Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Consumer Redress: Ideology and Empiricism

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Varieties of European Economic Law and Regulation

Part of the book series: Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation ((SEELR,volume 3))

Abstract

This chapter examines the means by which redress can be delivered to consumers. Public and private enforcement has been a continuous interest for Hans Micklitz, and this chapter is offered to him with deep admiration and appreciation for his support and friendship.

The analysis adopts a strictly empirical approach. It starts by asking what subject matter C2B claims comprise, and how much money they involve, before reviewing the evidence on the extent to which the main procedural options for processing them satisfy consumers’ and businesses’ needs. It notes that traditional assumptions that providing consumers with ‘the means to take matters into their own hands’ through enforcing rights to compensation through private or collective litigation in courts crumble when viewed against empirical evidence, and that new structures are being built in the EU for the resolution of consumers’ claims with traders (C2B claims). It identifies recent developments that private enforcement in Europe has been overtaken by what has been called ‘Consumer ADR’ (CDR) and public enforcement as more effective and efficient means of consumer redress. The goal of providing ‘access to justice’ for consumers and extensively increasing consumer redress is now realizable through the adoption of fresh techniques.

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 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
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.

    Office of Fair Trading, Consumer detriment.Assessing the frequency and impact of consumer problems with goods and services OFT992 (2008), http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/consumer_protection/oft992.pdf.

  2. 2.

    ibid.

  3. 3.

    TNS BMRB, Consumer Detriment 2012, www.consumerfocus.org.uk/files/2012/10/TNS-for-Consumer-Focus-Consumer-Detriments-2012.pdf.

  4. 4.

    ECC, Help and Advice on your Purchases Abroad. The European Consumer Centres Network 2012 Annual Report, http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/ecc/docs/report_ecc-net_2012_en.pdf.

  5. 5.

    The Consumer Conditions Scoreboard 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_research/editions/docs/9th_edition_scoreboard_en.pdf: quoting source as ECC Network.

  6. 6.

    ECC, Annual Report 2012, 13.

  7. 7.

    European Commission, Special Eurobarometer 342. Consumer empowerment (2011), http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_empowerment/docs/report_eurobarometer_342_en.pdf 175.

  8. 8.

    OFT, Consumer detriment.

  9. 9.

    European Commission, Special Eurobarometer, European Union citizens and access to justice (Oct 2004), 28.

  10. 10.

    ibid.

  11. 11.

    B Feldtmann, H von Freyhold and EL Vial, The Costs of Legal Obstacles to the Disadvantage of Consumers in the Single Market, a Report for the European Commission (1998), available at http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/pub03.pdf, 277 f, referring to H von Freyhold, V Gessner, EL Vial and H Wagner, Costs of Judicial Barriers for Consumers in the Single Market, A report for the European Commission (1995), available at http://aei.pitt.edu/37274/1/A3244.pdf.

  12. 12.

    Von Freyhold et al. Costs of Judicial Barriers, 276.

  13. 13.

    J Stuyck, E Terryn, V Colaert, T Van Dyck, N Peretz, N Hoekx and T Tereszkiewicz, Study on Alternative Means of Consumer Redress other than Redress through Ordinary Judicial Proceedings (Catholic University of Leuven, 2007) 41, available at http://www.consum.cat/documentacio/9028.pdf.

  14. 14.

    European Commission, Special Eurobarometer 342.

  15. 15.

    ibid, QA38a, 217.

  16. 16.

    ibid, 217.

  17. 17.

    ibid.

  18. 18.

    European Commission, Flash Eurobarometer 299 on consumers’ attitudes towards cross-border sales and consumer protection, http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/strategy/docs/consumer_eurobarometer_2011_en.pdf, 21.

  19. 19.

    European Commission, Special Eurobarometer 342, 204.

  20. 20.

    European Commission, Flash Eurobarometer 278. Business attitudes towards enforcement and redress in the internal market. Analytical report, http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/strategy/docs/Fl278_Analytical_Report_final_en.pdf.

  21. 21.

    European Commission, Flash Eurobarometer 300 on business attitudes towards cross-border trade and consumer protection, http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/strategy/docs/retailers_eurobarometer_2011_en.pdf, 76

  22. 22.

    Civic Consulting, Assessment of the compliance costs, including administrative costs/burdens on businesses linked to use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) (2011) 8.

  23. 23.

