Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Thematic Analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Consumer Benchmarks in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive

Part of the book series: Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation ((SEELR,volume 5))

  • 1270 Accesses

Abstract

Questions can be raised as to the main themes in relation to the consumer benchmarks in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. Firstly, it initially appears that the nature of the average consumer benchmark is unclear. Although the benchmark with its reference to the ‘average’ seems to reflect behaviour of the actual average of consumers or an abstraction thereof, the CJEUs case law indicates that the expected behaviour of the average consumer, at least in part, also reflects desired behaviour. Secondly, a question that should be addressed is what is expected of the average consumer in terms of being ‘reasonably informed, observant and circumspect’. Thirdly, as has been mentioned above, it is unclear under what circumstances the target group and vulnerable group benchmarks can be applied, and how these benchmarks relate to one another. Fourthly, also the relevance of social , cultural and linguistic factors raises questions. Fifthly and finally, questions can be raised in relation to the possibility for courts and enforcement authorities to use empirical evidence in determining the expected behaviour of the consumer.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See on this discussion also N Reich and H Micklitz, Europäisches Verbraucherrecht (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 2003) 292 and onwards.

  2. 2.

    See also paragraph 1.1 of this book.

  3. 3.

    See also R Schweizer, ‘Die “normative Verkehrsauffassung” – ein doppeltes Missverständnis. Konsequenzen für das Leitbild des “durchschnittlich informierten, verständigen Durchschnittverbrauchers”’ (2000) GRUR 923.

  4. 4.

    In previous discussions these two steps have often been confused. See on this issue e.g., R Schweizer, ‘Die “normative Verkehrsauffassung” – ein doppeltes Missverständnis. Konsequenzen für das Leitbild des “durchschnittlich informierten, verständigen Durchschnittverbrauchers”’ (2000) GRUR 923–933 in his analysis of the discussion on this subject in Germany.

  5. 5.

    See on the question whether the expected behaviour of the average consumer is realistic Chap. 9 of this book, which deals with the relationship between the average consumer benchmark and consumer behaviour as seen from the perspective of the behavioural sciences.

  6. 6.

    See CJEU 15 July 2004, Case C-239/02, ECR 2004, p. I-7007 ( Douwe Egberts v Westrom Pharma) and CJEU 9 November 2010, Case C-540/08, ECR 2010, p. I-10909 ( Mediaprint). See also paragraph 3.2.11 of this book.

  7. 7.

    G Howells, ‘The scope of European consumer law’ (2005) European review of contract law 366.

  8. 8.

    J Trzaskowski, ‘The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and vulnerable consumers’ (Paper for the Conference of the International association of consumer law in Sydney, 2013) 9.

  9. 9.

    J Trzaskowski, ‘The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and vulnerable consumers’ (Paper for the Conference of the International association of consumer law in Sydney, 2013) 9. See also R Incardona and C Poncibò, ‘The average consumer, the unfair commercial practices directive, and the cognitive revolution’ (2007) Journal of consumer policy and J Trzaskowski, ‘Behavioural economics, neuroscience, and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’ (2011) Journal of Consumer Policy 377–392.

  10. 10.

    The word ‘reasonably’ to indicate the level of being informed, observant and circumspect, rather than ‘normally’ or ‘averagely’, may however be an indication again for desired rather than actual behaviour.

  11. 11.

    CJEU 22 June 1999, Case C-342/97, ECR 1999, p. I-3819 ( Lloyd Schuhfabrik), para. 26. One could still question whether the Court’s assumptions regarding the behaviour of the average consumer in this field are correct (see for a critical note A Puttemans, ‘The average consumer’s degree of attention in trade mark cases’, in E Terryn, G Straetmans and V Colaert (eds), Landmark cases of EU consumer law (in honour of Jules Stuyck) (Mortsel, Intersentia, 2013 21–34.), but the intention nonetheless seems to be to reflect actual behaviour.

  12. 12.

    SEC (2009) 1666, p. 26. See also paragraph 3.3.6 above.

  13. 13.

    See also J Kabel, Rechter en publieksopvattingen: feit, fictie of ervaring? (Inaugural lecture University of Amsterdam) (Amsterdam, Vossiuspers UvA, 2006) 17.

  14. 14.

    SEC (2009) 1666, p. 26.

  15. 15.

    SEC (2009), 1666, p. 32. See also C Willet, ‘Fairness and consumer decision making under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’ (2010) Journal of consumer policy 270.

