CyberLaw Blog

Archive for the ‘consumer protection’ Category

eBay shill bid scammer convicted:

Minibus man falls foul of consumer protection laws

Paul Barrett, a minibus hire firm boss from Stanley, County Durham, has been convicted of bidding against items he was selling on eBay in order to drive up final prices.…

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

EU – Implementation of the Safer Social Networking Principles: (Europa)
On 9 February 2010, Safer Internet Day, the European Commission has presented the findings of an independent assessment of the implementation of the Safer Social Networking Principles for the EU. Download the overall report and see how each signatory has implemented the Principles.

(Via QuickLinks Update.)

UK police take down fake designer goods sites: “

Del Boys swept out of .co.uk domains

UK police have completed a massive take-down operation, after targeting scam websites selling fake designer goods.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

EU issues guidance on complex consumer protection laws: “Social networking sites and blogs can be governed by the European Union’s Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, according to new guidance published by the European Commission.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

Over 1,200 UK shopping websites shut down: “More than 1,200 illegal internet shopping websites that have made millions of pounds for criminals have been shut down by Scotland Yard in the biggest operation of its kind in Britain.

(Via Tech and Web from Times Online.)

Hmmm, even Google is concerned about Internet freedom in the UK!

Threatening Internet freedom in the UK: “All too often, the public policy world focuses on subtle legislative distinctions and on regulatory details. But once in a while, an issue comes along that strikes to the heart of the big principles. Such an issue erupted last week in the UK – an issue that incorporates two of the most important subjects on these pages: privacy and innovation.

The British Government’s Digital Economy bill includes ideas that worry us – as well as other Internet companies such as Yahoo, Facebook and Ebay. In particular, we are concerned about the bill’s Clause 17 which, in an effort to fight piracy, would allow the Secretary of State to amend the Copyright Act to ‘prevent or reduce the infringement of copyright by means of the Internet’ without additional legislation. All of us have joined together and written the UK government to express our opposition.

Let me explain why. The government’s stated attempt to spur Brits to get online in an ambitious Digital Britain project is laudatory. We do not object to fighting against infringement of copyright: in fact, we are often inventing new technology solutions to help content creators protect their material. A good example is our Video ID technology which identifies copyrighted material when it is uploaded onto YouTube and then helps the copyright holder sell advertising tied to the video. We also understand why the UK Government wanted to make their legislation future proof, to cope with technical change. But, as we have said many times in the past, legislation is often like a slow moving tank in the Internet world. Innovations happen faster than most politicians can even imagine, and to try and future proof laws requires laws so big and so powerful that the risks of misuse far outweigh the benefits.

While we remain unsure of how this Clause 17 is intended to be implemented, we fear it could require the Government to start gathering more information about users Internet habits, even when no illegal practices have taken place. The first step required of any government using these new powers would be to carry out some sort of assessment of whether significant copyright infringements are taking place. That assessment would have to be based on independent facts – and what ‘facts’ exist other than through user data? Crucially, such an assessment would require examining the behaviour of all UK Internet users. This is wrong. We fiercely protect the privacy of our users across the world and do not believe that fear of illegal activity somewhere on the Internet is enough to justify intrusion of activity everywhere on the Internet.

Another concern with the Clause is that it could stifle the Internet’s innovation and entrepreneurial spirit. Great new business models need legal clarity and regulatory space to come to market. Having powers like these in the back pocket, able to be used without significant Parliamentary oversight is enough to put off any young entrepreneur wanting to invent new ways of making content legally available. This was almost certainly not the intention’s of the Clause’s intentions. but good intentions don’t make great laws.

Posted by Sarah Hunter, UK Policy Manager

“

(Via European Public Policy Blog.)

EBay fined by Paris court over sales of authentic perfumes: “A French court has told internet auction site eBay that it cannot allow sales of luxury goods without the brand owner’s permission. EBay has been fined €1.7 million for not stopping the sales of perfumes.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

Law Commissions oppose EU abolition of consumer right to reject faulty goods: “The UK should resist a proposal from Europe that would abolish the right of consumers to reject goods that turn out to be faulty, according to a report from the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

Consent will be required for cookies in Europe: “EDITORIAL: A law that demands consent to internet cookies has been approved and will be in force across the EU within 18 months. It is so breathtakingly stupid that the normally law-abiding business may be tempted to bend the rules to breaking point.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

European Commission will tackle differential web pricing: “The European Commission will investigate and take action to stop online traders from charging consumers different prices based on an analysis of their web surfing habits or location.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)