EC Boils Consumer Law Ocean On Eve of #Brexit Referendum

Perfectly timed to coincide with a peak in frustration with EU red tape, the European Commission has just published its plan to ruin everyone's summer consultation on the 'fitness' of six consumer directives, and is also busy reviewing a seventh (the Consumer Rights Directive):

• Unfair Contract Terms Directive 93/13/EEC;
• Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive 1999/44/EC;
• Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC;
• Price Indication Directive 98/6/EC;
• Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive 2006/114/EC;
• Injunctions Directive 2009/22/EC.

Try to avoid falling asleep in the sun!

Will this result in less red tape? I could hazard a guess, but we won't really know until it's too late. The Commission reports its findings in mid-2017.

The Role of Consumer Contracts, Advice and Disclosure

Great discussion at a CSFI event this morning, focusing on the difference between financial advice and guidance, and touching on the FCA's very encouraging plans to support a far better consumer experience and more innovation generally. A key theme in the discussion centred on the role of consumer contracts in the supply of financial services, and it was clear there needs to be more discussion on the tension between regulation, contracts and product information. 

Of course, the starting point was that lengthy consumer contracts are 'silly' - a point made by John Kay last year and discussed on the SCL blog. But it's important to recognise that contracts act as a layer between law and regulation and the information a consumer sees when buying and using a financial service. They represent a service provider's public statement of how it interprets the law and regulation to apply to its service. That statement is critical not only for consumers themselves, but also for the courts and many stakeholders on whom consumers rely to protect them (indeed governments have even deputised global service providers as private sheriffs, relying on violations of their terms of service to 'shut down' Wikileaks, for example). In addition, financial instruments - loans, bonds, shares - that are agreed or traded in the course of using most financial services are themselves simply sets of terms and conditions.

The reason consumers are confronted by such terms and conditions is that the courts have insisted that consumers must be given an opportunity to read and agree them if they are to govern the customer relationship. It is this interactive process of offer and acceptance that produces an enforceable "contract" (along with some form of 'consideration'). Unless and until Parliament changes the basis for establishing contract law in the UK, we're stuck with that approach. 

Yet this morning it was suggested that a consumer should not even need to the opportunity to read and agree terms and conditions in order to benefit from them. Revolutionary stuff, unless you live on the continent, where a lot more of what we see as contractual terms are embedded in civil codes. This of course removes a lot of commercial flexibility, and means the market moves at the speed of law and regulation... which would undermine the FCA's object of promoting innovation.

Of course, the financial services sector is arriving late to the debate about how to enable consumers to properly agree and understand the substance of a contract without necessarily drilling into the fine print unless they so wish. The intellectual property community came up with the Creative Commons licensing model in 2001 and, more recently, the World Economic Forum has been trying to foster a similar approach to the use of personal data.

But the critical issue in every case is whether the simplified summaries that consumers see and agree actually reflect the terms and conditions on which a firm says it is doing business; whether those terms and conditions are consistent with applicable law and regulation; and, finally, whether the firm's business processes and computers actually operate on the same basis. Here we run into the tension between Big Data and the growing array of technology that puts you in control of Your Data - data about you, or which you generate in the course of your activities.

This is certainly not an area where the FCA can go it alone, and it's great to see their representatives (not to mention someone from the Treasury) participating in open debates such as the one this morning. 

Caution On Payday Loans Cap: It's A Midata Problem

The government is right to resist automatically capping interest rates for short term or 'payday' loans, and to insist on an evidence-based approach to the market which takes account of unintended consequences. Powers to cap rates, prevent endless renewals and aggressive, unsupportive collections activity are important. But it's critical to understand the real problem confronting the payday borrower before leaping to solutions.

Until now, the popularity of short term loans has been positioned in Parliament as a moral problem (rich for MPs!) for which an interest rate cap is the solution. 

But the annualised percentage rate (APR) for short term loans is misleading and unhelpful for borrowers in context. It only enables comparison of one short term loan against another. And it produces such a strange result against longer term loans that borrowers ignore it - especially, as those loans may not be available to short term borrowers anyway.

Typically, a short term loan is applied for when other debts are due, fees are about to be incurred and other consequences are biting or about to bite. The relevant data points include the cost of unauthorised overdrafts, default fees on card accounts, the consequences of missing the rent, failing to pay a phone or energy bill, and so on. Borrowers react to the worst of the known consequences when borrowing, but may not be aware of them all, let alone take them all into account when assessing the best option.

This is a data problem, not an interest rate problem associated with just one of the options available to the borrower.

What would be helpful is a tool that enables comparison of all the options facing a short term borrower in the borrowing context.

Such applications are evolving, and it's important to note that the government is also playing a role to foster that evolution.