    ECC, 2010 Annual Report, 12, http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/ecc/docs/2010_annual_report_ecc_en.pdf

  24. 24.

    FIN-NET, FIN-NET activity report 2011, http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/fin-net/docs/activity/2011_en.pdf.

  25. 25.

    European Commission, Special Eurobarometer 342.

  26. 26.

    Commission Staff Working Paper.Impact Assessment.Accompanying the document:Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Alternative Dispute Resolution for consumer disputes (Directive on consumer ADR) and Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Online Dispute Resolution for consumer disputes (Regulation on consumer ODR), SEC(2011) 1408 (‘CDR Impact Assessment’).

  27. 27.

    ibid.

  28. 28.

    ‘A new Strategy for the Single Market—At the service of Europe’s economy and society’, Report to the President of the European Commission (9/5/2010).

  29. 29.

    Commission Communication ‘Single Market Act’, COM(2011) 206, 9.

  30. 30.

    Europe 2020 flagship initiative: A Digital Agenda for Europe, COM(2010) 245, 13.

  31. 31.

    CDR Impact Assessment, Annex II.

  32. 32.

    See Annex II for the calculation method.

  33. 33.

    CDR Impact Assessment, Annex XII.

  34. 34.

    See Annex XII for the calculation method.

  35. 35.

    The Cost of Non-ADR—Surveying and showing the actual costs of Intra-community Commercial Litigation. Funded by the European Union (specific programme Civil Justice 2007-2013), implemented by a consortium led by ADR Center, in collaboration with the European Company Lawyers Association (ECLA) and the European association of Craft, Small and Medium sized Enterprises (UEAPME).

  36. 36.

    Based on a domestic dispute in the EU for a value of € 200,000. However, in Annex XII a more conservative approach regarding the cost and time-savings is considered for the calculations (i.e. € 7,000).

  37. 37.

    Civic Consulting, Assessment of the compliance costs. However, in Annex XII of the CDR Impact Assessment the more extreme figure of € 854 was used for the calculations, since this was the cost for dealing with ADR for the first time.

  38. 38.

    Consumer Scoreboard 2013, 14.

  39. 39.

    N Creutzfeldt, ‘The Origins and Evolution of Consumer Dispute Resolution Systems in Europe’ in C Hodges and A Stadler (eds), Resolving Mass Disputes: ADR and Settlement of Mass Claims (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2013).

  40. 40.

    S Voet, ‘Public Enforcement & A(O)DR as Mechanisms for Resolving Mass Problems: A Belgian Perspective’ in Hodges and Stadler (eds), Resolving Mass Disputes.

  41. 41.

    Pursuant to a requirement on regulators under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2007, s 22 (2) and (3) to comply with the Regulators’ Compliance Code, made under s 22 of that Act, which includes the aim of eliminating any financial gain or benefit from non-compliance.

  42. 42.

    Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, as amended, ss 383 and 404.

  43. 43.

    Energy Bill 2013.

  44. 44.

    Dir 2009/22/EC on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests.

  45. 45.

    F Weber, The Law and Economics of Enforcing European Consumer Law. A Comparative Analysis of Package Travel and Misleading Advertising (Farnham, Ashgate, 2014).

  46. 46.

    Report from the Commission concerning the application of Directive 98/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interest, COM(2008) 756 final.

  47. 47.

    CDR Impact Assessment, 14.

  48. 48.

    eg Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, France, Italy, Latvia, Austria, Sweden, Slovakia and the UK.

  49. 49.

    Reg (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws, [2004] OJ L 364/1.

  50. 50.

    For example, the recently adopted EU legislation in the energy sector reinforces regulators’ powers and duties in monitoring the development of competition and ensuring enhanced customer protection and information. The regulators will have new powers, such as the power to issue binding decisions, carry out investigations and impose effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties. See Dir 2009/72/EC and 2009/73/EC, [2009] OJ L 211/55 and 94.

  51. 51.

    CDR Impact Assessment, 14.

  52. 52.

    Stuyck et al. Study on Alternative Means of Consumer Redress, 214-222.

  53. 53.

    Reg (EC) No 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, Art 2(1).

  54. 54.

    Dir 2008/52/EC on mediation in civil and commercial matters.

  55. 55.

    It is interesting that many analyses of the merits of private enforcement omit the basic criteria of cost, duration and outcomes: see a recent analysis by SB Burbank, S Farhang and HM Kritzer, ‘Private Enforcement’ (2013) 17 Lewis & Clark Law Review 637.

