfGE of October 19, 1993, 1 BvR 567/89 and 1 BvR 1044/89 – Bürgschaftsverträge.

  10. 10.

    ECJ of July 7, 2016, C-476/14 – Citroën Commerce, para 43 ‘during and after the contract’ under reference to ECJ of July 16, 2015, C-544/13 and C-545/13 – Abcur, para 73.

  11. 11.

    Commission Notice of 29 December 2021, Guidance on the interpretation and application of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market, OJ C 526/1. The revised version has added a new chapter on digital sector, without discussing the structural dimension though.

  12. 12.

    ECJ of October 26, 2016, C-611/14 – Canal Digital Danmark; ECJ of September 7, 2016, C-310/15 – Deroo-Blanquart; ECJ of 13 September 2018, C-54/17 and C-55/17 – Wind Tre.

  13. 13.

    ECJ of October 1, 2019, Case C-673/17 – Planet49, and the follow-on judgment BGH of March 24, 2016, I ZR 7/15 – Labelling of textile products.

  14. 14.

    ECJ of 13 September, 2018, C-54/17 and C-55/17 – Wind Tre; ECJ of May 14, 2019, C-406/17 to C-408/17 and C-417/17 – Acea Energia.

  15. 15.

    ECJ of October 18, 2012, C-428/11 – Purely Creative.

  16. 16.

    ECJ of September 13, 2018, C-54/17 and C-55/17 – Wind Tre.

  17. 17.

    ECJ of June 12, 2019, C-628/17 – Orange Polska.

  18. 18.

    ECJ, C-646/22 – Compass Banca, not yet decided.

  19. 19.

    ECJ of June 12, 2019, C-628/17 – Orange Polska, para. 47.

  20. 20.

    ECJ of June 12, 2019, C-628/17 – Orange Polska, para. 46.

  21. 21.

    ECJ of June 12, 2019, C-628/17 – Orange Polska, para. 63.

  22. 22.

    Hacker P (2021), who even demands intentionality, and with further references from German legal doctrine, which support such interpretation.

  23. 23.

    Micklitz H-W and Namyslowska M (2020), Art. 8, para. 26.

  24. 24.

    Hacker P (2021), 15 with references.

  25. 25.

    Whitford W C (1973), 400.

  26. 26.

    Hacker P (2021), 12 though in the context of exploitative targeting.

  27. 27.

    The argument is well-known from Austrian-German litigation on per se prohibitions on health-related advertising.

  28. 28.

    Norwegian Consumer Council (2018) Deceived by Design. Available at https://fil.forbrukerradet.no/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/2018-06-27-deceived-by-design-final.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2023.

  29. 29.

    ECJ of July 2, 2020, C-853/19 – IM v Sting Reality, paras. 44 and 59.

  30. 30.

    Rott P (2019), 43.

  31. 31.

    Schmidt E (1985), 807–818; Sander J (1996); Rüßmann H (1991), 402–415. There is a certain parallel to material facts in common law, but this needs further investigation.

  32. 32.

    Beka A (2018).

  33. 33.

    European Commission, Digital Fairness – fitness check on EU consumer law. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13413-Digital-fairness-fitness-check-on-EU-consumer-law_en. Accessed 30 May 2023.

References

  • Beka A (2018) The active role of courts in consumer litigation: applying EU law of the national court’s own motion. Intersentia, Antwerp and Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacker P (2021) Manipulation by algorithms: exploring the triangle of unfair commercial practice, data protection, and data privacy. Euro Law J:1–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Howells G, Micklitz H-W, Wilhelmsson T (2006) European fair trading law: the unfair commercial practices directive. Routledge, London/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston A (2016) Seeking the EU ‘consumer’ in services of general economic interest. In: Leczykiewicz D, Weatherill S (eds) The images of the consumer in EU law: legislation, free movement and competition law. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagioia F et al (2022) Al in search of unfairness in consumer contracts: the terms of service landscape. J Consum Policy:481–536

    Google Scholar 

  • Micklitz H-W (2018) The politics of justice in European private law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Micklitz H-W, Namyslowska M (2020) Münchener Kommentar Zum Lauterkeitsrecht, 3rd edn. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich N (2016) Vulnerable consumers in EU Law. In: Leczykiewicz D, Weatherill S (eds) The images of the consumer in EU law: legislation, free movement and competition law. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Rott P (2019) A consumer perspective on algorithms. In: De Almeida L et al. (eds.) The Transformation of Economic Law. Bloomsbury Publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Rüßmann H (1991) Normtatsachen: Ein vorläufiger Überblick. Kritische Vierteljahresschrift Gesetzgebung Rechtswissenschaft:402–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Sander J (1996) Normtatsachen im Zivilprozeß. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt E (1985) Der Umgang mit Normtatsachen im Zivilprozeß. In: Broda C (ed) Festschrift für Rudolf Wassermann zum sechzigsten Geburtstag. Luchterhand, Neuwied/Darmstadt

    Google Scholar 

  • Unberath H, Johnston A (2007) The double-headed approach of the ECJ concerning consumer protection. Common Market Law Rev:1237–1284

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitford WC (1973) The functions of disclosure regulation in consumer transactions. Wis Law Rev:400–470

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, European University Institute, Florence, Italy

    Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz

Authors
  1. Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Schweiz

    Florent Thouvenin

  2. Fachbereich Rechtswissenschaft, Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland

    Alexander Peukert

  3. Institut für Europarecht, Internationales Recht und Rechtsvergleichung, Universität Wien, Wien, Österreich

    Thomas Jaeger

  4. Department of Law, Luiss University – Libera Università Internazionale degli Studi Sociali Guido Carli, Rom, Italy

    Christophe Geiger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 Der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert an Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Micklitz, HW. (2024). Unfair Commercial Practices, Digital Asymmetry and Reversal of Burden of Proof. In: Thouvenin, F., Peukert, A., Jaeger, T., Geiger, C. (eds) Kreation Innovation Märkte - Creation Innovation Markets. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-68599-0_68

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-68599-0_68

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-68598-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-68599-0

  • eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation