Product and Services Consumer Protection Act

BrumBrum

I thank the right honourable Lady for her comments and am happy you are are in broad support. I can see the error therefore I shall suggest the following ammendments.

ARTICLE I. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
I.“Software” means anything that is not physical but in the operations of computers or programmes
II.“Hardware” means the mechanical or physical parts of a product.
“Schematics” means the diagrams of the product showing parts required and how they are laid out
III. “Transportation Equipment Goods” means any vehicle or carriage including Cars, Commercial Vehicles ,Scooters, Bikes , Pedi-vehicles, Buses, Caravans, Trailers , Train Cars , Trains ,Trucks, Planes and Ships of any size
IV. “Durable Product” shall mean any product that the European Consumer Protection Organisation deems should be expected to last a significant amount of time.
V:"European Consumer Protection Organisation" is the agency within the EU that shall be set up to ensure common standards between nations for a simpler consumer protection minimum framework and to be an arbiter of last resort in any disputes between individuals and the national consumer protection regulator that countries have chosen to implement consumer protection regulations in this bill.

ARTICLE VI. Enforcement
I.A new European Agency called the ~~European Consumer Commission~~ European Consumer Protection Organisation shall set guidelines and deal with any disputes between consumers, government agencies tasked at implementing this law, and companies as an arbiter of last resort. The decisions of this agency shall be final but may be appealed within 3 years.

BrumBrum

I believe at least in setting return periods or cancellation periods that should be set in parliament to make it hard to reduce those periods as it would then require a vote likely resulting in outrage at whoever votes to reduce people consumer rights. By setting this in the act itself consumers are protected against regulatory agency capture by bad corporations. Also this really does stop nations from exceeding the times stated in this act as it is stated in every section countries may choose of their own volition to set a longer period for their country or extra protections above the European basic standard . This merely sets out the minimum period which is reasonable.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillour for United Duchies

Inimicus

"Apart from the immensely concerning irregularities and phrasing issues in this Act -- which would need a large overhaul to be legally sound -- the Empire of Inimicus also sees a large amount of issues with the content of the proposal. I shall give a brief overview of our concerns for everyone's benefit, although please note that this list is by no means exhaustive.

Article II.I, what kind of products are we talking about here? I don't know about other members of this Council, but with the amount of angry tweets I receive, there is no way my phone would last more than five years. Perhaps more to the point, if I had to send back my phone for repairs three times before I can return it and get a refund, I may as well give up my job. A hugely impractical part of this Act.

Article II.VI, is this an error on behalf of Cllr Mizrachi-Roscoe? That companies may charge for reasonable wear and tear? If so, it needs to be corrected. In Inimicus, wear and tear is enshrined in consumer rights and no company can charge you for scuffs and scrapes on your laptop if you've been using it for a decade.

Article II.VII makes reference to €500 as the threshold at which retailers become responsible for repairs, without any consideration for wealth differences within our region. In the Duchies, €500 might be the sort of amount one hands to a homeless person on the street. In North Diessen, it's the better part of a month's wage. Maintaining a single threshold like this is folly.

The same section shoves off responsibility for repair to the manufacturer in case the retailer "does not have the capabilities" to carry out repairs themselves, an immensely vague term that, if we know anything about retailers at all, will no doubt result in virtually all repair jobs being sent back to manufacturers. A glaring issue in this proposal.

Article III.I lacks significant clarity. Described and claimed by whom? In relation to what?

Article III.II muddles the waters with the aforementioned three repair attempts of a product. How many times does Cllr Mizrachi-Roscoe think I should send my phone back to ArtiePhones LTD before I can reasonably request a refund? Interestingly, the mention of wear and tear in this clause seems to contradict Article II.VI.

Article IV.II deals in terms that are not specified in the Definitions. More to the point, it completely ignores the vast wastelands that are present in many of our nations. What would prevent me, I ask Cllr Mizrachi-Roscoe, from buying a Roscoes phone, trekking to the deserts of Dromund Kaas, and then complaining I do not have accurate coverage? The Act does not restrict this.

Finally, the structure and organisation of this European Consumer Protection Organisation are completely undefined. I see this, and I'm sure many with me, as yet another European organisation that will promise the world, and deliver naught.

There are other clauses of this Act that, for brevity, I will not cover in detail, but which the Empire finds hugely objectionable. These include Article II.III, II.VIII, II.X, Article III.IV, III.III, III.IV, Article IV.III, and Article V.I.

Cllr Nicholas Benfield
Deputy Speaker

BrumBrum

I will adress as many of the concerns as I can , for a expensive phone I absolutely would expect it to last 5 years or more and get software support and thats the same for any major purchase thats costs many 100's of Euros. In fact I wouldn't buy it for my kids or myself otherwise as it adds to the mountains of E-Waste we already have and that many countries are currently rejecting because its simply too much and its currently impossible to repair yourself or get independent repair centres to do so in many cases because of issues with parts supply and schematics. However in recognition politicians are not total experts this definition would be left up to the European Consumer Protection Organisation and one of its first roles it would have to perform. I cannot see any other way especially as new product categories come out every day so being overly specific might result in future product classes we don't know of not being covered in the future which I'm sure you'll agree we don't want to constantly be having to come back ever year or two or even possibly every 6 months just because we need to add a new category .