  56. 56.

    C Hodges, S Vogenauer and M Tulibacka, The Costs and Funding of Civil Litigation. A Comparative Perspective (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2010).

  57. 57.

    European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), European judicial systems Edition 2010 (data 2008): Efficiency and quality of justice (2010), available at http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/evaluation/2010/JAReport2010_GB.pdf, 159.

  58. 58.

    EU Justice Scoreboard : A tool to promote effective justice and growth, COM(2013) 160 final, 13, Fig. 20, citing CEPEJ 2012. The annual approved (not the actually executed) public budget allocated to functioning of all courts (civil, commercial and criminal courts, without the public prosecution services and without legal aid), whatever the source of this budget. For the EU Member States whose total annual approved budget allocated to all courts cannot be separated from the figures for the public prosecution department (BE, DE, ES, EL, FR, LU, AT), the chart reflects the total figure (for BE, ES and AT the figure also includes the legal aid). Where appropriate, the annual approved budget allocated to the functioning of all courts includes the budget both at national level and at the level of regional or federal entities.

  59. 59.

    CEPEJ, European judicial systems Edition 2012, http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/evaluation/2012/Rapport_en.pdf, ch 5.

  60. 60.

    Reg (EC) No 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, Art 1.

  61. 61.

    See C Crifò, ‘Europeanisation, Harmonisation and Unspoken Premises: The Case of Service Rules in the Regulation on a European Small Claims Procedure (Reg. No. 861/2007)’ (2011) 30 Civil Justice Quarterly 283: ‘an ungainly juggernaut’, ‘the legal landscape appears, far from simplified, further complicated’; XE Kramer, ‘Small Claim, Simple Recovery?’ (2011) 1 ERA Forum 119; XE Kramer and EA Ontanu, ‘The Functioning of the European Small Claims Procedure in the Netherlands: Normative and Empirical Reflections’ (2013) 3 Nederlands Internationaal Privaat-recht 319: ‘the number of cases handled in the ESCP is limited. (…) Apparently consumers still find it difficult to find their way to this procedure (…) the duration of the procedure is on average three to five months’.

  62. 62.

    Reg 861/2007, Arts 16 and 10.

  63. 63.

    ECC-Net, European Small Claims Procedure Report (2012).

  64. 64.

    EA Ontanu and E Pannebakker, ‘Tackling Language Obstacles in Cross-Border Litigation: The European Order for Payment and the European Small Claims Procedure Approach’ (2012) 5(3) Erasmus Law Review 169.

  65. 65.

    N Reich, ‘Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in Cross-Border Consumer Complaints.Socio-Legal Remarks on an Ongoing Dilemma Concerning Effective Legal Protection for Consumer-Citizens in the European Union’ (1998) 21 Journal of Consumer Policy 315, 318; summarising V Gessner, ‘Pursuing Cross-Border Claims in Europe’ (1998) 21 Journal of Consumer Policy 334.

  66. 66.

    Reg (EC) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast).

  67. 67.

    H Kalven Jr and M Rosenfield, ‘The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit’ (1941) 8 University of Chicago Law Review 684; S Issacharoff and I Samuel, ‘The Institutional Dimension of Consumer Protection’ in F Cafaggi and H-W Micklitz (eds), New Frontiers of Consumer Protection. The Interplay between Private and Public Enforcement (Antwerp, Intersentia, 2009); C Hodges, ‘Objectives, Mechanisms and Policy Choices in Collective Enforcement and Redress’ in J Steele and W van Boom (eds), Mass Justice (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2011).

  68. 68.

    JC Coffee Jr, ‘Rescuing the Private Attorney General: Why the Model of the Lawyer as Bounty Hunter is not Working’ (1983) 42 Maryland Law Review 215; B Garth, IH Nagel and SJ Plager, ‘The Institution of the Private Attorney General: Perspectives from an Empirical Study of Class Action Litigation’ (1987–88) 61 Southern California Law Review 353; LM Grosberg, ‘Class Actions and Client-Centered Decision-making’ (1989) 40 Syracuse Law Review 709.

  69. 69.

