The law applicable to the contract should in general be the law selected by the parties’ will (Principle of Party Autonomy). However, the article 11 of Japanese Conflict-of-Law rule Tsūsoku-hō, Act on General Rules for Application of Laws, provides the special clause for the consumer protection, admitting the application of the law of the consumer’s habitual residence.
On the other hand, to guarantee the foreseeability of the business operator, its paragraph 6 provides the exception of the “active consumer”: Consumers, who proceed to the business operator’s place to conclude the contract or to receive the entire performance of the contractual obligation, are not covered by this consumer protection clause.
This exception is however excluded when the consumer is “solicited” to proceed to that place by the business operator. According to the traditional understanding, the internet ads are not deemed to the “solicitation” under this article, because the ads generally and widely target consumers, not the specified person or group. Today’s internet ads, though, with the development of the ad-technology, target more specified and identified person or group.
Against this backdrop, this paper aims to analyse the question of whether the person-target ads can be interpreted as the “solicitation” under Article 11(6) of Tsūsoku-hō.
The law applicable to the contract should in general be the law selected by the parties’ will (Principle of Party Autonomy). However, the article 11 of Japanese Conflict-of-Law rule Tsūsoku-hō, Act on General Rules for Application of Laws, provides the special clause for the consumer protection, admitting the application of the law of the consumer’s habitual residence.
On the other hand, to guarantee the foreseeability of the business operator, its paragraph 6 provides the exception of the “active consumer”: Consumers, who proceed to the business operator’s place to conclude the contract or to receive the entire performance of the contractual obligation, are not covered by this consumer protection clause.
This exception is however excluded when the consumer is “solicited” to proceed to that place by the business operator. According to the traditional understanding, the internet ads are not deemed to the “solicitation” under this article, because the ads generally and widely target consumers, not the specified person or group. Today’s internet ads, though, with the development of the ad-technology, target more specified and identified person or group.
Against this backdrop, this paper aims to analyse the question of whether the person-target ads can be interpreted as the “solicitation” under Article 11(6) of Tsūsoku-hō.
抄録全体を表示