Table of Contents

Bitcoin Myths and Facts

Campbell R. Harvey, Duke University - Fuqua School of Business, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)

Market Driven Network Neutrality and the Fallacy of a Two-Tiered Internet Traffic Regulation

Guenter Knieps, University of Freiburg
Volker Stocker, University of Freiburg (Germany)

India's Draft the Right to Privacy Bill 2014 – Will Modi's BJP Enact it?

Graham Greenleaf, University of New South Wales, Faculty of Law

Agenda Setting and the Class Action

Mark Moller, DePaul University - College of Law

Small Claims in Ireland and the EU: The Need for Synergy between National Courts and Extrajudicial Redress

Pablo Cortes, University of Leicester - School of Law

Law and Economics of Self-Regulation in Advertising

Franziska Weber, University of Hamburg - Institute of Law and Economics


CONSUMER LAW eJOURNAL

"Bitcoin Myths and Facts" Free Download

CAMPBELL R. HARVEY, Duke University - Fuqua School of Business, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
Email:

I will address eight common claims about bitcoin: 1. Physical bitcoins exist; 2. The founder of bitcoin is a person called Satoshi Nakamoto; 3. Bitcoin is mainly used for criminal activity; 4. A lack of security plagues bitcoin; 5. Mining is a waste of energy; 6. Bitcoin too small today to be an important economic force; 7. Bitcoin is currently too volatile to be viable; 8. Bitcoin is just another currency.

For additional details beyond "Bitcoin Myths and Facts," I have another paper/slidedeck called "Cryptofinance" that goes deeper into the mechanics of cryptocurrencies. It is available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2438299.

"Market Driven Network Neutrality and the Fallacy of a Two-Tiered Internet Traffic Regulation" Free Download
Paper to be presented at the 42nd Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy (TPRC), September 12-14, 2014, George Mason University, Arlington,VA.

GUENTER KNIEPS, University of Freiburg
Email:
VOLKER STOCKER, University of Freiburg (Germany)
Email:

Within a Generalized DiffServ architecture entrepreneurial flexibility for building intelligent multipurpose traffic architectures enables the provision of a variety of tailored traffic services for a wide range of heterogeneous application services In order to solve the entrepreneurial traffic capacity allocation problem, we propose an incentive compatible pricing and quality of service (QoS) differentiation model for the Generalized DiffServ architecture resulting in market driven network neutrality. Optimal allocation decisions based on the opportunity costs of capacity usage require to simultaneously take into account all relevant traffic classes rather than 1) to exclude traffic classes (by means of minimal traffic quality requirements), 2) to prescribe a maximal or minimal number of traffic classes or 3) to arbitrarily include parameter specificities for or levels of QoS which are not reflected by demand side. Of particular importance is that the opportunity costs of capacity reservations for deterministic premium traffic classes are interrelated with subsequent non-deterministic traffic classes. As a consequence, every form of market split would be artificial.

"India's Draft the Right to Privacy Bill 2014 – Will Modi's BJP Enact it?" Free Download
(2014) 129 Privacy Laws & Business International Report, 21-24

GRAHAM GREENLEAF, University of New South Wales, Faculty of Law
Email:

From 2011-13 there there were three significant proposals for a comprehensive data privacy law in India but none gained the endorsement of the previous government. The overwhelming victory in India’s May 2014 national elections of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) may end the log-jam of legislative inactivity that characterised the last few years of the previous Congress-led government.

In February 2014 the previous Bills were joined by the draft The Right to Privacy Bill 2014, a redraft of its 2011 draft Bill by the Committee of Secretaries (CoS), the heads of seven of India’s most powerful Ministries and Departments. This draft Bill represents the current thinking of India’s bureaucracy, and the election of a new government capable of enacting legislation makes it timely to review its main provisions.