    G Becker, ‘Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach’ (1968) 76 Journal of Political Economy 169; GJ Stigler, ‘The Theory of Economic Regulation’ (1971) 3 Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 3; M Faure, A Ogus and N Philipsen, ‘Curbing consumer financial losses: the economics of regulatory enforcement’ (2009) 31 Law & Policy 161.

  70. 70.

    R Baldwin and M Cave, Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy, and Practice (New York, Oxford University Press, 1999); SP Huntington, ‘The Marasmus of the ICC: The Commission, the Railroads, and the Public Interest’ (1952) 61 The Yale Law Journal 467; Stigler, ‘The Theory of Economic Regulation’; ME Levine and JL Forrence, ‘Regulatory Capture, Public Interest, and the Public Agenda: Toward a Synthesis’ (1990) 6 Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 167; J-J Laffont and J Tirole, ‘The Politics of Government Decision-Making: A Theory of Regulatory Capture’ (1991) 106 The Quarterly Journal of Economics 1089; PJ May and S Winter, ‘Regulatory Enforcement and Compliance: Examining Danish Agro-Environmental Policy’ (1999) 18 Journal of Political Analysis and Management 625.

  71. 71.

    Strong statements against the ‘abusive’ nature of US-style class actions were made by European leaders over several years, culminating in the European Parliament Resolution of 2/2/2012 ‘Towards a Coherent European Approach to Collective Redress’ 2011/2089(INI)and Communication from the Commission ‘Towards a European Horizontal Framework for Collective Redress’ COM(2013) 401/2.

  72. 72.

    C Hodges, ‘Collective Redress: A Breakthrough or a Damp Sqibb?’ (2014) Journal of Consumer Policy forthcoming.

  73. 73.

    Garth et al. ‘The Institution of the Private Attorney General’.

  74. 74.

    Eurobarometer 299, 30.

  75. 75.

    CDR Impact Assessment, 21.

  76. 76.

    Eurobarometer 300, 79. This evidence is further reinforced when looking at the satisfaction of businesses; of those who used ADR, 76 per cent found it a satisfactory way to settle the dispute European Business Test Panel, http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ebtp/consultations/2010/adr/index_en.htm.

  77. 77.

    European Business Test Panel, http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ebtp/consultations/2010/adr/index_en.htm.

  78. 78.

    Civic Consulting, Study on the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the European Union. Final Report (2009), 41; Civic Consulting, Assessment of the compliance costs. See also CDR Impact Assessment, 21.

  79. 79.

    C Hodges, I Benöhr and N Creutzfeldt-Banda, Consumer ADR in Europe (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2012) 381.

  80. 80.

    Directive on consumer ADR, Art 8(b) and (c).

  81. 81.

    Ombudsman Services Limited, Annual Report and Accounts 2012-2013 (2013), reporting gross turnover £8,088,517, 122,589 contacts and 19,639 complaints resolved.

  82. 82.

    F Weber, C Hodges and N Creutzfeldt-Banda, ‘Sweden’ in Hodges, Benöhr and Creutzfeldt-Banda, Consumer ADR in Europe.

  83. 83.

    Encouraged by, for example, Dir 2011/83/EU on consumer rights.

  84. 84.

    CEPEJ 2012, n 57 above, Fig. 9.12, http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/evaluation/2012/Rapport_en.pdf.

  85. 85.

    CEPEJ, Study on the functioning of judicial systems and the functioning of the economy in the EU Member States (2012), available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/index_en.htm.

  86. 86.

    EU Justice Scoreboard 2013.

  87. 87.

    EU Justice Scoreboard 2013, Fig. 2, citing CEPEJ 2012.

  88. 88.

    ibid, 7.

  89. 89.

    ibid, 11.

  90. 90.

    ibid, 17.

  91. 91.

    Civic Consulting, Assessment of the compliance costs, 8. Litigious civil (and commercial) cases were defined to ‘concern disputes between parties, for example disputes regarding contracts and the insolvency proceedings. By contrast, non-litigious civil (and commercial) disputes concern uncontested proceedings, for example, uncontested payment orders.’

  92. 92.

    Dir on consumer ADR, Art 8(e).

  93. 93.

    Hodges, Benöhr and Creutzfeldt-Banda, Consumer ADR in Europe, 381.

  94. 94.

    Ombudsman Services Limited, Annual Report and Accounts 2012-2013, 13.

  95. 95.

    In England see https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome.

  96. 96.

    CDR Impact Assessment.

  97. 97.

