Posted by Emil A. Georgiev on 15 April, 2010
Have you been dispirited to buy things online due to uncertainty as to how far is the reach of your consumer rights? Then if you have, I may hereby present a ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) that provides for more legal clarity and encourages consumers to rely on their rights guaranteed by the Directive 97/7/EC on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts.
In particular, the ECJ ruled that suppliers must not seek to recover delivery cost from consumers deciding to withdraw from a distance contract. Funny enough, but the expense underlying the instant case amounted to only EUR 4,95. Yes, you are reading it correct: EUR 4,95. I know, the question as to who on earth would bother the ECJ for that laughable sum would be fully appropriate, however to the extent that, German meticulosity was not concerned. I believe, we should thank the Germans for their soft spot for accuracy and morality thereby resulting in consumer protection in particular and in legal certainty in general.
Having said the above, one should, however, not forget the somewhat special German scheme to protect consumer rights. Germany maintains so-called “Verbraucherzentrallen” or associations for consumer protection which are in charge to observe and enforce consumer rights and interests. In the instant case the association for consumer protection in the province of Nord Rhine – Westphalia succeded in obtaining an injunction against an online supplier and will eventually win the case. As such associations are publicly funded, they do not necessarily fear a defeat in court proceedings. That is most probably the reason for said association’s zeal to go through all the instances for such a case.
From a legal point of view, the ECJ’s ruling is remarkable as it precludes national legislation that does not grant a buying consumer, upon their withdrawal, with an explicit right to reimburse the cost of delivering the goods previously ordered. By so ruling, the ECJ strengthens the consumer protection and bars a possible imbalance between suppliers and consumers in distance contracts.
Posted in consumer protection, e-commerce | Tagged: delivery cost, directive on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts, distance contract, ECJ, right to withdraw, Verbraucherzentralle | 7 Comments »
Posted by Emil A. Georgiev on 9 March, 2010
I guess every Internet and e-mail user has at least once received a spam, scam or any other sort of a junk mail in their inbox. So far, the system admins at my employer have always managed to filter such undesired messages. Yesterday, however, I received an e-mail that has apparently succeeded to overcome the protection designed to restrain it.
It is not the usual marketing spam telling you how to buy cheap watches or to enlarge certain body parts, but rather a scam mocking an urgent situation. The sender pretends to be Marina Encheva and the e-mail reads as follows:
How’s everything on your end? This has had to come in a hurry and it has left me in a devastating state. I travelled to UK for a volunteer Training Program (UTP 2010), unfortunately for me I was robbed and my wallet was taken at the hotel where I lodged. The Embassy only cleared me of my travelling documents and ticketing since I came in on unofficial purposes. I only need to clear the hotel bills before I can leave but ofcourse they stopped billing me since the incident. I didn’t bring my phones here and the hotel telephone lines were disconnected during the robbery, so I have access to only emails. Please can you send me £1370 as early as possible so I can return home. As soon as I get home I would refund it immediately, I need you to get back to me so I can let you know how to send.
I’m looking forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
Marina.
So what – could the well informed Internet user ask – spam should not bother you anymore in these days – do not overestimate it! To an extent that would be fine – I would reply – but there are not only well informed users surfing the net. The average users’ age is said to amount to 28 years and as a result of Web 2.0′s advent more and more minors are entering the net. No doubt, the Internet brings many advantages that oftenly show its bright side, but spam, scam & Co show definitely its dark one.
Spam mails are in the most times misleading or even fraudulent. Hence they have the potential to cause damage to their recipients. Yes, just look at the above spam mail and consider the “professional” drafting skill applied to create it. The most users, I am sure, would cross-read and then delete such a mail. A certain, maybe small percentage would read it carefully, and then spend some time questioning its authenticity prior to deleting it. An even smaller percentage might consider some support and probably contact the sender with an offer to help. That’s it, that’s how it works. This is what these guys are aiming at.
It is possible that the sender’s e-mail account has been hacked and misused by a wrongdoer. It is however possible that the sender is truly experiencing the described difficulties.
In any case, I will take the risk and have the sender, whoever she or he may be, wait for my reply until the cows come home.
Posted in communication, consumer protection, data protection | Tagged: encheva, junk e-mail, professional, spam | 7 Comments »
Posted by Emil A. Georgiev on 21 November, 2009
Do you have an account on Facebook? And are you probably tired of reading messages like “your friend XXX just won first place on Fraternity’s Drinking Bout”*? Well, such messages are likely to disappear or at least become less in future.
The reason behind is that Facebook and its social network games’ supplier Zynga are currently facing a class action for having frauduently lured social networks users to lose money in online games, ads and quizzes.
The lead claimant in the case is a woman named Rebecca Swift, who has been charged over $165 as a result of accepting a “free” ad offer in exchange for YoCash usable in Zynga’s YoVille virtual world. She claims neither to have accepted an offer nor to have acted in an intent to be legally bound.
Both defendants counter that the ad offers in suit were provided by outside undertakings for whom they were not liable. The claimant, however, alleges the defendants displayed the fradulent offers knowingly and were thus liable.
The suit seeks to obtain upwards of $5 million in damages.
*The game’s name is absolutely fictional.
Posted in consumer protection, e-commerce | Tagged: facebook, online games, scam, social networks, virtual fraud | Leave a Comment »
