• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of consumer policy >When Should 'consumers-as-producers'have To Comply With Consumer Protection Laws?
【24h】

When Should 'consumers-as-producers'have To Comply With Consumer Protection Laws?

机译：“作为生产者的消费者”何时应该遵守《消费者保护法》？

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Since the 1960s, consumer protection law has been built on the contrast between large "producers" and small "consumers." Today, instead, an ordinary consumer owns what can accurately be called a "personal mainframe"-a home computer whose processing power matches an IBM mainframe from about 10 Years ago. Equipped with a personal mainframe-an Information-Age factory-ordinary "consumers" at home are increasingly also becoming "producers." As unregulated consumers become regulated producers, a major legal question is whether and when the individual should have to comply with consumer protection laws. The discussion here selects four examples of US legal rules that might apply to consumers-as-producers, with recommendations spanning the range of possibilities: (1) consumer privacy legislation: creating a threshold, with no compliance required for databases of fewer than 5,000 names, is recommended; (2) advertising substantiation: concerning the requirement that advertisers have a "reasonable basis" for their claims, applying current law to small advertisers is recommended; (3) spam: current law does not create a threshold for those who send a few commercial emails, but such a threshold is worth considering; (4) political blogging: the author agrees with the US Federal Election Commission decision to create a major exemption from campaign finance laws for online political advocacy, even for large blogs or websites. The common theme among these recommendations is to describe the sort of harm that existing law seeks to reduce. The approach here next looks at how the use of personal mainframes affects creation of those harms. Where the sorts of harm are likely to be created by consumers-as-producers, the analysis tilts towards requiring compliance. Where the sorts of harms are unlikely to be caused by consumers-as-producers, then the case for an exception is stronger.
机译：自1960年代以来，消费者保护法就建立在大型“生产者”与小型“消费者”之间的对比之上。如今，普通的消费者拥有的东西可以准确地称为“个人大型机”，这是一台家用计算机，其处理能力与大约十年前的IBM大型机相当。配备个人大型机（信息时代的工厂）的家庭“消费者”也越来越多地成为“生产者”。随着不受管制的消费者成为受管制的生产者，一个主要的法律问题是个人是否以及何时应遵守消费者保护法。这里的讨论选择了四个可能适用于以消费者为生产者的美国法律规则示例，并提出了涉及各种可能性的建议：（1）消费者隐私立法：创建一个阈值，对于少于5,000个名称的数据库无需合规， 被推荐; （2）广告依据：关于广告客户的主张具有“合理依据”的要求，建议将现行法律适用于小型广告客户； （3）垃圾邮件：现行法律并未为发送少量商业电子邮件的人设置门槛，但该门槛值得考虑； （4）政治博客：作者同意美国联邦选举委员会的决定，即对于在线政治宣传，甚至对于大型博客或网站，都对竞选财务法做出重大豁免。这些建议中的共同主题是描述现有法律试图减少的危害。接下来，这里的方法着眼于个人大型机的使用如何影响这些危害的产生。如果消费者作为生产者可能会造成各种损害，则分析倾向于要求合规。如果消费者作为生产者不太可能造成各种损害，那么例外的理由就更强了。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号