  16. 16.

    See also Chap. 9 of this book.

  17. 17.

    See on this issue also U Franck and K Purnhagen, ‘Homo economicus, behavioural sciences, and economic regulation: on the concept of man in internal market regulation and its normative basis’ (2012) 26 EUI working paper LAW.

  18. 18.

    H Köhler and J Bornkamm (eds), Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (Munich, Beck, 2012) 124, S Ulbrich, Irreführungs- und Verwechslungsgefahr im Lauterkeits- und Markenrecht: empirische oder normative Feststellung? (Diss. Würzburg) (Berlin, Köster, 2005) 151 and T Lettl, Der lauterkeitsrechtliche Schutz vor irreführender Werbung in Europa (Munich, Beck, 2004) 93.

  19. 19.

    CJEU 4 April 2000, Case C-465/98, ECR 2000, p. I-2297 ( Adolf Darbo), para. 27. See also paragraph 3.2.10 of this book. See also H Köhler and J Bornkamm (eds), Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (Munich, Beck, 2012) 124.

  20. 20.

    CJEU 7 March 1990, Case 362/88, ECR 1990, p. I-667 ( GB-INNO-BM). See paragraph 3.2.3 of this book.

  21. 21.

    See also S Ulbrich, Irreführungs- und Verwechslungsgefahr im Lauterkeits- und Markenrecht: empirische oder normative Feststellung? (Diss. Würzburg) (Berlin, Köster, 2005)162.

  22. 22.

    See also H Köhler and J Bornkamm (eds), Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (Munich, Beck, 2012) 124.

  23. 23.

    See, for example, CJEU 20 February 1979, Case C-120/78, ECR 1979, p. 649 ( Cassis de Dijon), CJEU 26 October 1995, Case C-51/94, ECR 1995, p. I-3599 ( Commission v Germany) and CJEU 4 April 2000, Case C-465/98, ECR 2000, p. I-2297 ( Adolf Darbo).

  24. 24.

    See also S De Vries, ‘Consumer protection and the EU Single Market rules—The search for the ‘paradigm consumer’ (2012) Zeitschrift für Europäisches Unternehmens- und Verbraucherrecht/ Journal of European consumer and market law 229. See in this sense also the Dutch Court of Cassation, Hoge Raad 5 June 2009, ECLI:NL:HR:2009:BH2822 ( Spaarbeleg Sprintplan).

  25. 25.

    See paragraph 3.3 of this book.

  26. 26.

    See also also H Köhler and J Bornkamm (eds), Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (Munich, Beck, 2012) 124, T Lettl, Der lauterkeitsrechtliche Schutz vor irreführender Werbung in Europa (Munich, Beck, 2004) 93 and A Beater, ‘Zum Verhaltnis von europäischem und nationalem Wettbewerbsrecht – Überlegungen am Beispiel des Schutzes vor irreführender Werbung und des Verbraucherbegriffs’ (2000) GRUR Int. 84. The characteristic of being circumspect can sometimes be difficult to distinguish from the characteristic of being informed: the consumer can be assumed to know about a certain marketing practice or may be critical towards it. In such cases it depends on the wording of the Court what characteristic determines the assumed behaviour of the consumer.

  27. 27.

    CJEU 6 June 1995, Case C-470/93, ECR 1995, p. I-1923 ( Mars), CJEU 2 February 1994, Case C-315/92, ECR 1994, p. I-317 ( Clinique) and CJEU 16 September 1999, Case C-220/98, ECR 2000, p. I-117 ( Lifting).

  28. 28.

    CJEU 9 November 2010, Case C-540/08, ECR 2010, p. I-10909 ( Mediaprint). See also paragraph 3.2.11 of this book.

  29. 29.

    CJEU 16 January 1992, Case C-373/90, ECR 1992, p. I-131 ( Nissan). See also paragraph 3.2.4 of this book.

  30. 30.

    Similar wordings have been used in CJEU judgments. See e.g. CJEU 26 November 1996, Case C-313/94, ECR 1996, p. I-6039 ( Graffione) and CJEU 28 January 1999, Case C-303/97, ECR 1999, p. I-513 ( Sektkellerei Kessler).

  31. 31.

    See e.g. CJEU 26 November 1996, Case C-313/94, ECR 1996, p. I-6039 ( Graffione) and CJEU 28 January 1999, Case C-303/97, ECR 1999, p. I-513 ( Sektkellerei Kessler).