    ECODIR stands for ‘Electronic Consumer Dispute Resolution’ and is concerned with disputes for transactions between businesses and consumers taking place over the Internet; http://www.ecodir.org/fr/index.htm

  98. 98.

    RisolviOnline (http://www.risolvionline.com) is a service offered by the Milan Mediation Chamber that allows the resolution of commercial Disputes and can be used be used both by individual consumers/users and by enterprises.

  99. 99.

    The Online Schlichter (https://www.online-schlichter.de/de/ueber_uns/index.php) is competent for the handling of e-commerce disputes, i.e. disputes over contracts which were concluded online.

  100. 100.

    For example, for a brief history and overview of ODR, including at the international level, see P Cortes, Online Dispute Resolution for Consumers in the European Union (London, Routledge, 2011).

  101. 101.

    Civic Consulting, Assessment of the compliance costs, 100 and 143.

  102. 102.

    European Business Test Panel results available at http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ebtp/consultations/2010/adr/statistics_en.pdf

  103. 103.

    Preliminary results on a study on the development of e-commerce in the EU, to be published in the second half of 2011.

  104. 104.

    S Voet, ‘Belgium’ in Hodges, Benöhr and Creutzfeldt-Banda, Consumer ADR in Europe; Voet, ‘Public Enforcement &A(O)DR’.

  105. 105.

    These issued are addressed in Dir 2013/11/EU on consumer ADR, Arts 6-12.

  106. 106.

    EU Justice Scoreboard 2013, Fig. 23, citing source as World Economic Forum. The survey was replied by a representative sample of firms in all countries representing the main sectors of the economy (agriculture, manufacturing industry, non-manufacturing industry, and services).

  107. 107.

    EU Justice Scoreboard 2013, Fig. 24, citing source as World Justice Project.

  108. 108.

    CDR Impact Assessment, 5.

  109. 109.

    ibid, 23.

  110. 110.

    ibid, 20.

  111. 111.

    CH van Rhee and A Uzelac (eds), Civil Justice between Efficiency and Quality: from Ius Commune to the CEPEJ (Antwerp, Intersentia, 2008).

References

  • Baldwin, R and Cave, M, Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy, and Practice (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G, ‘Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach’ (1968) 76 Journal of Political Economy 169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burbank, SB, Farhang, S and Kritzer, HM, ‘Private Enforcement’ (2013) 17 Lewis & Clark Law Review 637.

    Google Scholar 

  • Civic Consulting, Study on the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the European Union. Final Report (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Civic Consulting, Assessment of the compliance costs, including administrative costs/burdens on businesses linked to use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • Coffee Jr, JC, ‘Rescuing the Private Attorney General: Why the Model of the Lawyer as Bounty Hunter is not Working’ (1983) 42 Maryland L Rev 215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coffee Jr, JC, ‘Understanding the Plaintiff’s Attorney: The Implications of Economic Theory for Private Enforcement of Law Through Class and Derivative Actions’ (1986) 86 Columbia Law Review 669.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creutzfeldt, N, ‘The Origins and Evolution of Consumer Dispute Resolution Systems in Europe’ in C Hodges and A Stadler (eds), Resolving Mass Disputes: ADR and Settlement of Mass Claims (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • Crifò, C, ‘Europeanisation, Harmonisation and Unspoken Premises: The Case of Service Rules in the Regulation on a European Small Claims Procedure (Reg. No. 861/2007)’ (2011) 30 Civil Justice Quarterly 283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faure, M, Ogus, A and Philipsen, N, ‘Curbing consumer financial losses: the economics of regulatory enforcement’ (2009) 31 Law & Policy 161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldtmann, B, von Freyhold, H and Vial, EL, The Costs of Legal Obstacles to the Disadvantage of Consumers in the Single Market, a Report for the European Commission (1998), available at http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/pub03.pdf.