This article argues that, for residents of India (but not persons overseas), this Bill would, if enacted, provide significant protections of international standards, if they were enforced. That is a significant ‘if’, because the enforcement mechanisms in the current ‘Rules’, particularly the Cyber-Appellate Tribunal (CAT) which this Bill also relies upon, have not functioned for three years. India has no track record whatsoever of enforcing data privacy laws. It would be up to the proposed data protection authority (DPA) to change that before The Right to Privacy Act would be credible. This brief assessment is not a detailed critical appraisal of the Bill, which would no doubt reveal many points of detail on which it could be improved, but the overall structure of the Bill is sound in theory, and compares well with most data privacy laws in Asia.

A related issue is that the BJP did not have any specific election policy in relation to India’s universal ID numbering system (UID), and so is not committed to scrapping it. BJP Ministers have floated a possible merger of the National Population Register (NPR) being developed by the Registrar General of India (RGI) and the UID. Expanded use of personal identifiers such as the UID are one reason the Notes to the draft 2014 Bill say ‘a need has been felt’ for data privacy legislation. It remains a strong possibility that these two issues will be dealt with together.

"Agenda Setting and the Class Action" Free Download

MARK MOLLER, DePaul University - College of Law
Email:

This Article develops a separation of powers argument for narrowly construing the federal class action rule. Previous arguments along these lines turn on the idea that class actions abridge injured parties’ substantive rights to control their own claims. I argue here that this idea is misguided — policymakers generally don’t intend any particular allocation of claim-control rights when they create rights of action. They mostly leave that issue to be filled in by courts’ evolving interpretation of background procedures. As a result, substantive law can’t do the work the theory enlists it to do.

This Article’s alternative separation of powers argument starts from a different premise — class actions do not alter class members’ substantive right to control their claims, but they do transform federal courts’ role in the federal system. The system of limited federal judicial power is constructed through a constellation of rules, including, the Article shows, the rules that specify who gets to control rights of action. Displacing the traditional principle that claim owners control their own claims, as class actions do, changes federal courts’ role in the federal system — by dramatically expanding what federal courts get to decide. This is true, indeed, regardless of the subject matter jurisdiction rules in which federal class actions operate. This point sets up a new way to defend narrowly interpreting Rule 23. It is one more way in which Congress’s control of federal courts’ share of authority in the federal system is enforced “by interpretation.?

"Small Claims in Ireland and the EU: The Need for Synergy between National Courts and Extrajudicial Redress" Free Download
N. Neuwahl S. Hammamoun (eds.), The Philosophy of Small Change: Transnational Litigation in the EU and Beyond (Éditions Thémis, 2014)

PABLO CORTES, University of Leicester - School of Law
Email:

This chapter explores how the European Small Claims Procedure (ESCP) can be complemented by extrajudicial redress mechanisms, particularly in light of the recently approved European legislation in the area of consumer Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). This chapter starts by examining the ESCP in Ireland and notes that, what makes the domestic Small Claims Procedure effective cannot be easily replicated in the ESCP. This is namely is an online access to the procedure and an adequate forum for settling meritorious claims with the assistance of Registrars. This chapter notes that the online dispute resolution platform, which the European Commission is due to launch at the start of 2016, could be instrumental in improving consumer redress in a holistic manner if it, firstly, requires parties to explore the suitability of ADR schemes (i.e. where there is a basis for voluntary settlement), and secondly, when out-of-court redress is not possible, channels claims to the competent court.

"Law and Economics of Self-Regulation in Advertising" 
Journal of European Consumer and Market Law, 3.1 (2014), pp 5-16

FRANZISKA WEBER, University of Hamburg - Institute of Law and Economics
Email:

This paper looks at the effectiveness and usefulness of establishing a self-regulatory entity (SRE) in the advertising sector. In different countries one finds different forms of this type of institution. It may play a role in ensuring that misleading and aggressive advertisements are stopped and furthermore deal with questions of taste and decency of certain advertisements. Taking a broad view a SRE can be classified as a law enforcement mechanism the existence of which may be crucial to induce advertisers to law-abiding, compliant behavior. This paper will present a comparative legal analysis of various European SREs within a law and economics framework.

