Behavioural Economics, Neuroscience, and the Unfair Commercial Practises Directive

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

    Abstract

    This article suggests how and to what extent insights from behavioural economics and neuroscience may be used for the interpretation of the 2005 Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. These disciplines provide useful insight in how the average consumer’s decisions are influenced by commercial information and conducts. As the Directive focuses on whether a commercial practise distorts the economic behaviour of consumers, arguments for whether a particular commercial practise should be considered unfair may be found within these disciplines. It is important to bear in mind that the assessment that courts are to make is normative, and that behavioural economics and neuroscience is of a more descriptive nature. Thus these disciplines may not help draw the fine line between the legitimate influence of commercial activities and the illegal distortion of the average consumer’s behaviour. However, the average consumer test is at least in principle flexible enough to allow the inclusion of research within human decision-making in order to apply a more realistic average consumer than the “Homo Economicus” applied by the European Court of Justice.
    This article suggests how and to what extent insights from behavioural economics and neuroscience may be used for the interpretation of the 2005 Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. These disciplines provide useful insight in how the average consumer’s decisions are influenced by commercial information and conducts. As the Directive focuses on whether a commercial practise distorts the economic behaviour of consumers, arguments for whether a particular commercial practise should be considered unfair may be found within these disciplines. It is important to bear in mind that the assessment that courts are to make is normative, and that behavioural economics and neuroscience is of a more descriptive nature. Thus these disciplines may not help draw the fine line between the legitimate influence of commercial activities and the illegal distortion of the average consumer’s behaviour. However, the average consumer test is at least in principle flexible enough to allow the inclusion of research within human decision-making in order to apply a more realistic average consumer than the “Homo Economicus” applied by the European Court of Justice.
    LanguageEnglish
    JournalJournal of Consumer Policy
    Volume34
    Issue number3
    Pages377-392
    ISSN0168-7034
    DOIs
    StatePublished - 2011

    Bibliographical note

    Link to full text through CBS Library remote access

    Keywords

      Cite this

      @article{911633054f5a40979aa9997842e690db,
      title = "Behavioural Economics, Neuroscience, and the Unfair Commercial Practises Directive",
      abstract = "This article suggests how and to what extent insights from behavioural economics and neuroscience may be used for the interpretation of the 2005 Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. These disciplines provide useful insight in how the average consumer’s decisions are influenced by commercial information and conducts. As the Directive focuses on whether a commercial practise distorts the economic behaviour of consumers, arguments for whether a particular commercial practise should be considered unfair may be found within these disciplines. It is important to bear in mind that the assessment that courts are to make is normative, and that behavioural economics and neuroscience is of a more descriptive nature. Thus these disciplines may not help draw the fine line between the legitimate influence of commercial activities and the illegal distortion of the average consumer’s behaviour. However, the average consumer test is at least in principle flexible enough to allow the inclusion of research within human decision-making in order to apply a more realistic average consumer than the “Homo Economicus” applied by the European Court of Justice.",
      keywords = "Behavioural economics , Neuroscience, Commercial practise, Informational advertising , Consumers",
      author = "Jan Trzaskowski",
      note = "Link to full text through CBS Library remote access",
      year = "2011",
      doi = "10.1007/s10603-011-9169-2",
      language = "English",
      volume = "34",
      pages = "377--392",
      journal = "Journal of Consumer Policy",
      issn = "0168-7034",
      publisher = "Springer",
      number = "3",

      }

      Behavioural Economics, Neuroscience, and the Unfair Commercial Practises Directive. / Trzaskowski, Jan.

      In: Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 34, No. 3, 2011, p. 377-392.

      Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

      TY - JOUR

      T1 - Behavioural Economics, Neuroscience, and the Unfair Commercial Practises Directive

      AU - Trzaskowski,Jan

      N1 - Link to full text through CBS Library remote access

      PY - 2011

      Y1 - 2011

      N2 - This article suggests how and to what extent insights from behavioural economics and neuroscience may be used for the interpretation of the 2005 Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. These disciplines provide useful insight in how the average consumer’s decisions are influenced by commercial information and conducts. As the Directive focuses on whether a commercial practise distorts the economic behaviour of consumers, arguments for whether a particular commercial practise should be considered unfair may be found within these disciplines. It is important to bear in mind that the assessment that courts are to make is normative, and that behavioural economics and neuroscience is of a more descriptive nature. Thus these disciplines may not help draw the fine line between the legitimate influence of commercial activities and the illegal distortion of the average consumer’s behaviour. However, the average consumer test is at least in principle flexible enough to allow the inclusion of research within human decision-making in order to apply a more realistic average consumer than the “Homo Economicus” applied by the European Court of Justice.

      AB - This article suggests how and to what extent insights from behavioural economics and neuroscience may be used for the interpretation of the 2005 Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. These disciplines provide useful insight in how the average consumer’s decisions are influenced by commercial information and conducts. As the Directive focuses on whether a commercial practise distorts the economic behaviour of consumers, arguments for whether a particular commercial practise should be considered unfair may be found within these disciplines. It is important to bear in mind that the assessment that courts are to make is normative, and that behavioural economics and neuroscience is of a more descriptive nature. Thus these disciplines may not help draw the fine line between the legitimate influence of commercial activities and the illegal distortion of the average consumer’s behaviour. However, the average consumer test is at least in principle flexible enough to allow the inclusion of research within human decision-making in order to apply a more realistic average consumer than the “Homo Economicus” applied by the European Court of Justice.

      KW - Behavioural economics

      KW - Neuroscience

      KW - Commercial practise

      KW - Informational advertising

      KW - Consumers

      U2 - 10.1007/s10603-011-9169-2

      DO - 10.1007/s10603-011-9169-2

      M3 - Journal article

      VL - 34

      SP - 377

      EP - 392

      JO - Journal of Consumer Policy

      T2 - Journal of Consumer Policy

      JF - Journal of Consumer Policy

      SN - 0168-7034

      IS - 3

      ER -