지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This article focuses on how U.S. law protects consumers. Like American scholars, Korean ones believe that a consumer is not a proper party in competition with a manufacturer or a commercial provider in making and negotiating a contract. That is why some judicial remedies and legislative statutes are necessary to improve the bargaining power of consumers or to prevent the unilateral practices of commercial sellers or service providers. Most Korean scholars have studied how to improve the bargaining power of consumers and particularly emphasized the issues of standardized contracts for consumer protection. Their efforts have resulted in the legislative outcome of regulating unfair standardized contracts based on German law. Despite such a special statute, they still believe that it is not enough to protect consumers.
Recently, a few Korean scholars have become interested in consumer protection law in the United States for two reasons. First, most people are questioning the role of the Korea Fair Trade Commission for consumer protection. The Korea Fair Trade Commission is similar to the Federal Trade Commission in the United States in that it has enormous power in regulating and supervising the antitrust practices of enterprises. On the other hand, unlike its American counterpart, the Korean one has not played a notable role in balancing the asymmetry of trade and negotiation powers between consumers and enterprises. Second, the demands for consumer protection law in the United States have increased particularly since the terms of “unfair or deceptive trade practices” have been mentioned in the Free Trade Agreement between Korea and United States. These terms seem to be used as ways to protect consumers against enterprises. In fact, this term is used under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act).
According to FTC Act § 5(a), “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce,” are prohibited by any person engaging in commerce. These broad terms of this provision are particularized by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty-FTC Improvement Act (Magnuson-Moss). This Act allowed the FTC to have jurisdiction to reach deceptive or unfair practices and even to define what they are. This means that the FTC is entitled to prohibit unfair or deceptive practices under the FTC Act and to assess whether an act or practice is unfair or deceptive. For example, the FTC may define an unfair act or practice with the following standard: an act or practice is unfair where it (1) causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers, (2) cannot be reasonably avoided by consumers, and (3) is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. An act or practice is deceptive where it is likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances and is likely to affect a consumer’s conduct or decision regarding a product or service.
Congress granted the FTC power to obtain restraining orders and preliminary injunctions against unfair or deceptive acts against consumers or those who threatened to violate any provision administered by the FTC. In addition, the civil penalty for violation of such order is up to $10,000 for each violation under Federal Trade Committee Act (FTCA) § 5(l). In other words, any person who engages in unfair or deceptive conduct or who violates the cease and desist order will be subject to a civil penalty.
Korean scholars may be interested in how the FTC and FTCA in the United States can improve consumer rights. Indeed, the FTC and FTCA may improve the market functioning by eliminating fraudulent misrepresentation and unconscionable contracts. They may have played a very active role for consumer protection. In this sense, this article introduces how American consumers are legally and judicially protected.
Recently, a few Korean scholars have become interested in consumer protection law in the United States for two reasons. First, most people are questioning the role of the Korea Fair Trade Commission for consumer protection. The Korea Fair Trade Commission is similar to the Federal Trade Commission in the United States in that it has enormous power in regulating and supervising the antitrust practices of enterprises. On the other hand, unlike its American counterpart, the Korean one has not played a notable role in balancing the asymmetry of trade and negotiation powers between consumers and enterprises. Second, the demands for consumer protection law in the United States have increased particularly since the terms of “unfair or deceptive trade practices” have been mentioned in the Free Trade Agreement between Korea and United States. These terms seem to be used as ways to protect consumers against enterprises. In fact, this term is used under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act).
According to FTC Act § 5(a), “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce,” are prohibited by any person engaging in commerce. These broad terms of this provision are particularized by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty-FTC Improvement Act (Magnuson-Moss). This Act allowed the FTC to have jurisdiction to reach deceptive or unfair practices and even to define what they are. This means that the FTC is entitled to prohibit unfair or deceptive practices under the FTC Act and to assess whether an act or practice is unfair or deceptive. For example, the FTC may define an unfair act or practice with the following standard: an act or practice is unfair where it (1) causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers, (2) cannot be reasonably avoided by consumers, and (3) is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. An act or practice is deceptive where it is likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances and is likely to affect a consumer’s conduct or decision regarding a product or service.
