We use cookies on this site to provide you with an informative and engaging experience and also to help us to continually improve our site for you. Without allowing cookies certain features of the site will not be available. To learn more about how we use cookies, please view our cookie policy. By clicking on ‘I AGREE’, you consent to our use of cookies on this device in accordance with our policy.

Logo of Wolters Kluwer, Kluwer Law Online
European Review of Private Law
Search content button

Home > All journals > European Review of Private Law > 28(2) >

Island or Ocean: Empirical Evidence on the Average Consumer Concept in the UCPD

Cover image ofEuropean Review of Private Law

$25.00 - Rental (PDF) *

$49.00 - Article (PDF) *

*service fee may apply
Island or Ocean: Empirical Evidence on the Average Consumer Concept in the UCPD


European Review of Private Law
Volume 28, Issue 2 (2020) pp. 293 – 310

https://doi.org/10.54648/erpl2020015



Abstract

This article investigates the codification of the average consumer concept in secondary legislation and its interpretation in the Court of Justice of the European Union(CJEU)’s case law, using doctrinal and empirical methods. We first identify all secondary legislation explicitly using the ‘average consumer’ in its wording and respective case law. We show that only the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) developed significant case law and conducted a software supported systematic qualitative analysis of all UCPD average consumer case law to address five research questions: How is the average consumer test applied? How does the CJEU test the average consumer? How is the average consumer characterized? Who decides who the average consumer is (institutional dimension?) Is the ‘average consumer’ in the UCPD case law the same ‘average consumer’ as elsewhere? The results show that the ‘average consumer’ concept performs a distinct function in UCPD adjudication and has matured to a selfreferential ‘average consumer’ interpretation isolated from case law rendered in other areas. We argue that when the ‘average consumer’ serves as a constitutive feature in order to define what constitutes a misleading practice, a stronger mandate for the CJEU to interpret the concept can be warranted. 


Extract




Subscribe to this journal

Interested in a subscription? Contact our sales team

Browse by practice area
Share
Stay up to date


RSSETOC