157th CoR Plenary Session (10-11 Oct 2023)

information on European Commission's consumer protection policies, strategies and statistics.

Indicative chapters:
- Consumer protection in the European Union regarding planned obsolescence and the right to repair;
- Smart contracts, artificial intelligence and consumer protection;
- The divisibility of an accelerated repayment clause where only some of the causes are unfair prevents its total eradication;
- Consumer-centred electricity markets in the EU: opportunity or trap?

In line with the overall objectives of the European Green Deal, the proposed initiative aims to render consumption more sustainable by increasing the repair and reuse of defective consumer goods, both within and outside their legal guarantee. It complements two related initiatives that are currently pending (eco-design and empowering consumers for the green transition). The IA presents a clear intervention logic and a seemingly comprehensive qualitative and quantitative assessment of the impacts of the seven policy options proposed, from which it derives a preferred set of options. The comparison of the environmental, economic, social and consumer impacts of the different policy options (including sub-options) relies inter alia on the results of a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) and a cost-benefit analysis (CBA). The IA is specific about the costs that businesses would incur in the context of the OIOO approach. Overall, the proposed directive appears to reflect the preferred set of options identified in the IA. The entire IA draws to a large degree on a supporting study focusing on economic and behavioural analysis, the methodology of which is described in detail in Annex 4. However, despite over 100 direct references to that 'IA study', the IA does not provide access to the supporting study (not even a bibliographic reference), nor does it justify why the study is not disclosed, which goes against the transparency requirements set out in the BRG.

The European Commission has announced the establishment of a 'right to repair', with a view of saving costs for consumers and facilitating the development of a circular economy. The right to repair may refer to different issues and situations: repair during the legal guarantee, the right to repair after the legal guarantee has expired, and the right for consumers to repair products themselves. Rates of repair depend on the type of a product, with the cost of repair being the most important reason consumers avoid repair. Research shows that consumers favour products that are easily repaired, but their willingness to pay for such products depends on the type of product and the way information on the reparability is presented to them.

On 30 March 2022, the Commission published a proposal for a directive empowering consumers for the green transition, through better protection against unfair practices and better information. The proposal is designed to enhancing consumer rights in making informed choices in order to play an active role in the transition to a climate-neutral society. It proposes new rules to provide consumers with information on products' sustainability, in particular their durability and reparability, at the point of purchase. It also aims to promote commercial guarantees exceeding the two-year legal guarantee, as well as to ban false and misleading green claims ('greenwashing') and certain types of premature obsolescence of products. In the European Parliament, the file has been referred to the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. In the Council, discussions have started in the working party on consumer protection and information. First edition. The 'EU Legislation in Progress' briefings are updated at key stages throughout the legislative procedure.

Amazon’s business depends on deliveries. Deliveries, in turn, require drivers. In 2015, Amazon piloted a new model: paying drivers per gig to use their own vehicles to drop off time-sensitive deliveries like groceries and same-day orders.1 Amazon offered $18 to $25 per hour2 and explicitly promised drivers “100% of the tips [they] earn.”3 But Amazon soon started cutting costs. Without telling drivers, it began diverting tips to cover the base pay rate it promised and changed its app to not show drivers’ tip earnings separately.4 Amazon continued this practice for several years — representing to both customers and drivers that drivers would receive all tips — until it learned that it was under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).5 The FTC found “reason to believe”6 Amazon had violated a statutory prohibition on “unfair or deceptive acts or practice" […]