Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Consumer Protection Law
Not So Good: The Classification Of “Smart Goods” Under Ucc Article 2, Chadwick L. Williams
Not So Good: The Classification Of “Smart Goods” Under Ucc Article 2, Chadwick L. Williams
Georgia State University Law Review
Refrigerators can now tweet. Today, almost sixty years after the states widely adopted the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the line between goods and services is more blurred than ever. When the UCC was drafted, a good was the simple opposite of a service. A good was something “movable” and tangible, and a service was not. Article 2 of the UCC, which governs sales, limits its scope to goods.
However, because Article 2 was drafted long before the proliferation of so-called “smart goods,” courts continuously struggle to determine when a smart good falls within Article 2’s scope. Courts have developed different …
Commodifying Consumer Data In The Era Of The Internet Of Things, Stacy-Ann Elvy
Commodifying Consumer Data In The Era Of The Internet Of Things, Stacy-Ann Elvy
Articles & Chapters
Internet of Things (“IOT”) products generate a wealth of data about consumers that was never before widely and easily accessible to companies. Examples include biometric and health-related data, such as fingerprint patterns, heart rates and calories burned. This Article explores the connection between the types of data generated by the IOT and the financial frameworks of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code and the Bankruptcy Code. It critiques these regimes, which enable the commodification of consumer data, as well as laws aimed at protecting consumer data, such as the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, various state biometric …
Relational Contracts Of Adhesion, David A. Hoffman
Relational Contracts Of Adhesion, David A. Hoffman
All Faculty Scholarship
Not all digital fine print exculpates liability: some exhorts users to perform before the consumer relationship has soured. We promise to choose strong passwords (and hold them private); to behave civilly on social networks; to refrain from streaming shows and sports; and to avoid reverse-engineering code (or, worse, deploying deadly bots). In short: consumers are apparently regulated by digital fine print, though it’s universally assumed we don’t read it, and even if we did, we’ll never be sued for failing to perform.
On reflection, this ordinary phenomenon is perplexing. Why would firms persist in deploying uncommunicative behavioral spurs? The conventional …