The Midata initiative, for instance, is aimed at producing solutions to meet exactly this kind of challenge. It aims to drive the development of simple applications that will access a person's own transaction data (including fees) to enable that person to make better purchasing decisions. Initially, the government is targeting suppliers in markets for energy, mobile phones, current accounts and credit cards. But it has issued a warning to others. 

If only we could get our MPs to focus on proportionate solutions to the root causes of society's problems rather than embarking on populist moral crusades and fiddling their expenses!

Warning Shot Fired Over Midata

The government is preparing the way for regulations to enable consumers and small businesses to request all their transaction data related to energy, mobile phones, current accounts and credit cards. If considered necessary, regulations could be in place in 2013, and may target other markets where certain factors point to consumer detriment.

The decision follows a consultation in the summer, and the full  response is here.

The proposals should add momentum to the voluntary Midata programme fostered by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills to help industry and consumer representatives resolve some of the key challenges in the 'core' consumer markets.

The Information Commissioner’s Office would take the lead role in enforcing any regulations, while concurrent enforcement powers could be given to sector-specific regulators.

The 'transaction data' at stake are the records of a consumer’s own purchases or consumption from a supplier - what the consumer bought, where and how much they paid for it - not the supplier's subsequent analysis. The data would have to be released in computer-readable format to enable it to be analysed by the consumer or a service provider of his/her choosing. This would help prevent suppliers gaining an unfair pricing advantage over consumers, for example, and make it easier for consumers to figure out the product right for them.

Factors the government might consider when deciding whether to expand the programme to other sectors include: 

• the market is not working well for consumers, e.g. consumers find it difficult to make the right choice or their behaviour affects pricing it's difficult to predict that behaviour;

• there's a one-to-one, long-term relationship between the business and the customer, with a stream of ongoing transactions;

• consumer engagement is limited, e.g. low levels of switching or competition; and

• suppliers don't voluntarily provide transaction/consumption data to customers at their request in portable electronic format.

I should add that I am involved in the Midata programme, as a member of the Interoperability Board, and on working groups considering issues related to data transmission and law/regulation.

Sailing The Wide EC?

Loyal readers will know that I usually picture the European Commission cooking breakfast.

But recently I've begun to conceive of the EC as lashed to the wheel of the good ship Eurozone amidst a howling gale and mountainous seas, courageously holding course for the mystical land known by some as the Single Market. I fancy that their struggle against all odds reveals something of the pioneering spirit that perhaps one might grudgingly admire, if only as an enthusiastic collector of red tape.

Anyhow, last week saw the publication of the EC's consumer agenda and a report on consumer policy.

Happy reading.

An EU Contract Law? Too Tough To Digest

A hat-tip to Mayer Brown for the heads-up on the latest in the saga of a proposed European Contract Law. We have until 1 July to send feedback on 189 individual articles included in a 'feasibility study'. The Commission will then consider that feedback, together with the results of an earlier consultation.

As I have posted previously in another place, I'm not terribly supportive of a new European Contract Law. It doesn't fix any real problem, and it won't catalyse a single, cross-border market - notwithstanding the rationale advanced by the European Commission. The example used is:

"An Irish consumer buys an MP3 player online from a French retailer. In this case, Irish contract law would apply if the French retailer has designed his website for Irish consumers."

This is a strange scenario, littered with odd assumptions. Besides, there are notable instances of successful cross-border retailing in the EU that rely on the law of a single Member State as the law of the contract. And choice of law is the least of the barriers to setting up such an operation, as the European Commission itself discovered in the context of the reform of laws related to consumer rights and consumer credit. In particular, a May 2007 study by Civic Consulting revealed that:

“the main [non-regulatory] barriers hindering selling of consumer credit products in other EU Member States are different language and culture; consumers’ preference for national lenders; credit risk for lenders – no access to creditworthiness information; problems related to tax, employment practices etc.; difficulties to penetrate local market; different consumer demand in different Member States; lack of consumer confidence in a brand; differing stages of development of consumer credit; and lack of adequate marketing strategies.”

Furthermore, the law should follow, not lead commerce (though I realise that is a common law, rather than a civil law view). Otherwise, it acts as a hurdle to innovation and market development, and only those who are 'good at regulation' (incumbent players) will cope.

A pan-European contract law also conflicts with the principle already enshrined in various financial and other regulatory frameworks that, in general, the law in a corporation's home Member State should govern that corporation's cross-border EU activities. In fact, given the preponderance of any EU-based cross-border retailer's trade is with the citizens of its home state (with the exception of retailers based in Luxembourg) this proposal would seem to envisage retailers either imposing European Contract Law on their local customers, or creating separate set of terms for cross-border customers. I don't see how either is helpful, other than to generate work for the likes of... well, me.

But I'm not in the business of creating more hurdles for cross-border trade. So, while I will of course personally attempt to digest yet another European dog's breakfast, I propose to focus my drafting energies on an exclusion clause that will mean my clients and their customers won't have to.

Apply within ;-)