IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jcopol/v38y2015i3p331-355.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“Safety Net” Consumer Protection: Using Prohibitions on Unfair and Unconscionable Conduct to Respond to Predatory Business Models

Author

Listed:
  • Jeannie Paterson
  • Gerard Brody

Abstract

Consumer advocates and regulators in Australia have long been concerned about prevalent business models that prey upon vulnerable consumers. This paper considers both the types of factors that might justify consumer protection legislation responding to business models that take advantage of the reduced ability of consumers to protect their own interests in the transaction in question and the type of legislative response that might be utilized. In particular, the paper explores the role of standard-based “safety net” prohibitions on unconscionable or unfair conduct. The paper considers the approach taken by Australian courts to the prohibition on “unconscionable conduct” in the Australian Consumer Law and compares this provision with the general prohibition in the Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices. The paper argues that, while Australian courts have made effective use of the prohibition on unconscionable conduct in responding to predatory business models, a safety net provision based on the Directive would have merit in the Australian context as providing better guidance to consumers and businesses alike as to the limits of acceptable market conduct. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Jeannie Paterson & Gerard Brody, 2015. "“Safety Net” Consumer Protection: Using Prohibitions on Unfair and Unconscionable Conduct to Respond to Predatory Business Models," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 331-355, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jcopol:v:38:y:2015:i:3:p:331-355
    DOI: 10.1007/s10603-014-9276-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10603-014-9276-y
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10603-014-9276-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George A. Akerlof, 2009. "How Human Psychology Drives the Economy and Why It Matters," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1175-1175.
    2. Paul Harrison & Marta Massi & Kathryn Chalmers, 2014. "Beyond Door-to-Door: The Implications of Invited In-Home Selling," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1), pages 195-221, March.
    3. Jane Williams & Caroline Hare, 2010. "Early Experiences of the Enforcement of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive in Scotland," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 377-401, December.
    4. Black, Julia, 2008. "Forms and paradoxes of principles-based regulation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 23103, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Rossella Incardona & Cristina Poncibò, 2007. "The average consumer, the unfair commercial practices directive, and the cognitive revolution," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 21-38, March.
    6. Chris Willett, 2010. "Fairness and Consumer Decision Making under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 247-273, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. J. M. Paterson & E. Bant, 2021. "Should Australia Introduce a Prohibition on Unfair Trading? Responding to Exploitative Business Systems in Person and Online," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 1-19, March.

    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. Willem Boom, 2011. "Price Intransparency, Consumer Decision Making and European Consumer Law," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 359-376, September.
    2. Marijn Sax & Natali Helberger & Nadine Bol, 2018. "Health as a Means Towards Profitable Ends: mHealth Apps, User Autonomy, and Unfair Commercial Practices," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 103-134, June.
    3. M. Brenncke, 2024. "A Theory of Exploitation for Consumer Law: Online Choice Architectures, Dark Patterns, and Autonomy Violations," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 127-164, March.
    4. Onyeka Osuji, 2011. "Business-to-Consumer Harassment, Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the UK—A Distorted Picture of Uniform Harmonization?," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 437-453, December.
    5. Klodt, Henning & Lehment, Harmen (ed.), 2009. "The Crisis and Beyond," Kiel E-Books, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), number 60981.
    6. Dow Alexander & Dow Sheila C., 2011. "Animal Spirits Revisited," Capitalism and Society, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-25, December.
    7. Benjamin Enke & Florian Zimmermann, 2019. "Correlation Neglect in Belief Formation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(1), pages 313-332.
    8. Andreia Tolciu, 2010. "The Economics of Social Interactions: An Interdisciplinary Ground for Social Scientists?," Forum for Social Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(3), pages 223-242, January.
    9. Venkatasubramanian, Venkat & Luo, Yu & Sethuraman, Jay, 2015. "How much inequality in income is fair? A microeconomic game theoretic perspective," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 435(C), pages 120-138.
    10. Ulrich van Suntum, "undated". "Economic Confidence, Negative Interest Rates, and Liquidity: Towards Keynesianism 2.0," Working Papers 200108, Institute of Spatial and Housing Economics, Munster Universitary.
    11. Marc Hayford & Anastasios Malliaris, 2010. "Asset Prices and the Financial Crisis of 2007--09: An Overview of Theories and Policies," Forum for Social Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(3), pages 279-286, January.
    12. Tiziana Assenza & Te Bao & Cars Hommes & Domenico Massaro, 2014. "Experiments on Expectations in Macroeconomics and Finance," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experiments in Macroeconomics, volume 17, pages 11-70, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    13. Guglielmo Caporale & Luis Gil-Alana & Alex Plastun & Inna Makarenko, 2016. "Intraday Anomalies and Market Efficiency: A Trading Robot Analysis," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 47(2), pages 275-295, February.
    14. Deckers Thomas & Falk Armin & Schildberg-Hörisch Hannah, 2016. "Nominal or Real? The Impact of Regional Price Levels on Satisfaction with Life," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 16(3), pages 1337-1358, September.
    15. Omokolade Akinsomi & Yener Coskun & Rangan Gupta & Chi Keung Marco Lau, 2016. "Impact of Volatility and Equity Market Uncertainty on Herd Behavior: Evidence from UK REITs," Working Papers 201688, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
    16. Hege, Ulrich & Nuti, Alessandro, 2011. "The Private Equity Secondaries Market During the Financial Crisis and the “Valuation Gap”," MPRA Paper 39550, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Lilia Karnizova & Hashmat Khan, 2010. "The Stock Market and the Consumer Confidence Channel in Canada," Carleton Economic Papers 10-08, Carleton University, Department of Economics, revised 26 Aug 2011.
    18. M. Çule & M. E. Fulton, 2013. "Corporate governance and subjective well-being," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(4), pages 364-367, March.
    19. Michael Demmler & Amilcar Orlian Fernández Domínguez, 2021. "Bitcoin and the South Sea Company: A comparative analysis," Revista Finanzas y Politica Economica, Universidad Católica de Colombia, vol. 13(1), pages 197-224, March.
    20. Chao Gu & Cyril Monnet & Ed Nosal & Randall Wright, 2019. "On the Instability of Banking and Other Financial Intermediation," Working Papers 19.04, Swiss National Bank, Study Center Gerzensee.

    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:kap:jcopol:v:38:y:2015:i:3:p:331-355. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.