Enter the quagmire – the complicated relationship between data protection law and consumer protection law

This article examines the complex relationship between consumer protection law and data protection law, particularly within the EU's online environment, and highlights the problems that stem from this complexity. It suggests that, while there are significant similarities between their respective sources, tools and purposes, there are also arguable differences between consumer protection law and data protection law. One such arguable difference is found in that, while consumer protection law can be seen to merely set a floor in its pursuit of a sufficiently high level of consumer protection, data protection law – due to its clearly articulated dual purposes of (a) protecting individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and (b) providing for the free movement of such data – sets both a floor and a ceiling.Having discussed the relationship between consumer protection law and data protection law in more detail, the argument is made that it seems possible to conclude that the balance struck in the Data Protection Directive, and soon in the General Data Protection Regulation, places limitations on consumer protection law. The implications of this conclusion are then examined briefly in the context of some matters currently coming before the CJEU and the contours of a framework are presented, addressing situations where a data protection-based liability claim is pursued against a third-party non-controller under consumer protection law.     

Cross border data transfer: Complexity of adequate protection and its exceptions

The majority of the fear that exists about the cloud arises due to the lack of transparency in the cloud. Fears have persisted in relation to how the data are frequently transferred in a cloud for various purposes which includes storing and processing. This is because the level of protection differs between countries and cloud users who belong to countries which provide a high level of protection will be less in favour of transfers that reduce the protection that was originally accorded to their data. Hence, to avoid client dissatisfaction, the Data Protection Directive has stated that such transfers are generally prohibited unless the country that data is being transferred to is able to provide ‘appropriate safeguards’. This article will discuss the position of the Data Protection Directive and how the new General Data Protection Regulation differs from this Directive. This involves the discussion of the similarity as well as the differences of the Directive and Regulation. In summary, it appears that the major principles of the cross border transfer are retained in the new regulation. Furthermore, the article discusses the exceptions that are provided in the standard contractual clause and the reason behind the transition from Safe Harbor to the new US-EU Privacy Shield. This article subsequently embarks on the concept of Binding Corporate Rule which was introduced by the working party and how the new regulation has viewed this internal rule in terms of assisting cross border data transfer. All the issues that will be discussed in this article are relevant in the understanding of cross border data transfer.     

The ICO and artificial intelligence: The role of fairness in the GDPR framework

The year 2017 has seen many EU and UK legislative initiatives and proposals to consider and address the impact of artificial intelligence on society, covering questions of liability, legal personality and other ethical and legal issues, including in the context of data processing. In March 2017, the Information Commissioner's Office (UK) updated its big data guidance to address the development of artificial intelligence and machine learning, and to provide (GDPR), which will apply from 25 May 2018.This paper situates the ICO's guidance in the context of wider legal and ethical considerations and provides a critique of the position adopted by the ICO. On the ICO's analysis, the key challenge for artificial intelligence processing personal data is in establishing that such processing is fair. This shift reflects the potential for artificial intelligence to have negative social consequences (whether intended or unintended) that are not otherwise addressed by the GDPR. The question of ‘fairness’ is an important one, to address the imbalance between big data organisations and individual data subjects, with a number of ethical and social impacts that need to be evaluated.     

Political support through representation by the government. Evidence from Dutch panel data

Research on political support demonstrates that satisfaction with democracy is higher among electoral winners than losers, and that it is higher for citizens who are ideologically more congruent with the government. In this paper, I analyze how support for the political system is affected by representation by the government. Expanding on previous studies, I leverage long-run panel data from the Dutch LISS panel spanning over several electoral cycles. Drawing on various measures that go beyond the distinction between election winners and losers and also measure how close citizens are to the government coalition as a whole, I show that being well represented by the government has a wide-ranging positive relationship with satisfaction with democracy, external efficacy and trust in political institutions. While this relationship is mostly short-run, political support can decline substantially if non-representation persists in the long-run. This highlights the relevance of long-run panel data for studying the consequences of representation.     

Are European Elections Second-Order Elections for Everyone?

Second-order election (SOE) theory has been used to explain voting behaviour in European elections. Voters believe that less is at stake in some elections and some voters hence tend to cast a protest vote. However, most studies on the topic have focused on the demand side of SOEs – i.e. on the voters – and have ignored or only partially tackled the supply side – i.e. the strategic behaviour of parties – and excluded small and marginal parties (SMPs). However, SMPs may have greater incentive to seriously compete in SOEs. The 2019 European Parliament elections in Germany were particularly interesting to SMPs as there was no voting threshold, thereby increasing the chances of SMPs. To capture whether SMPs view European elections as first-order elections and therefore expend more resources than parliamentary parties on these elections, I analysed campaign expenditures and manifestos. Results indicate that SMPs act within a rational actor framework, though not unequivocally.