faux saint laurent bag
In 2018, the European Commission launched its attempt at reform in consumer protection, known as the New Deal, whose goal is to strengthen online consumer rights, adapting the legal framework to the technological and sociological changes that have occurred in recent years.Footnote 1 One of the main objectives of the New Deal is to reinforce the transparency of online marketplaces and digital platforms, which face challenges in different areas, such as ranking search results, the identity of contractual parties, and online rating and review systems.Footnote 2 In the US, at the federal level, the fair competition principle is protected primarily through the Lanham Act 1940.Footnote 26 Additionally, the FTCA grants the FTC the authority to prevent the use of unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, declaring them illegal. The Lanham Act in particular provides for a cause of action against unfair competition from false or misleading product descriptions in its Section 43(a) and the competitors who make false or misleading descriptions or representations of facts about their own or others' products or services would-be held liable. (Barish 2018, pp. 848–849). Therefore, as long as the fake reviews refer to facts or objective data, a business may bring a suit against those engaged in the publication of fake reviews under this Act. In contrast, when fake reviews convey opinions, the avenue of recourse provided by the Lanham Act cannot be explored. As seen in the above, fake reviews is clearly illegal and unethical practice. Here we analyse how the US and European public authorities, both administrative and judicial, are dealing with this form of unlawful practices. EU legislation allows Member States to choose what type of control they want to exercise over illegal advertising, whether it is judicial or administrative.Footnote 46 The three countries that we are considering by way of illustration have different approaches to this issue. In the UK, consumer law enforcement is entrusted to the Trading Standards Services, which is funded by, and accountable to the local authorities as well as to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).Footnote 47 The focus of the CMA is the market, while the Trading Standards Services tackles detriment to the consumers more generally. In Spain, the actions against illegal advertising are resolved by ordinary courts.Footnote 48 When illegal advertising affects consumers, regional authorities may impose administrative sanctions.Footnote 49 In Italy, ordinary courts resolve conflicts due to unfair competition and illegal advertising. In addition, advertising regulations attribute the power to prosecute and punish illegal advertising to the administrative body Autorità Guarante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM).Footnote 50 In the US, the competent authority at the federal level to pursue deceptive, covert, and unfair advertising is the FTC.Footnote 51 In some States, as we have already noted, the Attorney General also has disciplinary powers. Actions against fake reviews grounded in the Lanham Act are decided by ordinary courts. Dellarocas (2003, 1409) underlines the fact that online feedback can assist an organization to better understand consumer reactions to its current product line. In Spain, Martínez Nadal (2015, p. 462) has suggested that negative fake reviews can also be fought through the right of rectification, according to the Spanish Regulation 2/1984, 26.03.1984, on the right to rectification (Ley Orgánica 1/1984, de 26 de marzo, sobre el derecho de rectificación). The application of this right, however, is problematic, since it refers to erroneous objective information published in the Media. On the one hand, it is far from clear that online platforms can be considered social Media; on the other hand, most of the times negative fake reviews consist in mere opinions and do not convey objective information. Statement of Commissioner Rohit Chopra joined by commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, In the Matter of Sunday Riley, 21.10.2019. In their statement, the commissioners point out: "Today's proposed settlement includes no redress, no disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, no notice to consumers, and no admission of wrongdoing. Sunday Riley and its CEO have clearly broken the law, and the Commission has ordered that they not break the law again. Unfortunately, the proposed settlement is unlikely to deter other would-be wrongdoers. (...) The proposed resolution of this matter suggests that even the narrow subset of wrongdoers who are caught and attract law enforcement scrutiny will face minimal sanctions. (...) This settlement sends the wrong message to the marketplace. Dishonest firms may come to conclude that posting fake reviews is a viable strategy, given the proposed outcome here". faux saint laurent bag