Journal of Consumer Policy

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 21–38 | Cite as

The average consumer, the unfair commercial practices directive, and the cognitive revolution

Original Paper


This article examines the merit of the test of the average consumer as a basis for judicial and regulatory action. In the first part, we describe the origin of the test, its application in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and its possible developments. In the second part, we discuss the theoretical grounds of the average consumer test (i.e., information and rationality), drawing upon the studies of cognitive psychology and behavioural economics concerning consumers’ behaviour. The result of our analysis is that we call into serious question the practical workability of the test of the average consumer, which requires consumers an overly demanding standard of rationality and information without dedicating much attention to the real functioning of consumer behaviour. The average consumer may be described as an interesting, anti-paternalistic and, to some extent, useful notion. It is, however, an overly simplistic concept with little correspondence with the real world of individual consumer behaviour and should be reinterpreted more flexibly, or even abandoned to mirror consumer behaviour more effectively.


Average consumer Unfair commercial practice directive Cognitive studies 



A preliminary version of this paper has been presented at the Regional Consumer Law Conference organised by the International Association of Consumer Law and the Consumer Affairs Council of Malta, 16th and 17th March 2006. Conference website: The authors would like to thank Jack Cumming and Prof. Raffaele Caterina, University of Turin, for their insightful comments on the first draft of this article. Cristina Poncibò acknowledges a postdoctoral grant from the Lagrange Project on the “Challenge of Complex Systems,” CRT Foundation and University of Eastern Piedmont,


  1. Bagozzi, R. P., Gurhan-Canli, Z., & Priester, J. R. (2002). The social psychology of consumer behaviour (applying social psychology). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bakamitsos, G. A., & Siomkos, G. J. (2004). Context effects in marketing practice: The case of mood. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3, 304–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caterina, R. (2004). Comparative law and the cognitive revolution. Tulane Law Review, 78, 1501–1547.Google Scholar
  4. Caterina, R. (2005). Paternalismo e antipaternalismo nel diritto privato. Rivista di diritto civile, II, 771–796.Google Scholar
  5. Dauses, M. A. (1998). Consumer information in the case law of the European Court of Justice: A German view. British Food Journal, 100, 244–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis, J. (2005). Locating the average consumer: His judicial origins, intellectual influences and current role in European trade mark law. Intellectual Property Quarterly, 2, 183–203.Google Scholar
  7. European Commission. (2006). Labelling: Competitiveness, consumer information and better regulation for the EU, February 2006. Brussels: European Commission. Available at Accessed 9 October 2006.Google Scholar
  8. European Parliament and Council. (2005). Council Directive 2005/29/EC of 11 May 2005 on unfair business to consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No. 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Luxembourg: European Council.Google Scholar
  9. Everson, M. (2006). Legal constructions of the consumer. In F. Trentmann (Ed.), The making of the consumer, knowledge, power and identity in the modern world (pp. 99–121). Oxford, NY: Berg.Google Scholar
  10. Gilovich T., Griffin D., & Kahneman D. (Eds.). (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hanson, J. D., & Kysar, D. A. (1999). Taking behavioralism seriously: The problem of market manipulation. New York University Law Review, 74, 630–749.Google Scholar
  12. Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 132–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Howells, G. (2006). Unfair commercial practices directive – A missed opportunity? Paper presented at the Regional Consumer Law Conference organized by the Consumer Affairs Council of Malta and the International Association of Consumer Law. Available at Accessed 9 October 2006.Google Scholar
  14. Howells, G., & Weatherill, S. (2005). Consumer protection law. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  15. Howells, G., & Wilhelmsson, T. (2003). EC consumer law: Has it come of age. European Law Review, 28, 370–388.Google Scholar
  16. Jacoby, J. (1984). Perspectives on information overload. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 432–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jacoby, J. (2000). Is it rational to assume consumer rationality? Some psychological perspectives on rational choice theory. Roger Williams University Law Review, 6, 81–161.Google Scholar
  18. Jolls, C., Sunstein, C., & Thaler, R. (1998). A behavioral approach to law and economics. University of California Law Review, 41, 1193–1272.Google Scholar
  19. Kahneman D., Slovic P., & Tversky A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychology Review, 90, 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1996). On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychology Review, 193, 582–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Korobkin, R. B., & Ulen, T. S. (2000). Law and behavioral science: Removing the rationality assumption from law and economics. California Law Review, 88, 1051–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Latin, H. A. (1994). “Good” warnings, bad products, and cognitive limitations. University of California Law Review, 41, 1193–1272.Google Scholar
  27. Malhotra, N. K. (1982). Information load and consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 419–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Olshavsky, R. W., & Granbois, H. D. (1979). Consumer decision-making – fact or fiction? Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pegado Liz, J. (2006). The total harmonization trickery – special reference to directive 2005/29/CE. Paper presented at the Regional Consumer Law Conference of the Consumer Affairs Council of Malta and the International Association of Consumer Law. Available at Accessed 9 October 2006.Google Scholar
  30. Poncibò, C., & Incardona, R. (2005). The EU unfair commercial practice directive: A faltering first step. London Law Review, 2, 317–337.Google Scholar
  31. Posner, R. A. (1998). Rational choice, behavioral economics, and the law. Stanford Law Review, 50, 1551–1575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rachlinski, J. J. (2003). The uncertain psychological case for paternalism. New York University Law Review, 97, 1165–1225.Google Scholar
  33. Reynolds T. J., & Olson J. C. (Eds.). (2001). Understanding consumer decision making: A means-end approach to marketing and advertising strategy. Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  34. Schricker, G., & Henning-Bodewig, F. (2002). New initiatives for the harmonisation of unfair competition law in Europe. European Intellectual Property Review, 24, 271–276.Google Scholar
  35. Scott, C., & Black, J. (2000). Cranston’s consumers and the law. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  36. Stuyck, J., Terryn, E., & Van Dyck, T. (2006). Confidence through fairness? The new directive on unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market. Common Market Law Review, 43, 107–152.Google Scholar
  37. Sunstein, C. (1997). Behavioral analysis of law. University of Chicago Law Review, 64, 1175–1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sunstein, C. (2000). Behavioral law and economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Sunstein, C., & Thaler, R. (2003). Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. University of Chicago Law Review, 70, 1159–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tellis, G. J. (2003). Effective advertising: Understanding when, how, and why advertising works. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  41. Twigg-Flesner, C., Parry, D., Howells, G., Nordhausen, A., Micklitz, H. W., Stuyck, J., et al. (2005). An analysis of the application and scope of the unfair commercial practices directive: A report for the UK Department of Trade and Industry. Retrieved August 6, 2006, from the UK Department of Trade and Industry website.Google Scholar
  42. Weatherill, S. (1994). The role of the informed consumer in European community law and policy. Consumer Law Journal, 2, 49–69.Google Scholar
  43. Weatherill, S. (1996). The evolution of European consumer law and policy: From well-informed consumer to confident consumer? In: W. Micklitz (Ed.), Rechtseinheit oder Rechtsvielfalt in Europa? Rolle und Funktion des Verbraucherrechts in der EG und den MOE-Staaten. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  44. Weatherill, S. (2007). Who is the “average consumer?” In: S. Weatherill & U. Bernitz (Eds.), The regulation of unfair commercial practices under EC Directive 2005/29: New rules and new techniques. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  45. Woods, R. (2004). Exploring the emotional territory for brands. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3, 388–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Freshfields Bruckhaus DeringerRomeItaly
  2. 2.Lagrange ProjectTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations