Search results (723 cards)

Advanced search

Main information

A contract between Free (a French Internet Service Provider) and one of its subscribers contained a clause stipulating that access to audiovisual services was conditional upon the eligibility of the user’s telephone line for such services. The Court of Cassation deems that except in cases of force majeure, such a clause does not exempt the service provider from his strict liability to provide such services

On 9 June, the SEC made an announcement on its website.

• The Regulator itself issued the amount of the award to a whistleblower for having providing it with information. Why is that? One would usually take a lower profile when awarding this much money ($17m) to an informer… Conversely, the Regulator immediately and publicly announced it in a press release, which pretty looked like a tender offer for further denunciations. It even included a link for everyone to access the whistleblower program—which is easily funded, since the awards are charged on the fines imposed on the convicted operators thanks to the information given.

 

• The reason for this is that information from whistleblowers is not merely indicative, nor a second-best option; it is central to Regulation, since it leads the Regulator to get information people within the system (i.e., insiders) deliberately chooses to ‘blow’ (in fact, not only do informers blow the whistle—they often immediately provide the Regulator with substantial information).

 

• The press release includes justifications for the Regulator’s behaviour, as the SEC openly considers that rewarding whistleblowers is the most efficient way for the Regulator to open or to resolve investigations. The Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement stated indeed that “company insiders are uniquely positioned to protect investors and blow the whistle on a company’s wrongdoing by providing key information to the SEC so we can investigate the full extent of the violations”.

 

• This highlights the ambivalence of insiders. Accordingly, they need to be ‘inside’ the system to be ‘knowledgeable’ and, consequently, obtain privileged information. On the one hand, should they use this information for themselves, then they would face prosecution for market abuse; on the other hand, however, if they use it to stir up the Regulator and shift its attention towards the whistle they’re blowing, then they may earn just as much money, if not more, than if they had behaved in a way that would have led them to prison.

 

The stage is thus set for the "business of virtue" to thrive.

 

 

 

The Autorité de la régulation des communications électroniques et des postes - ARCEP (French Telecommunications and Posts Regulator) organized the Colloquium on "la neutralité des réseaux" The Network Neutrality), which took place on April 13, 2010. Each actor uses the generality of the term ‘neutrality’ in an interpretation that best suits his opinions. However, neutrality means that there should be no discrimination between Internet users; however, it does not mean that they have the right to everything for free: because there has to be some sort of traffic and bandwidth management, consumer and copyright protection, it is necessary to strike a balance between these contradictory rights in order to allow the network to develop. Therefore, a regulator is necessary. The future development of the Internet depends upon it. For the moment, nobody knows who these legitimate regulators are, and how they would be able to regulate these competing forces, organize information transparency, and encourage long-term investment, while preserving competition at the same time.

Main information

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit strikes down a decision that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the American telecommunications regulation agency, had taken against an Internet service provider, on the grounds that the FCC is incompetent to impose the theory of network neutrality on Internet service providers.

Main information

The European Court of Justice handed down a judgement on September 9th 2010 in which it ruled that two criteria of the Austrian Glücksspielgesetz (the Federal Law on Games of Chance) violated articles 43 and 49 EC, that is to say the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services.

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., When Compliance Law is violated, does the "right to be (re)compensated"​ exist, and must it be encouraged or not? - The Marriott case, Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 20th of August 2020

Read by freely subscribing the other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

 

Summary of the news

In August 2020, Marriott International, online hotel room booking platform, has be sued before an English court by a consulting firm through a "class action" technic. The firm ask to Marriott International compensates the clients whose personal data jas been hacked while Marriott International which was in charge of this data, did not implement all it could to protect these data. According to the plaintiff firm, making the online platform responsible in Ex Ante of the clients' data security and constraint it to compensate injured clients in case of failure is a more important incentive for the firm to do its best to protect this data than a simple fine.    

Many similar actions are ongoing, especially during English Courts where the practice of "class action" is more developed. The question is therefore to know whether it is interesting to encourage the development of this kind of process in France. Concretly, a substantial subjective right (here the right to have its data protected) exists only if it is accompanied by a procedural right to size the judge in order to he or she activates it. The right to ask for a compensation in case of violation of these Compliance obligations but also is therefore not only a strong incentive for firms but also a condition of effectivity of these same obligations, knowing that the effectivity is the major care of Compliance Law.  

Main information

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit strikes down a decision that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the American telecommunications regulation agency, had taken against an Internet service provider, on the grounds that the FCC is incompetent to impose the theory of network neutrality on Internet service providers.

Translated Summaries

In The Journal of Regulation the summaries’ translation are done by the Editors and not by the authors

ENGLISH

Article: What does it mean to be neutral ? Socrates in the land of regulators

Should regulatory agencies, as we define them in today’s economic and cultural world, be obligated to be neutral in accomplishing their regulatory activities? What would the meaning of such an obligation be?

ITALIAN

Articolo: Cosa vuol dire essere neutrale? Socrate nella terra dei regolatori

Le autorità di regolazione, come sono denominate oggigiorno nel mondo economico e culturale, dovrebbero essere obbligate ad essere neutrali quando compiono le loro attività di regolazione? Quale sarebbe il significato di un tale obbligo?

.....................

Other translations forthcoming.

TRANSLATED SUMMARIES

ENGLISH

"Acting in a neutral way" is an oxymoron. "Companies often require however that States use their powers in a neutral way (eg tax neutrality). In regulated sectors, some are right or even duty , of not being neutral. Firstly, it is the State, which requires the market for other purposes, other temporalities and other values​​. Secondly, they are also the "crucial operators", which are sort of regulators of second degree, such as transmission system operators or companies capital markets firms. The difficulty increases when the systeme requires neutrality of regulators and judges, when first build economic policy and the second create jurisprudence. Their consistency, impartiality and rationality can create an objectifiable neutralitys

FRENCH

«Agir de façon neutre» est un oxymoron. «Les entreprises ont souvent besoin, cependant, que les États utilisent leurs pouvoirs de manière neutre (neutralité fiscale par exemple).

Dans les secteurs réglementés, certains ont le droit ou même le devoir de ne pas être neutre. Tout d’abord, c’est l’État, qui insère le marché à d’autres fins, d’autres temporalités et d’autres valeurs. En second lieu, ils sont aussi les «opérateurs crucial», qui sont des sortes de régulateurs du second degré : par exemple les opérateurs de réseaux de transport ou de entreprises de marchés financiers.

La difficulté augmente lorsque le systeme économique et politique exige la neutralité des autorités de régulation et des juges, alors que les premiers construisent la politique économique et les seconds construisent la jurisprudence. Le respect qu'ils doivent avoir de l'impartialité et d'une rationalité suffisamment objectivables pourra permettre cette objectivité requise.

Main information

On December 20, 2011, the European Commission adopted a decision based on the Almark ruling that expounds upon the four conditions necessary so that compensation paid by a State to any state-owned or private company entrusted with the operation of a public service not require prior notification of the European Commission, despite the general prohibition on State Aids. Each state has a wide margin of discretion in the definition of services that could be classified as being services of general economic interest. A communication and de minimis regulation will complete this decision.