  32. 32.

    See e.g. the trademark cases mentioned in paragraph 3.3.5 of this book.

  33. 33.

    SEC (2009) 1666, pp. 28–29.

  34. 34.

    See also J Stuyck, E Terryn and T van Dyck, ‘Confidence through fairness? The new Directive on unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market’ (2006) Common market law review 151.

  35. 35.

    CJEU 16 May 1989, Case C-382/87, ECR 1989, p. 1235 ( Buet). See paragraph 3.2.2 of this book.

  36. 36.

    See also C Lieverse and J Rinkes, Oneerlijke handelspraktijken en handhaving van consumentenbescherming in de financiële sector (Preadvies voor de Vereniging voor Effectenrecht 2010) (Deventer, Kluwer, 2010) 178.

  37. 37.

    See the cases referred to in paragraph 4.2 above.

  38. 38.

    K Fezer, Lauterkeitsrecht: UWG (Kommentar zum Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb) (Munich, Beck, 2010) 860–861 and 878–881. This remark is made for the application of the German UWG, but is motivated by European rather than German law.

  39. 39.

    CJEU 2 February 1994, Case C-315/92, ECR 1994, p. I-317 ( Clinique).

  40. 40.

    CJEU 26 November 1996, Case C-313/94, ECR 1996, p. I-6039 ( Graffione) and CJEU 16 September 1999, Case C-220/98, ECR 2000, p. I-117 ( Lifting).

  41. 41.

    See also G Abbamonte, ‘The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive: an example of the new European consumer protection approach’ (2006) Columbia journal of European law 708–709.

  42. 42.

    See also C van Dam, ‘De gemiddelde euroconsument – een pluriform fenomeen’ (2009) Tijdschrift voor Europees en economisch recht 10. He makes the connection with the remark of the CJEU in Gut Springenheide that national courts, if using empirical evidence, can themselves determine the percentage of consumers that is required to be misled, based on national law.

  43. 43.

    See also T Wilhelmsson, ‘The average European consumer: a legal fiction?’, in T Wilhemsson, E Paunio and A Pohjolainen (eds), Private law and the many cultures of Europe (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2007) 248.

  44. 44.

    See also U Franck and K Purnhagen, ‘Homo economicus, behavioural sciences, and economic regulation: on the concept of man in internal market regulation and its normative basis’ (2012) 26 EUI working paper LAW 5–6, H Rösler, Europäisches Konsumentenvertragsrecht (Munich, Beck, 2004) 116 and S Ulbrich, Irreführungs- und Verwechslungsgefahr im Lauterkeits- und Markenrecht: empirische oder normative Feststellung? (Diss. Würzburg) (Berlin, Köster, 2005) 17.

  45. 45.

    See also T Wilhelmsson, ‘The average European consumer: a legal fiction?’, in T Wilhelmsson, E Paunio and A Pohjolainen (eds), Private law and the many cultures of Europe (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2007) 248.

  46. 46.

    See in this sense also T Wilhelmsson, ‘The average European consumer: a legal fiction?’, in T Wilhelmsson, E Paunio and A Pohjolainen (eds), Private law and the many cultures of Europe (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2007) 248–249.

  47. 47.

    See also J Trzaskowski, ‘The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and vulnerable consumers’ (Paper for the Conference of the International association of consumer law in Sydney, (2013) 15.

  48. 48.

    C van Dam, ‘De gemiddelde euroconsument – een pluriform fenomeen’ (2009) Tijdschrift voor Europees en economisch recht 3–11.10. It is the question whether this assumption on consumers in ex-socialist Member States is (still) true. In fact, because of the rapid deregulation in some ex-socialist Member States, it may now be the other way around, at least compared to some other Member States.

  49. 49.

    See also T Wilhelmsson, ‘The abuse of the “confident consumer” as a justification for EC consumer law’ (2004) Journal of consumer policy 245.

  50. 50.

    CJEU 16 January 1992, Case C-373/90, ECR 1992, p. I-131 ( Nissan) and CJEU 19 September 2006, Case C-356/04, ECR 2006, p. I-8501 ( Lidl Belgium).

  51. 51.

    See similarly J Kabel, Rechter en publieksopvattingen: feit, fictie of ervaring? (Inaugural lecture University of Amsterdam) (Amsterdam, Vossiuspers UvA, 2006) 5–6.