Congress granted the FTC power to obtain restraining orders and preliminary injunctions against unfair or deceptive acts against consumers or those who threatened to violate any provision administered by the FTC. In addition, the civil penalty for violation of such order is up to $10,000 for each violation under Federal Trade Committee Act (FTCA) § 5(l). In other words, any person who engages in unfair or deceptive conduct or who violates the cease and desist order will be subject to a civil penalty.
Korean scholars may be interested in how the FTC and FTCA in the United States can improve consumer rights. Indeed, the FTC and FTCA may improve the market functioning by eliminating fraudulent misrepresentation and unconscionable contracts. They may have played a very active role for consumer protection. In this sense, this article introduces how American consumers are legally and judicially protected.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 미국법에서의 소비자 보호의 방향
Ⅲ. 소비자보호를 위한 사법부의 역할
Ⅳ. 소비자보호를 위한 입법부의 역할
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (19)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문과 연관된 판례 (1)
-
대법원 2009. 7. 23. 선고 2008다40526 판결
[1] 구 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률(2007. 4. 13. 법률 제8382호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제23조(불공정거래행위의 금지) 제1항 제4호, 같은 법 시행령(2007. 7. 13. 대통령령 제20166호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제36조 제1항 [별표 1] 불공정거래행위의 유형 및 기준 제6
자세히 보기
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
Consumer Law in the United States : FTC and Consumer Protection
비교사법
2008 .06
-
6ㆍ25전쟁 시 야전훈련사령부(FTC)의 창설과 역할
군사
2014 .06
-
FTC Regulation with the Case of Comparative Advertising from 1972 through 2006
광고PR실학연구
2011 .01
-
외국 사업자의 약관에 대한 심사 및 집행
경쟁법연구
2020 .01
-
소비자거래법의 제정 방향
정책연구보고서
2013 .12
-
미국 연방거래위원회법 제5조에 의한 소비자 개인정보 보호－ 자율규제에 의한 소비자 개인정보 보호의 안전장치 －
경영법률
2016 .01
-
소비자의 개념에 관한 연구
法學論文集
2016 .01
-
경제적 일체성 있는 복수계약과 소비자보호에 관한 연구
정책연구보고서
2017 .12
-
독립규제기관의 사건처리절차의 개선방안 : 미국 FTC의 사건처리절차를 중심으로
행정법연구
2006 .10
-
사업자의 부당거래행위 지정·고시에 관한 연구
정책연구보고서
2009 .12
-
【미국】FTC, 공유경제와 소비자보호 워크샵 개최
소비자정책동향
2015 .05
-
자본시장법과 구 증권거래법상의 “위계”에 해당하는 사기적 부정거래에 관한 연구- 대법원 2011.3.10. 선고 2008도6335 판결을 중심으로 -
경영법률
2014 .01
-
소비자보호법의 개정방향 : 소비자보호법의 전면개정과 관련하여
공법학연구
2005 .02
-
전자상거래에 대한 영·미 경쟁정책 당국의 대응
규제연구
2002 .06
-
소비자 기만행위 규제방안 연구
정책연구보고서
2018 .11
-
공정거래위원회의 디지털증거 수집의 적법성 강화 방안
경쟁법연구
2019 .01
-
사기적 부정거래에서 “위계”의 적용 문제
증권법연구
2007 .06
-
미국 연방거래위원회(FTC)의 법집행방식에 관한 연구
法學論文集
2019 .01
-
소비자기본법의 문제점과 개정의견
기업법연구
2009 .03
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
손해배상의 방법에 대한 비교법적 고찰 : 원상회복과 금전배상의 개념에 대한 재고
박수곤
,
김진우
,
가정준
외 1명
비교사법
2012
.02
美國 不法行爲法 발전의 이론적 고찰
가정준
비교사법
2005
.03
미국 전자거래관련 법제에 관한 연구-UETA를 중심으로-
엄광열
인터넷전자상거래연구
2003
.02
소비자 불매운동 신념이 불매운동 참여에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구 : 자기조절성향의 조절된 매개효과 검증
전향란
,
염동문
,
제미경
소비자문제연구
2014
.12
소비자 불매운동의 헌법적 허용한계와 형법적 규제의 타당성에 관한 연구
우희숙
형사정책연구
2014
.03
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-360-002148189