Consumer protection has privileged constitutional status, being mentioned in the list of fundamental rights and inscribed among the principles of the Brazilian economic order. Socially, the protection of the consumerist pole is a well-liked behavior. In this context, the number of legislative measures that seek to discipline the behavior of market players in favor of consumers has increased. However, while such actions may have genuinely beneficial purposes, many of them prove in practice to be contrary to the interests they sought to protect. The aim of this investigation is to demonstrate that state intervention on the freedom of initiative through allegedly pro-consumer measures can in practice be evidenced with unexpected anticonsumerist consequences. The paper restricts the analysis to the parliamentary field. It demonstrates, under Popperian logic, the inefficiency, needlessness or inadequacy of such actions for the fulfillment of their own ends. This is done by analyzing three specific groups of initiatives: regulations that aim to protect (i) consumer health, (ii) supplier profits, and (iii) passenger safety in individual transportation contracts.
Real Time Impact Factor:
Pending
Author Name: Marcelo Lauar Leite
URL: View PDF
Keywords: Regulation; Consumer defense; Free Initiative; Inefficiency; Inadequacy.* Doutorando em Ciências Jurídico-Empresariais pela Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Coimbra, Portugal (FDUC).Mestre em Direito pela Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN).Investigador do Instituto Jurídico da FDUC.Professor Assistente-A da Universidade Federal Rural do Semiárido (UFERSA).Advogado.marcelo.lauar@ufersa.edu.brRecebido em 7-3-2017 |Aprovado em 26-3-2017
ISSN: 2526-9488
EISSN:
EOI/DOI: https://doi.org/10.21708/issn2
Add Citation
Views: 1