  52. 52.

    See also T Lettl, Der lauterkeitsrechtliche Schutz vor irreführender Werbung in Europa (Munich, Beck, 2004) 105.

  53. 53.

    See in this sense C van Dam, ‘De gemiddelde euroconsument – een pluriform fenomeen’ (2009) Tijdschrift voor Europees en economisch recht 7.

  54. 54.

    See on this issue also S Leible, ´Anmerkung zu EuGH vom 16.7.1998 (Gut Springenheide)´ (1998) Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 529, C van Dam, ‘De gemiddelde euroconsument – een pluriform fenomeen’ (2009) Tijdschrift voor Europees en economisch recht 7 and S Weatherill, ‘Consumer image: linguistic, cultural and social differences’, in E Terryn, G Straetmans and V Colaert (eds), Landmark cases of EU consumer law (in honour of Jules Stuyck) (Mortsel, Intersentia, 2013) 16.

References

  • Abbamonte, G, ‘The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive: an example of the new European consumer protection approach’ (2006) Columbia journal of European law 695.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vries, S, ‘Consumer protection and the EU Single Market rules—The search for the ‘paradigm consumer’ (2012) Zeitschrift für Europäisches Unternehmens- und Verbraucherrecht/Journal of European consumer and market law 228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fezer, K, Lauterkeitsrecht: UWG (Kommentar zum Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb) (Munich, Beck, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck, U and Purnhagen, K, ‘Homo economicus, behavioural sciences, and economic regulation: on the concept of man in internal market regulation and its normative basis’ (2012) 26 EUI working paper LAW.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howells, G, ‘The scope of European consumer law’ (2005) European review of contract law 360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Incardona, R, and Poncibò, C, ‘The average consumer, the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, and the cognitive revolution’ (2007) Journal of consumer policy 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kabel, J, Rechter en publieksopvattingen: feit, fictie of ervaring? (Inaugural lecture University of Amsterdam) (Amsterdam, Vossiuspers UvA, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Köhler, H and Bornkamm, J (eds), Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (Munich, Beck, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lettl, T, Der lauterkeitsrechtliche Schutz vor irreführender Werbung in Europa (Munich, Beck, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieverse, C and Rinkes, J, Oneerlijke handelspraktijken en handhaving van consumentenbescherming in de financiële sector (Preadvies voor de Vereniging voor Effectenrecht 2010) (Deventer, Kluwer, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Puttemans, A, ‘The average consumer’s degree of attention in trade mark cases’, in E Terryn, G Straetmans and V Colaert (eds), Landmark cases of EU consumer law (in honour of Jules Stuyck) (Mortsel, Intersentia, 2013) 21–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich, N and Micklitz, H, Europäisches Verbraucherrecht (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rösler, H, Europäisches Konsumentenvertragsrecht (Munich, Beck, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer, R, ‘Die “normative Verkehrsauffassung” – ein doppeltes Missverständnis. Konsequenzen für das Leitbild des “durchschnittlich informierten, verständigen Durchschnittverbrauchers”’ (2000) GRUR 923.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuyck, J, Terryn, E and Van Dyck, T, ‘Confidence through fairness? The new Directive on unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market’ (2006) Common market law review 107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trzaskowski, J, ‘The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and vulnerable consumers’ (Paper for the Conference of the International association of consumer law in Sydney, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulbrich, S, Irreführungs- und Verwechslungsgefahr im Lauterkeits- und Markenrecht: empirische oder normative Feststellung? (Diss. Würzburg) (Berlin, Köster, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dam, C, ‘De gemiddelde euroconsument – een pluriform fenomeen’ (2009) Tijdschrift voor Europees en economisch recht 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilhemsson, T, ‘The abuse of the “confident consumer” as a justification for EC consumer law’ (2004) Journal of consumer policy 317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelmsson, T, ‘The average European consumer: a legal fiction?’, in T Wilhemsson, E Paunio and A Pohjolainen (eds), Private law and the many cultures of Europe (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2007) 243–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willet, C, ‘Fairness and consumer decision making under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’ (2010) Journal of consumer policy 247.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hoogenraad & Haak advertising + IP advocaten / University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Bram B. Duivenvoorde

Authors
  1. Bram B. Duivenvoorde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bram B. Duivenvoorde .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Duivenvoorde, B. (2015). Thematic Analysis. In: The Consumer Benchmarks in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13924-1_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation