INTERNAL COMPLAINT-HANDLING SYSTEMS OF ONLINE PLATFORMS, COMMERCIAL LAW AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS' DUTY OF CARE (original) (raw)
Related papers
Rights and Duties of Online Platforms
Perspectives on Platform Regulation Concepts and Models of Social Media Governance Across the Globe, 2021
One of the two extreme ends of regulatory approaches to online platforms treats platforms as independent governors of speech, the other treats platforms as mere conveyors of third-party content. This paper highlights regulatory provisions and court cases that represent one or the other extreme. However, it ultimately found that the approaches are mixed and some instruments, like the draft Digital Services Act, combine both approaches consciously. While the different approaches may not be reconcilable in all cases, umbrella approaches, such as competition law and international human rights law, may set a higher-level framework to bring more consistency.
On 4th and 5th December 2015, ENTraNCE project had its second workshop, dealing with the antitrust concerns raised by traditional and online platforms. The event was divided into 4 panels over two half-days. The workshop gathered different stakeholders, who exchanged ideas concerning the challenges of enforcing competition rules in markets where platforms play a central role. Attendees included representatives of National Competition Authorities (NCAs), international organizations, academia, industry, as well as law and consulting firms. The workshop generated a lively debate. While there was consensus among participants on some issues, it also emerged that a number of questions needed to be further investigated. This policy brief aims at summarizing the main points raised during the discussion. Moreover, the brief aims at stimulating further debate and defining the background for a possible follow-up workshop on the same topic.
European Regulation on Online Dispute Resolution: A Comment on its Enforcement in Italy
International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, 2018
The European single market is a symbol of European integration. Certainly, the European internal market brings great opportunities to its citizens and professionals, especially when the European legislators enact new provisions in order to boost the internal market. In May 2013, the European legislator enacted two legislative measures, whose aim was to encourage the employment of out-of-court mechanisms in order to solve consumer disputes: the European Regulation establishing the Online Dispute Resolution interactive website and the Directive on Alternative Dispute Mechanisms. Taking its cue from the first report issued by the European Commission on the Online Dispute Resolution, this article focuses on the enforcement of the European Regulation in Italy and concludes that, due to legal incongruence, no enforcement means have been dictated in order to sanction infringements to the European Regulation carried out by Italian professionals.
Online Platforms, Agency, and Competition Law: Mind the Gap
IRPN: Innovation & Regulatory Law & Policy (Topic), 2019
Many of the world’s most valuable companies adopt the online platform business model to bring together different groups of customers—suppliers and customers—seeking to transact with one another. This Article aims to establish the correct legal characterization of these platforms and the implications thereof for competition law purposes. To do so, it explores two related questions: first, whether platforms are agents of their suppliers; and, second, whether the competition law prohibition of anticompetitive agreements should apply to agreements between platforms and suppliers, which restrict competition on the relevant market for the products/services regarding which the platform facilitates a transaction. The first question arises because the platform business model resembles an agency arrangement more than any other, and many platforms selfproclaim to be agents of their suppliers. Yet, the decisional practice and commentary have developed on the premise that they are not agents. Th...
Digital economy is nowadays a Platform economy. This pervading expansion of platforms has been triggered by their value-creating ability and trust-generation potential. The emergence and increasing popularity of disruptive models, such as sharing-based economy, crowdfunding or fintech variants, have been greatly accelerated by platform-based solutions. Platforms have also transformed social, political, public and educational contexts by providing participative and collaborative environments, creating new opportunities, facilitating the creation of communities, mobilizing resources and capital, and promoting innovation. Along with these visible social and economic disruptions, platforms are also legally disruptive. Their self-regulating power, the internal relational complexity, and the potential role of platform operators for infringement prevention and civil enforcement in a possible policy shift towards an increasing intermediaries' responsibility have triggered regulatory interest. The aim of this Paper is to examine the platform model in order to explore the legal anatomy of electronic platforms and identify the key issues to consider for possible legislative actions in respect of the same within the context of the European Union (EU) Digital Single Market. First, the analysis concludes that existing transaction-oriented rules are insufficient to fully cover all legal angles of platforms and do not capture its 'institutional dimension'. Regulations would have to define operators' obligations in relation to users' protection, transparency, prevention or private enforcement. Then, the first key regulatory issue to consider is the role that platform operator may or should play. Second, the analysis reveals that the binominal division of information society service providers is not entirely consistent with the actual role of platform operators for the purposes of the application of the specific intermediary liability rules. Thus, the adoption of a set of uniform criteria under which the platform operator might be deemed as an intermediary, and the devising of a common liability regime for platforms would be critical areas to focus regulatory attention on. Third, as the community-based architecture of platforms enables the articulation of decentralized trust-generating mechanisms (reputational feedback systems, recommender systems, rating and listing), it would be pertinent to consider the elaboration of uniform concepts regarding those decentralized reputational systems, speculate on possible common criteria in design and operation (good practices, standards), and ultimately clarify liability scenarios.
Ecommerce, ICTs and Online Dispute Resolution: Is this the Beginnig of a new proessional Profile?
International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution (IJODR), 2015
There is a close link between the growth of Internet usage, the development of mobile technology, the expansion of markets and the increasing number of online dispute resolution mechanisms (ODRs). This essay seeks to start a conversation about the need to provide justice by means of effective mechanisms, in particular for ecommerce disputes and transnational litigation. It also provides some information on the recent international initiatives towards the regulation of this new arena and finally concludes with an early approach to the future challenges and the impact on training, qualifications and expertise of ODR professionals and service providers.
TOWARDS A REGULATORY THEORY OF PLATFORM RULE: CORPORATE "SOVEREIGNTY" THROUGH IMMUNITIES
St. Mary's Law Journal , 2024
The scale of inflammatory, divisive, false and harmful online content has prompted much soul-searching about its sources, causes and possible responses. This has brought the sweeping immunity in section 230 of the Communication Decency Act (intended to empower platforms as moderators) under intense scrutiny. Far from providing relief, it appears to have turned platforms into a source of the problem. This Article offers a fresh take on section 230, which is - despite its apparent commonplaceness - shown to be an extraordinary legal intervention as it gives important actors, otherwise key to controlling a space, a “carte blanche immunity for wrongful conduct.” That extraordinariness requires an explanation going beyond standard arguments about giving young internet companies some “breathing space” or removing disincentives for content moderation. The discussion starts with the proposition that an immunity entails self-governance, not as a matter of cause and effect, but in purely analytical term being immune means to self-govern within the scope of the immunity, that is to act without legal accountability. Building on the basic understanding of an immunity as self-governance, the Article traces the provenance of section 230 and its sweeping application to online platforms through three very different, but complementary, legal contexts: first, within the landscape of immunities as extraordinary legal devices often employed in support of governing activity; second, within the conception of the corporation as a self-governing institution embedded in immunities and impunities; and, third, within the constitutional framework and its capacity to recognise the “sovereignty-sharing” arrangement of government and platform in cyberspace. The Article’s overarching argument is that section 230 taps into the governing propensity of platforms not just as intermediaries or gatekeepers of online content, but as corporate actors which are, it is argued, inherently immune/self-governing actors with a long-standing history of “sovereignty-sharing” with government. Through this corporate prism the extraordinary “sovereign” role of platforms in cyberspace becomes intelligible. Normatively, the argument recasts platforms as hybrid private-public actors, consistent with the body of corporate scholarship, which postulates the sui generis nature of the corporation as a neither quite private nor quite public. Section 230 intensifies this argument in the case of online platforms. Repositioning online platforms as sitting “on the fence” of the private-public constitutional divide then provides the foundation for asking how constitutional restraints applicable to government may be adapted to ensure platform accountability.
Online dispute resolution: The future of justice
2015
The purpose of this study is to present the main facets of online dispute resolution, including a definition of the term, the types of resolution available, and the most recent legal regulations in this area. The article is an in-depth study of this field, discussing online mediation and electronic arbitration, their uses and their relationships with e-commerce. The strengths and weaknesses of online dispute resolution are identified and used to help formulate de lege ferenda stipulations. The paper is divided into three parts. Part I looks at preliminary aspects of online dispute resolution (ODR), including a definition of the term and an examination of its phases of development, implementation examples and the relationship between ODR and technology. Part II is devoted to examining the two most frequent forms of ODR: online mediation and electronic arbitration. Part III is an analysis of consumer disputes arising from commercial transactions made using electronic communications. As an example of the implementation of ODR, the author emphasises the importance of new European regulations on that and alternative dispute resolution (ADR): Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/ 22/EC (Directive on consumer ADR), and Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Regulation on consumer ODR).