^top

About this eJournal

This eJournal distributes working and accepted paper abstracts of articles, recently published articles, books, legislative reports, conferences, and other publications that address issues of interest to consumer law scholars and practitioners. Coverage includes legal issues pertaining to advertising, consumer reporting (including credit repair organizations), discrimination (including redlining), consumer disclosure (such as the Truth in Lending Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and consumer leasing), consumer fraud (including issues arising under the Federal Trade Commission Act, state UDAP statutes, odometer laws, referral sales, and bait and switch statutes), unconscionability, standard form contracts, consumer privacy (including telemarketing, spam, spyware, phishing, direct mail, financial privacy, common law privacy torts in consumer transactions, and online privacy), identity theft, data protection, cooling off rules (including door to door sales regulation), payment systems (such as credit and debit cards, internet payment issues, stored value cards (including gift cards and phone cards), and electronic transfers), warranties (including UCC warranties, lemon laws, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act), consumer product safety, commercial speech doctrine, debt collection, repossession, predatory lending (including asset-based lending, equity stripping, flipping, balloon payments, negative amortization, loan packing, rate-risk disparities and yield-spread premiums), payday lending, usury, credit insurance, electronic shopping (including electronic signatures and records, formation of contracts, and payments), the holder in due course regulation, mortgages, student loans, repossession, foreclosure, regulation that pertains to consumer markets and enforcement of consumer laws (including class actions, preemption, arbitration, administrative enforcement, small claims courts and attorney's fees). The eJournal does not cover landlord-tenant issues or criminal law. The eJournalwelcomes a broad range of methodological approaches, including conventional doctrinal analyses, law and economics approaches, historical discussions, socio-legal analyses, law and society approaches, discussions of consumer psychology that bear on legal issues, international law analyses and comparative law approaches.

Submissions

To submit your research to SSRN, sign in to the SSRN User HeadQuarters, click the My Papers link on left menu and then the Start New Submission button at top of page.

Distribution Services

If your organization is interested in increasing readership for its research by starting a Research Paper Series, or sponsoring a Subject Matter eJournal, please email: RPS@SSRN.com

Distributed by

Legal Scholarship Network (LSN), a division of Social Science Electronic Publishing (SSEP) and Social Science Research Network (SSRN)

Directors

LSN SUBJECT MATTER EJOURNALS

BERNARD S. BLACK
Northwestern University - School of Law, Northwestern University - Kellogg School of Management, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Email: bblack@northwestern.edu

RONALD J. GILSON
Stanford Law School, Columbia Law School, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Email: rgilson@leland.stanford.edu

Please contact us at the above addresses with your comments, questions or suggestions for LSN-Sub.

Advisory Board

Consumer Law eJournal

RICHARD M. ALDERMAN
Associate Dean, Director - Consumer Law Center, Dwight Olds Chair in Law, University of Houston Law Center

JEAN BRAUCHER
Roger Henderson Professor of Law, University of Arizona - James E. Rogers College of Law

MARK ELLIOTT BUDNITZ
Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law

MICHAEL M. GREENFIELD
George Alexander Madill Professor of Contracts and Commercial Law, Washington University in Saint Louis - School of Law

ALVIN C. HARRELL
Professor of Law, Oklahoma City University - School of Law

CREOLA JOHNSON
Professor of Law, Ohio State University - Michael E. Moritz College of Law

DEE PRIDGEN
Associate Dean and Professor of Law, University of Wyoming College of Law

IAIN D. C. RAMSAY
Professor of Law, University of Kent, Canterbury - Kent Law School

RALPH J. ROHNER
Professor of Law, Catholic University of America - Columbus School of Law

NORMAN I. SILBER
Associate Dean for Intellectual Life and Professor of Law, Hofstra University School of Law