Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A “New Approach” to Standards and Consumer Protection

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Consumer Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As consumer use of information and communication technology (ICT) products grows, the importance of ICT standards in consumer markets also grows. While standards for manufactured products were once developed at the national level in formal standards bodies, standards for ICT products today are more likely to be developed by informal standards bodies that target global markets, creating new challenges for national consumer protection laws. As part of the process of creating a single market, the EU developed an innovative and successful form of “coregulation” known as the “New Approach” that coordinated the work of legislators and standards developers to reduce technical barriers to trade in the internal market. In order to protect consumer interests in markets for ICT products effectively, another “New Approach” is needed to coordinate the work of global ICT standard-developing organizations with the goals of national and regional consumer protection laws, but the institutional challenges facing such a strategy are daunting. The French DADVSI legislation represents progress in this direction; further progress may be possible by adopting “better regulation” strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A list of thousands of standards consortia can be found at http://www.consortiuminfo.org, a Web site maintained by Andrew Updegrove.

  2. The European Union standards bodies are the European Committee for Standardization (CEN), the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC), and the European Telecommunication Standards Institute (ETSI).

  3. Loi no. 2006-961 du 1er août 2006 relative au Droit d’Auteur et aux Droits Voisins dans la Société de l’Information; parue au JO no. 178 du 3 août 2006, page 11529.

  4. The WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) adopted in Geneva on December 20, 1996.

  5. Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.

  6. Conseil de la Concurrence, Décision 04-D-54 du 9 novembre 2004.

References

  • ANEC (2006). Position paper on the revision of the New Approach. Brussels: European Association for the Co-ordination of Consumer Representation in Standardization. ANEC-GA-2006-G-036.

    Google Scholar 

  • BERR (2008). Consultation on legislative options to address illicit peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing. London: Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. Retrieved from http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file47139.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • BEUC (2004). Digital rights management. Brussels: European Consumers’ Association. BEUC/X/025/2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breyer, S. (1982). Regulation and its reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cargill, C. (2001). The informal versus the formal standards development process: myth and reality. In S. M. Spivak, & F. C. Brenner (Eds.), Standardization essentials: Principles and practice (pp. 257–265). New York: Marcel Dekker.

    Google Scholar 

  • CEC (2001). European governance: a white paper. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. COM(2001) 428 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • CEC (2004). High level group on digital rights management: final report. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • CEC (2007). European electronic communications regulation and markets 2006 (12th report). Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. COM(2007) 155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheit, R. (1990). Setting safety standards: regulation in the public and private sectors. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • CONTU (National Commission on New Technology Uses of Copyrighted Works) (1978). Final report of the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works. Washington, DC: Library of Congress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, R. (1978). Standards development in the private sector: thoughts on interest representation and procedural fairness. Boston: National Fire Protection Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egan, M. (2001). Constructing a European market: standards, regulation, and governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egan, M. (2002). Setting standards: strategic advantage in international trade. Business Strategy Review, 13(1), 51–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasser, U., & Palfrey, J. (2007). Breaking down digital barriers: when and how ICT interoperability drives innovation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Berkman Center Research Publication 2007-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gowers, A. (2006). Gowers review of intellectual property. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guibault, L. (2002). Copyright limitations and contracts—an analysis of the contractual overridability of limitations. Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilton, M. (2003). Consumerism in 20th century Britain: the search for a historical movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, C. (2007). Encouraging enterprise and rebalancing risk: implications of economic policy for regulation, enforcement and compensation. European Business Law Review, 18, 1231–1266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jondet, N. (2006). La France v. Apple: who’s the DADVSI in DRMs? SCRIPT-ed, 3, 473–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jondet, N. (2007). DRM watchdog established in France (Décret no. 2007-510 du 4 avril 2007) French-law.net. Retrieved April 11, 2007, from http://french-law.net/drm-watchdog-established-in-france-decret-2007-510-4-avril-2007.html.

  • Kirton, J., & Trebilcock, M. (2004). Introduction: hard choices and soft law in sustainable global governance. In J. Kirton, & M. Trebilcock (Eds.), Hard choices, soft law: Voluntary standards in global trade, environment, and social governance (pp. 3–29). Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krislov, S. (1997). How nations choose product standards and standards change nations. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessig, L. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathis, J. (2006). The WTO agreement on technical barriers to trade. Consumer Policy Review, 16, 14–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGee, A., & Weatherill, S. (1990). The evolution of the single market: harmonization or liberalisation. Modern Law Review, 53, 578–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A. (1995). Environmental regulation, technological innovation, and technology-forcing. National Resources and Environment, 10, 64–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, B., & Yeung, K. (2007). An introduction to law and regulation: text and materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogus, A. (1995). Rethinking self-regulation. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 15, 97–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, C., & Braithwaite, J. (2005). Regulation. In P. Cane, & M. Tushnet (Eds.), Oxford handbook of legal studies (pp. 119–145). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelkmans, J. (1987). The new approach to technical harmonization and standardization. Journal of Common Market Studies, 25, 249–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schepel, H. (2005). The constitution of private governance: product standards in the regulation of integrating markets. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sénat (2006). Rapport n° 308 (2005–2006) de M. Michel Thiollière, fait au nom de la commission des affaires culturelles, déposé le 12 avril 2006.

  • Teubner, G. (1987). Juridification of social spheres: a comparative analysis in the areas of labor, corporate, antitrust and social welfare law. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Census Bureau (2007). Extended measures of well-being: living conditions in the United States, 2003. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p70-110.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eecke, P., & Truyens, M. (2009). Standardisation in the European ICT sector: official procedures at the verge of being overhauled. Shidler Journal for Law, Commerce and Technology, 5, 3. In press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varian, H., Farrell, J., & Shapiro, C. (2004). The economics of information technology: an introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill, S. (2007). The challenge of better regulation. In S. Weatherill (Ed.), Better regulation (pp. 1–16). Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weitzner, D. (2002). Testimony before the United States Department of Justice and United States Federal Trade Commission Joint Hearings on Competition and Intellectual Property Law and Policy in the Knowledge-Based Economy. Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission, Retrieved from http://www.ftc.gov/opp/intellect/020418weitzner.shtm.

  • Whitman, J. (2007). Consumerism versus producerism: a study in comparative law. Yale Law Journal, 117, 340–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winn, J. K. (2006). US and EU regulatory competition and authentication standards in electronic commerce. Journal of IT Standards and Standardization Research, 5(1), 84–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, J. K. (2008a). Standard developing as a form of self-regulation. In S. Bolin (Ed.), Standardization: Unifier or divider. United States: Bolin Communications. In press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, J. K. (2008b). What protection do consumers require in the information economy. In J. Gunning (Ed.), Law, Ethics & Society(vol. IV). Aldershot: Ashgate. In press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, J. K., & Wright, B. (2008). Law of electronic commerce (4th ed.). New York: Aspen.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Shidler Center for Law, Commerce and Technology, School of Law, University of Washington, William Gates Hall, P.O. Box 353020, Seattle, WA, 98195-3020, USA

    Jane Winn

  2. School of Law, University of Edinburgh, Old College, South Bridge, Edinburgh, EH8 9YL, UK

    Nicolas Jondet

Authors
  1. Jane Winn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicolas Jondet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jane Winn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Winn, J., Jondet, N. A “New Approach” to Standards and Consumer Protection. J Consum Policy 31, 459–472 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-008-9086-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-008-9086-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation