This chapter examines how commercial firms like the Belgian grocer Delhaize did not initially respond to the Single Market Program in the mid-1980s, but they did mobilize swiftly in the late 1980s to prepare for the "threat" of the new business and regulatory environment of an integrated regional market governed by social and environmental protections. Together with other food retailers, Delhaize formed sectoral clubs and associations to defend its interests: Buying clubs collectivized price negotiating power against producer consolidation and protected profit margins, while interest associations brought distributors and retailers together to influence European policymaking. At the same time, Delhaize and other commercial firms saw in the opening of Eastern Europe a profitable business opportunity, and they expanded quickly into the markets of Poland, Hungary, and the new Czech Republic in the early 1990s. As a result, the case of Delhaize gives us purchase on the complexity of business responses to market integration and demonstrates the diverse paths to regionalization for and against the Single Market.

This chapter analyzes the marketing of upcycled products from a perspective of European and German unfair competition law. As part of the sustainability trend, some traders use upcycled products to enhance their image or develop new business models. Marketing such products must not only comply with trademark law but also with unfair competition law rules. Under Articles 6, 7 UCP Directive, traders must not mislead consumers about a product’s commercial origin. When upcycling involves third-party products, consumers might wrongly assume the upcycled items come from the original producer, especially when both operate in similar markets. Clear information is therefore required to prevent confusion. If traders reference the original products in their advertising, the rules on comparative advertising under MCA Directive may apply, since even broadly interchangeable goods, like wine bottles upcycled into vases, can qualify as competitors. Additionally, German unfair competition law may restrict practices that exploit another trader’s reputation. For instance, using luxury goods to create everyday items could unlawfully damage the reputation of the original brand.

It has been widely recognised in the legal as well as law and economics literature that both regulatory and private enforcement are needed to ensure the effectiveness of market regulation in general and EU private law in particular. This chapter unpacks the interplay between these two enforcement mechanisms, focusing on three major issues that arise in practice: the disclosure of evidence gathered by regulatory agencies, the limitation periods for private enforcement actions, and the combined application of administrative sanctions and private law remedies. The chapter constructs three models of the relationship between public and private enforcement – separation, substitution, and complementarity – and explains their main characteristics, manifestations, and implications. It also assesses the potential of each model to strike the right balance between deterrence in the name of the public interest and compensation in the name of interpersonal justice, as well as between uniformity and diversity in regulatory and private enforcement, and draws out some of the practical implications of this analysis for EU private lawmaking and enforcement.

Experimental legal regimes, notably regulatory sandboxes, seek to promote technological innovation while at the same time ensuring consumer protection against unsafe or unsuitable products and services. But in doing so, they may not always be able to prevent harm to consumers. This chapter explores the relationship between regulatory sandboxes and private law. Given that within such sandboxes the participating firms may benefit from regulatory relief, it considers whether, and, if so, to what extent traditional private law nevertheless remains and should remain applicable to their activities during the experiment. It develops three models of the relationship between regulatory sandboxes and private law – separation, substitution, and complementarity – and considers their key characteristics, manifestations, and implications in the context of European private law. The chapter reveals the tension between, on the one hand, fostering technology-enabled innovation, legal certainty, and uniformity and, on the other hand, realising interpersonal justice and individual fairness while leaving room for diversity. It also assesses each model in terms of its potential to reconcile these competing considerations and draws lessons from this assessment for EU and national legislators and courts.

The chapter examines internet addiction as a threat to human rights. Medical research indicates that excessive internet use can lead to mental and physical health issues, behavioural risks, and impaired functioning. Specific features of the internet, such as ease of access and anonymity, may contribute to addiction. Although only a minority develop this addiction, vulnerable groups, especially children and those with pre-existing mental health conditions, are at higher risk. Law and policy responses include public health approaches, consumer protection, and initiatives to protect vulnerable groups. The right to disconnect is emerging as a potential solution, particularly in work contexts, but its effectiveness in addressing internet addiction is limited. International human rights law provides a framework for addressing internet addiction, but specific interpretations are still developing. Multidisciplinary approaches integrating mental health research with legal analysis are crucial for developing effective responses.

Dark patterns are the subject of a surge of regulatory interest in the EU. Much new legislation in the areas of consumer law, data protection and competition law include provisions on dark patterns. Businesses use dark patterns to increase their revenue at the expense of consumers who purchase products they may not need, spend more time or give up more personal data than they would otherwise. Instead of focusing on the more normative issue of when dark patterns should be considered harmful, the chapter compares the different legal frameworks applicable to these practices and asks to what extent the increasingly fragmented EU regulatory landscape can offer effective overall protection against dark patterns. While useful complementarities may arise when parallel sets of rules target different concerns or protect different values, there are also risks of inconsistencies that may lead to either under- or overenforcement due to the fragmentation of the overall regulatory framework. The chapter submits that three needs result from the state of play and offers suggestions to improve the enforcement against dark patterns based on the current EU regulatory framework.

Use Case 2 in Chapter 5 examines the regulation of MDTs in the context of commercial advertising under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD), and the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVSMD). An analysis under the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) will follow in Chapter 6, alongside a use case focused on political advertising. In the realm of commercial advertising, MDTs intensify long-standing concerns from consumer perspectives. The UCPD serves as a crucial reference point for related laws. Including the processing and inference of mind data in the blacklist outlined in Annex I of the UCPD would have significant implications, akin to the proposed introduction of a sui generis special category of mind data within the GDPR. Importantly, a blanket ban on the processing and inference of mind data for commercial practices under Annex I UCPD would automatically prohibit these practices under the DSA.

This introduction to the book begins with a narrative of the prevalence of gun violence in the United States and the trafficking of gun violence into Mexico and Latin America. It canvasses the current statistics of gun-related murders, suicides, mass shootings, and school shootings compiled by the CDC, the Pew Research Institute, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Giffords Center, and other agencies collecting gun violence data. The introduction sets forth the themes of the book, including locating the landscape of firearms litigation in the history of mass tort litigation, the ineffectiveness of various gun regulatory initiatives, the historical immunity of the firearms industry from liability for gun harms, and the recent inroads on the ability to sue firearms defendants through the enactment of targeted consumer protection and public nuisance firearms accountability statutes. The introduction suggests the argument that the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement demonstrated that impervious, dangerous product industries could finally be held accountable, and that the Sandy Hook Elementary School litigation marked a pivotal point in opening a pathway toward suing the firearms industry and holding it accountable for gun harms.

This chapter explores the intricate relationship between consumer protection and GenAI. Prominent tools like Bing Chat, ChatGPT4.0, Google’s Gemini (formerly known as Bard), OpenAI’s DALL·E, and Snapchat’s AI chatbot are widely recognized, and they dominate the generative AI landscape. However, numerous smaller, unbranded GenAI tools are embedded within major platforms, often going unrecognized by consumers as AI-driven technology. In particular, the focus of this chapter is the phenomenon of algorithmic consumers, whose interactions with digital tools, including GenAI, have become increasingly dynamic, engaging, and personalized. Indeed, the rise of algorithmic consumers marks a pivotal shift in consumer behaviour, which is now characterized by heightened levels of interactivity and customization.