  • Garth, B, Nagel, IH and Plager, SJ, ‘The Institution of the Private Attorney General: Perspectives from an Empirical Study of Class Action Litigation’ (1987-88) 61 Southern California Law Review 353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gessner, V, ‘Pursuing Cross-Border Claims in Europe’ (1998) 21 Journal of Consumer Policy 334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosberg, LM, ‘Class Actions and Client-Centered Decision-making’ (1989) 40 Syracuse Law Review 709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, C, Vogenauer, S and Tulibacka, M, The Costs and Funding of Civil Litigation. A Comparative Perspective (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, C, ‘Objectives, Mechanisms and Policy Choices in Collective Enforcement and Redress’ in J Steele and W van Boom (eds), Mass Justice (Edward Elgar, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, C, Benöhr, I and Creutzfeldt-Banda, N, Consumer ADR in Europe (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, C, ‘Collective Redress: A Breakthrough or a Damp Sqibb?’ (2014) Journal of Consumer Policy forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, SP, ‘The Marasmus of the ICC: The Commission, the Railroads, and the Public Interest’ (1952) 61 The Yale Law Journal 467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, XE, ‘Small Claim, Simple Recovery?’ (2011) 1 ERA Forum 119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, XE and Ontanu, EA, ‘The Functioning of the European Small Claims Procedure in the Netherlands: Normative and Empirical Reflections’ (2013) 3 Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Issacharoff, S and Samuel, I, ‘The Institutional Dimension of Consumer Protection’ in F Cafaggi and H-W Micklitz (eds), New Frontiers of Consumer Protection. The Interplay between Private and Public Enforcement (Antwerp, Intersentia, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalven Jr., H and Rosenfield, M , ‘The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit’ (1941) 8 University of Chicago Law Review 684.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laffont, J-J and Tirole, J, ‘The Politics of Government Decision-Making: A Theory of Regulatory Capture’ (1991) 106 The Quarterly Journal of Economics 1089.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, ME and Forrence, JL, ‘Regulatory Capture, Public Interest, and the Public Agenda: Toward a Synthesis’ (1990) 6 Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 167.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, PJ and Winter, S, ‘Regulatory Enforcement and Compliance: Examining Danish Agro-Environmental Policy’ (1999) 18 Journal of Political Analysis and Management 625.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ontanu, EA and Pannebakker, E, ‘Tackling Language Obstacles in Cross-Border Litigation: The European Order for Payment and the European Small Claims Procedure Approach’ (2012) 5(3) Erasmus Law Review 169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich, N, ‘Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in Cross-Border Consumer Complaints. Socio-Legal Remarks on an Ongoing Dilemma Concerning Effective Legal Protection for Consumer-Citizens in the European Union’ (1998) 21 Journal of Consumer Policy 315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, GJ, ‘The Theory of Economic Regulation’ (1971) 3 Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuyck, J, Terryn, E, Colaert, V, Van Dyck, T, Peretz, N Hoekx, N and Tereszkiewicz, T, Study on Alternative Means of Consumer Redress other than Redress through Ordinary Judicial Proceedings (Catholic University of Leuven, 2007), available at http://www.consum.cat/documentacio/9028.pdf,

  • van Rhee, CH and Uzelac, A (eds), Civil Justice between Efficiency and Quality: from Ius Commune to the CEPEJ (Antwerp, Intersentia, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • von Freyhold, H, Gessner, V, Vial, EL, and Wagner, H, Costs of Judicial Barriers for Consumers in the Single Market, A report for the European Commission (1995), available at http://aei.pitt.edu/37274/1/A3244.pdf.

  • Voet, S, ‘Belgium’ in C Hodges, I Benöhr and N Creutzfeldt-Banda, Consumer ADR in Europe (Hart Publishing, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Voet, S, ‘Public Enforcement & A(O)DR as Mechanisms for Resolving Mass Problems: A Belgian Perspective’ in C Hodges and A Stadler (eds), Resolving Mass Disputes: ADR and Settlement of Mass Claims (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, F, Hodges, C, and Creutzfeldt-Banda, N, ‘Sweden’ in C Hodges, I Benöhr and N Creutzfeldt-Banda, Consumer ADR in Europe (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, F, The Law and Economics of Enforcing European Consumer Law. A Comparative Analysis of Package Travel and Misleading Advertising (Farnham, Ashgate, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands

    Christopher Hodges

  2. Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, University of Oxford, Manor Road Building, Manor Road, Oxford OX1 3UQ, Oxford, UK

    Christopher Hodges

Authors
  1. Christopher Hodges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Hodges .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Law and Governance Group, Faculty of Law, Wageningen University, Erasmus University of Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Kai Purnhagen

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Peter Rott

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hodges, C. (2014). Consumer Redress: Ideology and Empiricism. In: Purnhagen, K., Rott, P. (eds) Varieties of European Economic Law and Regulation. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04903-8_39

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation