Goodreader.com, here.
Saturday, October 31, 2015
Friday, October 30, 2015
Zum Gerichtsstand bei kollektiven Kartellschadensersatzklagen
Gerichtshof Amsterdam, Urteil vom 21.7.2015, Geschäftsnummer: 200.156.295/01 - Kemira/CDC, hier.
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Generating innovative and sustainable solutions to social challenges using open data
Open Data Institute and Nesta, here.
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
High-Cost Short-Term Credit Price Comparison Websites
London Economics for the for the UK Financial Conduct
Authority, here.
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Monday, October 26, 2015
ECJ Judgment in AC-Treuhand (C-194/14 P) – On the scope of Art. 101 (1) TFEU
A. Lamadrid and S. Villiers, here.
Serial offenders: Why some industries seem prone to endemic collusion
Background Note by the OECD Secretariat, here.
The impact of disruptive innovations on competition law enforcement
A. de Streel and P. Larouche for the OECD, here.
Sunday, October 25, 2015
Saturday, October 24, 2015
UN Report: Protection of Sources and Whistleblowers
Special Rapporteur tothe UN General Assembly, here.
Friday, October 23, 2015
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
UK’s largest online pharmacy fined £130,000 for selling patients’ data to scammers
MedConfidential, here.
ICO's "Monetary Penalty Notice" here.
"35. Pharmacy2U has obtained personal data unfairly because its online registration form and privacy policy did not inform its customers that it intended to sell their details to third party organisations, in addition to sending out its own marketing material. It would not be within a customer’s reasonable expectation that this form of disclosure would occur, even if they were willing to agree to the receipt of marketing material from Pharmacy2U itself. If a customer wished to take up Pharmacy2U’s offer to opt out of “Selected company data sharing”, they also had to go to the trouble of logging into their account and changing the setting.
36. In addition, Pharmacy2U did not provide the further information that was necessary to enable the processing in respect of its customers to be fair.
37. In the circumstances, Pharmacy2U’s customers did not give their informed consent to the sale of their personal data to third party organisations. Therefore Pharmacy2U did not have a lawful basis for processing the data under Part I of Schedule 2 to the DPA.
73. The Commissioner has decided that it is appropriate to issue a monetary penalty in this case, in light of the nature and seriousness of the contravention, Pharmacy2U’s shortcomings in terms of its DPA duties and the risks posed to a number of individuals. He has also considered the importance of monetary penalties in dissuading future contraventions of the DPA and encouraging compliance, in accordance with his policy."
ICO's "Monetary Penalty Notice" here.
"35. Pharmacy2U has obtained personal data unfairly because its online registration form and privacy policy did not inform its customers that it intended to sell their details to third party organisations, in addition to sending out its own marketing material. It would not be within a customer’s reasonable expectation that this form of disclosure would occur, even if they were willing to agree to the receipt of marketing material from Pharmacy2U itself. If a customer wished to take up Pharmacy2U’s offer to opt out of “Selected company data sharing”, they also had to go to the trouble of logging into their account and changing the setting.
36. In addition, Pharmacy2U did not provide the further information that was necessary to enable the processing in respect of its customers to be fair.
37. In the circumstances, Pharmacy2U’s customers did not give their informed consent to the sale of their personal data to third party organisations. Therefore Pharmacy2U did not have a lawful basis for processing the data under Part I of Schedule 2 to the DPA.
73. The Commissioner has decided that it is appropriate to issue a monetary penalty in this case, in light of the nature and seriousness of the contravention, Pharmacy2U’s shortcomings in terms of its DPA duties and the risks posed to a number of individuals. He has also considered the importance of monetary penalties in dissuading future contraventions of the DPA and encouraging compliance, in accordance with his policy."
Monday, October 19, 2015
Sunday, October 18, 2015
Friday, October 16, 2015
Price comparison websites: Ofgem investigation
Press release, here,
"...investigation to look at whether some price comparison websites have breached competition law in relation to paid online search advertising"
"...investigation to look at whether some price comparison websites have breached competition law in relation to paid online search advertising"
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Consumers are no longer 'Googling' products, they're 'Amazoning' them
Bizjournals.com, here (research by BloomReach, co-founded by former Google scientist).
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Antitrust claim for “sham” patent enforcement
Shuffle Tech International v. Scientific Games Corporation, here.
Positionspapier zum Urteil des Gerichtshofs der Europäischen Union vom 6. Oktober 2015, C-362/14
Unabhängiges Landeszentrum für Datenschutz, hier.
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Sunlight: Fine-grained Targeting Detection at Scale with Statistical Confidence
M. Lecuyer, R. Spahn, Y. Spiliopoulos,
A. Chaintreau, R. Geambasu, and D. Hsu, here.
Monday, October 12, 2015
Saturday, October 10, 2015
Friday, October 09, 2015
Thursday, October 08, 2015
Data-Driven Innovation: Big Data for Growth and Well-Being
OECD, here (read only - no search, offline reading, etc.; PDF available, 73 EUR).
Wednesday, October 07, 2015
Position Paper Concerning the Implementation of the WIPO Marrakesh Treaty
Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, here,
Tuesday, October 06, 2015
Ddl concorrenza: sì all'emendamento sugli hotel (narrow MFN)
IlSole24Ore, qui.
Art. 32. 1.
(Nullità delle clausole contrattuali che vietano alle imprese ricettive di offrire prezzi e condizioni migliori rispetto a quelli praticati da piattaforme di distribuzione online).
1. È nullo ogni patto con il quale l'impresa turistico-ricettiva si obbliga a non praticare alla clientela finale, con qualsiasi modalità e qualsiasi strumento, prezzi, termini e ogni altra condizione che siano migliorativi rispetto a quelli praticati dalla stessa impresa per il tramite di soggetti terzi, indipendentemente dalla legge regolatrice del contratto.
Art. 32. 1.
(Nullità delle clausole contrattuali che vietano alle imprese ricettive di offrire prezzi e condizioni migliori rispetto a quelli praticati da piattaforme di distribuzione online).
1. È nullo ogni patto con il quale l'impresa turistico-ricettiva si obbliga a non praticare alla clientela finale, con qualsiasi modalità e qualsiasi strumento, prezzi, termini e ogni altra condizione che siano migliorativi rispetto a quelli praticati dalla stessa impresa per il tramite di soggetti terzi, indipendentemente dalla legge regolatrice del contratto.
Monday, October 05, 2015
Sunday, October 04, 2015
Friday, October 02, 2015
Macht das Kartellrecht deutsche Internetunternehmen kaputt?
Diskussionsrunde zum Kartellrecht, Video hier.
Thursday, October 01, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Centre for a Digital Society , Video here . These are my very rough talking points on pay or okay in full length (more than I actually had...
-
Arstechnica.co.uk, here .
-
TechCrunch, here .
-
Antitrust Digest, here (remember that Ascola 2020 presentation?).
-
EPRS, here .
-
Lesechos.fr, ici .
-
LG Frankfurt am Main, 2-06 O 172/09 (verkündet am 13.05.2009). Lesenswertes aus der Begründung (meine Hervorhebungen): "Vorstellbare ...
-
Searle Center on Law, Regulation, and Economic Growth, June 4-5 2015, Agenda here .
-
On with Kara Swisher, here .
