IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/zewdip/289447.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Regulatory compliance with limited enforceability: Evidence from privacy policies

Author

Listed:
  • Ganglmair, Bernhard
  • Krämer, Julia
  • Gambato, Jacopo

Abstract

The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of 2018 introduced stringent transparency rules compelling firms to disclose, in accessible language, details of their data collection, processing, and use. The specifics of the disclosure requirement are objective, and its compliance is easily verifiable; readability, however, is subjective and difficult to enforce. We use a simple inspection model to show how this asymmetric enforceability of regulatory rules and the corresponding firm compliance are linked. We then examine this link empirically using a large sample of privacy policies from German firms. We use text-as-data techniques to construct measures of disclosure and readability and show that firms increased the disclosure volume, but the readability of their privacy policies did not improve. Larger firms in concentrated industries demonstrated a stronger response in readability compliance, potentially due to heightened regulatory scrutiny. Moreover, data protection authorities with larger budgets induce better readability compliance without effects on disclosure.

Suggested Citation

  • Ganglmair, Bernhard & Krämer, Julia & Gambato, Jacopo, 2024. "Regulatory compliance with limited enforceability: Evidence from privacy policies," ZEW Discussion Papers 24-012, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:zewdip:289447
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/289447/1/1884812287.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yannis Bakos & Florencia Marotta-Wurgler & David R. Trossen, 2014. "Does Anyone Read the Fine Print? Consumer Attention to Standard-Form Contracts," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(1), pages 1-35.
    2. Wojahn, Oliver & Geister, Susanne & Richter, Julia, 2015. "The impact of analyst report complexity on trading decisions in an experimental setting," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 29-32.
    3. Graetz, Michael J & Reinganum, Jennifer F & Wilde, Louis L, 1986. "The Tax Compliance Game: Toward an Interactive Theory of Law Enforcement," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 2(1), pages 1-32, Spring.
    4. Karen Ruckman & Ian McCarthy, 2017. "Why do some patents get licensed while others do not?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(4), pages 667-688.
    5. Greenberg, Joseph, 1984. "Avoiding tax avoidance: A (repeated) game-theoretic approach," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 1-13, February.
    6. Kenneth Benoit & Kevin Munger & Arthur Spirling, 2019. "Measuring and Explaining Political Sophistication through Textual Complexity," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 63(2), pages 491-508, April.
    7. Avery Katz, 1990. "Your Terms or Mine? The Duty to Read the Fine Print in Contracts," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(4), pages 518-537, Winter.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marisa Ratto & Thibaud Verge, 2002. "Optimal Audit Policy and Heterogenous Agents," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 02/054, The Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol, UK.
    2. Marisa Ratto & Richard Thomas & David Ulph, 2013. "The Indirect Effects of Auditing Taxpayers," Public Finance Review, , vol. 41(3), pages 317-333, May.
    3. Mark B. Cronshaw & James Alm, 1995. "Tax Compliance With Two-Sided Uncertainty," Public Finance Review, , vol. 23(2), pages 139-166, April.
    4. Mukhtar Ali & H. Cecil & James Knoblett, 2001. "The effects of tax rates and enforcement policies on taxpayer compliance: A study of self-employed taxpayers," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 29(2), pages 186-202, June.
    5. Simone Pellegrino & Massimiliano Piacenza & Gilberto Turati, 2008. "The Runaway Taxpayer or: Is Prior Tax Notice Effective against Scofflaws?," Working papers 01, Former Department of Economics and Public Finance "G. Prato", University of Torino.
    6. Cécile Bazart, 2002. "Les comportements de fraude fiscale. Le face à face contribuables — administration fiscale," Revue Française d'Économie, Programme National Persée, vol. 16(4), pages 171-212.
    7. Alm, James & Shimshack, Jay, 2014. "Environmental Enforcement and Compliance: Lessons from Pollution, Safety, and Tax Settings," Foundations and Trends(R) in Microeconomics, now publishers, vol. 10(4), pages 209-274, December.
    8. Hsiao-Chi Chen & Shi-Miin Liu, 2005. "Dynamic Incentive Contracts under No-Commitment to Periodic Auditing and a Non-retrospective Penalty System," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 85(2), pages 107-139, August.
    9. Bose, Pinaki, 1995. "Anticipatory compliance and effective regulatory activity," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 151-159, June.
    10. Alm, James & McKee, Michael, 2004. "Tax compliance as a coordination game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 297-312, July.
    11. Juan P Mendoza & Jacco L Wielhouwer, 2015. "Only the Carrot, Not the Stick: Incorporating Trust into the Enforcement of Regulation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-18, February.
    12. Frank A Cowell, 2003. "Sticks and Carrots," STICERD - Distributional Analysis Research Programme Papers 68, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.
    13. Tan, Fangfang & Yim, Andrew, 2014. "Can strategic uncertainty help deter tax evasion? An experiment on auditing rules," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 161-174.
    14. Pierre Pestieau & Uri M. Possen & Steven M. Slutsky, 2004. "Jointly Optimal Taxes and Enforcement Policies in Response to Tax Evasion," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 6(2), pages 337-374, May.
    15. James Alm, 2019. "What Motivates Tax Compliance?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 353-388, April.
    16. Torgler, Benno, 2003. "To evade taxes or not to evade: that is the question," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 283-302, July.
    17. Nir Dagan & Yossi Tobol, 2005. "Tax evasion, informants, and optimal auditing policy," Economic theory and game theory 021, Nir Dagan.
    18. repec:dau:papers:123456789/4728 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Marisa Ratto & Richard Thomas & David Ulph, 2005. "Tax Compliance as a Social Norm and the Deterrent Effect of Investigations," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 05/127, The Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol, UK.
    20. M. Martin Boyer, 2007. "Resistance (to Fraud) Is Futile," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 74(2), pages 461-492, June.
    21. Pablo Sanguinetti & Martin Besfamille, 2004. "Exerting local tax effort or lobbying for central transfers?: Evidence from Argentina," Econometric Society 2004 Latin American Meetings 249, Econometric Society.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    data protection; disclosure; GDPR; privacy policies; readability; regulation; text-as-data; topic models;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • D23 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights
    • K12 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Contract Law
    • K20 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - General
    • L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation
    • M15 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - IT Management

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:zewdip:289447. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zemande.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.