The application of consumer law to digital content contracts encounters a number of obstacles. Some of these are rather typical for digital content markets, e.g., the legal consequences of the classification of digital content as "goods" or "services" and, more importantly, the absence of general benchmarks to evaluate the conformity of digital content. Other problems, such as the limited usefulness of consumer information and the position of underage consumers, are not as such reserved to digital consumers, but they are amplified in the digital content markets. Moreover, particular attention is paid to the complex relationship between copyright law and consumer law. This paper explores the extent to which consumer (contract) law is fit to address the problems faced by digital consumers wishing to enjoy the benefits of digital content and examines whether the on-going initiatives at national and European level are likely to provide relief. Finally, recommendations for improvement are put forward in cases where the analysis shows that the problems identified are not or are insufficiently solved by these initiatives.Keywords Digital content . Consumer law . General contract law . Copyright law . Telecommunications law Digital content has become an intrinsic and important element of the European and national economies, and is a target area of the digital regulatory agenda (European Commission 2010, pp. 11-13). Digital content is also, and increasingly, an established fact and factor of our daily lives. More and more of our needs for information, personal development, entertainment, communication, and social interaction are catered for by the suppliers of
While freedom of contract has generally been recognized as a leading principle of European contract law, national contract laws as well as EU measures show remarkable differences with respect to the limits they impose on contractual freedom in light of the public interest or common good. Whereas some private legal scholars aspire to relate all rules of private law to a single value (monist theories), others consider it impossible to find such a common denominator (radical pluralist theories). In this paper, it is submitted that a moderate pluralist theory offers the most convincing narrative to explain current developments in this field, since it defines a meta-level on which diverging ideas of contract law can be reconciled by the definition of coordinating principles. These meta-principles indicate which conception of the common good prevails in a specific case and on which level (European or national) final decision-making authority is allocated in that case. Through an analysis of examples from case law (the story of the CJEU's Viking and Laval judgments and the Court's recent decision in the Aziz case), it is argued that a moderately pluralist theory also provides the most convincing normative model for the further development of European contract law.Résumé: Bien que la liberté contractuelle soit largement reconnue comme l'un des principes directeurs du droit européen des contrats, des différences remarquables existent entre les droits des contrats nationaux aussi bien qu'avec les instruments européens en ce qui concerne les limites posées à la liberté contractuelle pour la protection de l'intérêt public ou du bien commun. Alors que certains spécialistes du droit cherchent à relier toutes les règles du droit privé à une valeur unique (théories monistes), d'autres considèrent impossible de trouver un tel dénominateur commun (théories pluralistes radicales). Dans cet article, il est soutenu qu'une théorie pluraliste modérée offre le narratif le plus convaincant pour expliquer les développements actuels dans ce domaine, puisque cette théorie définit un niveau intermédiaire sur lequel des idées divergentes du droit des contrats peuvent être réconciliées par la détermination de principes coordinateurs. Ces méta-principes indiquent quelle conception du bien commun prévaut dans un cas particulier et à quel niveau (européen ou national) l'autorité de prendre la décision finale est allouée dans chaque cas. Sur la base d'une analyse de deux exemples tirés de la jurisprudence (les jugements Viking et Laval de la Cour de Justice de l'UE, et le jugement récent de la Cour dans l'affaire Aziz) il apparaît qu'une théorie pluraliste modérée présente le modèle normatif le plus convaincant pour le développement futur du droit européen des contrats.
This article explores the different meanings of the right to housing in Europe in public and private relations with housing providers. In light of the fundamental right to housing's meaning in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, we offer a new reading of the CJEU judgments that have hitherto been heralded as extending the social dimension of EU (private) law. We submit that the emphasis on economic and procedural rights risks further 'economisation' of housing relations in Europe. While the possibilities to grant direct horizontal effect to the right to housing in EU law currently offer limited potential to counter this trend, private law provides part of the framework for a further balancing of social and economic elements in housing cases. Accordingly, we call for a debate on the specific aspects of horizontal relationships in the complex system of housing justice. * Amsterdam Centre for Transformative Private Law (ACT), University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The authors wish to thank their colleagues at the Amsterdam Centre for Transformative Private Law (formerly Centre for the Study of European Contract Law, CSECL), University of Amsterdam, and participants at the European Network for Housing Research conference 2018 for most helpful comments and discussions. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments. All responsibility lies with the authors. All URLs were last accessed on
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.