Presentation from
Theresa Amato
Outline of Remarks by Theresa Amato on behalf of the Consumer Project on Technology and the Citizen Advocacy Center
I. Introduction
Here on behalf of Ralph Nader's Consumer Project on Technology (CPT), which was started in 1995, and is run by Jamie Love. CPT is a member of the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD). Also here as a community lawyer and director of the Citizen Advocacy Center.
II. Binding Legislation or Self-Regulation?
Asked to discuss whether consumer protections on-line should be a matter of binding legislation or industry self-regulation. I don't believe this is an either/or proposition; We should have both. But, and I want to make this very clear from the outset: Self-regulation is not enough to protect on-line consumers.
III. Arguments for Self-Regulation are Easily Refuted
A. Self Regulation is Faster and More Efficient -- For Who?
In the absence of clear rules, someone pays. Consumer doubt does not help e-commerce. Small and medium business does not benefit from this doubt because they don't have advertising budgets to become familiar - and thereby trustworthy-- to consumers worldwide. The United States Federal Trade Commission's own survey of 1999 shows the lack of commercial/industry self-regulation . Secretary of Commerce, William Daley: "Consumers Need Confidence Now." Consumers do not have ability or information to protect themselves. E-commerce websites lack basic information about product, pricing, countries, seller, contact, privacy, warranties and redress.
B. Government Can't Be Everywhere So Allow Industry to Self-Police Unpersuasive! Crime and Consumer Protection are Traditionally Subject to the Rule of Law.
Promoters of self-regulation say that because government can't be anywhere, it is not necessary -- business will step in to form associations to police the industry. First, government can't be everywhere to fight crime, yet we don't respond with the position that government has no role in regulating crime. Second, self-regulation only works because of the threat of the shadow of the law. Third, consumer rights are traditionally regulated by law, that at least sets a floor of protection. Businesses are always welcome to do more, but to argue that they should do it all - with no government regulation - does not provide adequate levels of protection for the consumer.
C. Don't Want to Bind Innovation! Government Legislation Does Not Prevent Alternative Dispute Resolution.
Binding legislation does not prevent alternative dispute resolution or technological innovation.
D. Consumers Don't Sue so They Don't Need Legislation! Absurd. Access to Court Provides Consumers with Power, Even if Most Never Get a Chance to Go to Court.
Historically, access to courts has always been a very powerful tool for consumers. All of the great movements in my country have been aided by access to court to protect rights.
E. There is No Way to Enforce Binding Legislation so There Shouldn't Be Any! Unpersuasive. There Wasn't a Way to Enforce Intellectual Property Concerns and Now Look at WIPO and ICANN.
There was no consensus on intellectual property, and yet look at the treaties now. Whole institutions have been created to enforce the concerns of property over privacy, property over speech, property over consumer protections. Maybe it is time to look at establishing a World Consumer Protection Organization, as Jamie Love has proposed earlier this year, www.cptech.org.
IV. Conclusion
We are tired of consumer protection being the ugly duckling of international policies. Rhetorical speeches about protecting consumers are not enough, we need to make real, meaningful progress, and that depends on having binding legislation -- the rule of law.