As for article II:V IIagree €500 does indeed mean different things to different people in Europe.There needs to be clear lines for retailer and manufacturer responsibility . When consulting which I may add we did widely and this act was sent around councillors widely before hand to address any concerns something I note we didn't see any from the right honourable gentlemen at this stage of crafting the bill this was seen as a decent compromise by most. If the right honourable gentleman sees fit to reduce this to a lower amount I have absolutely no issues but I want in as many cases as possible for the retailer to be picking up the responsibility to protect the consumer more . There were concerns retailers would not be able to handle all repairs especially complicated ones so in that case they may send it off to the manufacturer . It is likely many companies will take responsibility on products lower than the €500 anyway voluntarily as a goodwill gesture to the customer or to enhance customer service. I know Roscoes generally tries to handle all repairs and processes for the repairs itself even if it needs to organise the sending of it to the manufacturer so customers have confidence they can just drop it in the mail to Roscoes or hand it in at the store and it will be handled , I suspect many will do the same but this just makes sure there is a clear delineation of responsibility.

Article II.VI if your standards are higher so as to not be able to charge for reasonable wear and tear then you can exceed this acts standards as stated many times in the act it just sets a minimum standard. Frankly I do not see how a company could protect against wear and tear fully as an example you do not expect a cars tyres it comes with to last 5 years and its not reasonable to expect a car manufacturer to cover replacing the tyres if they go in 1 year because one drove 100,000 miles but you should expect a core gearbox part to last more 3 years with regular use. This would all be defined by EPCO as stated in the act.I don't think a laptop company can be expected to keep a case scratch free for 5 years or more especially in a house with kids so that is reasonable wear and tear and if one pours tea over a laptop for example neither should manufactaurer be on hook for any damage from that accident though if they want to provide accidental damage cover or wear and tear cover for an additional cost or free they may of course do so, this act just would not mandate them to do so.

On article III is merely to ensure that any consumer rights are not affected by the customer returning a product a practise we saw by some companies in the Duchies before it was outlawed in the 1980's , I feel this is a fair thing to require of companies.

On Article III.II I don't see any contradiction as both say that manufacturer would not be on the hook for reasonable wear and tear something that is essential to stop silly claims being have to be paid out like for example saying the manufacturer should replace tires after a driver drove over 30,000 miles. or over particularly rough surfaces. I think it is also fair to require a few returns to fix an issue if it is not absolutely dangerous to give the manufacturer a chance to fix any issues , after all companies are run by humans and not perfect so its not possible to catch every minor fault and not allowing the chances to repair will only add to the e-waste problems we have , however if nations or companies want to require a more generous refund policy then they are free to do so this is just a minimum standard if a devie has 2 or 3 issues or the same issue comes up 2 or 3 times in the 5 years and its not wear and tear issues one would expect then it seems fair at that point to mandate a refund under consumer law to protect the consumer.

I can add a definition of services though this may be better that EPCO comes up with this on its own as again any major definition here could not cover something someone may invent in the future so vaguery may be somewhat appropiate in the this instance but generally would cover things like mobile plans, utilities , streaming music services and subscriptions that do not send out physical products for example.

On Article IV.II If the company does not cover that area yet claims to on the coverage map they would have to cancel the service when asked. Likewise if they sell a product over the phone and say yes your home is covered for example then they would also have to cancel the contract. If they don't however claim to cover an area of the country or have partners that do so then they would not be on the hook in that instance which is fair as they never claimed to be able to cover the person in that area. Though most companies seem to cover a vast majority of areas so it may not be as much of an issue to day. I've trekked to the top of the Hohlinies in the middle of nowhere and got signal before so its likely companies have some coverage in most places.

I have kept the structure of the European Consumer Protection Organisation deliberately flexible since it may need to change over time but I would expect it to have representatives from all nations on its council but that should be up to the member states and maybe not prescribed in the act itself. I do not think it should have too rigid a definition as this could lead to the act needing constant updating or to come back to the chamber if times change , maybe though you could propose an amendment that addresses this concern but overall I think being overly specific could actually hamper the effectiveness of the act or even prevent it passing as different national requirements get overlooked. I would have the same concerns about many parts of the act being specific it may pigeonhole to the degree that act cannot adapt to a changing products and markets and the EPCO would need flexibility to make new rulings on categories or what is reasonable wear and tear for a product based on recommendations, many of these a left flexible in Duchies law also for this precise reason we don't want to have to be returning to our act every 1 or 2 years to update it we'd rather trust our competent agencies and experts to deal with specifics and minutia. I'm sure the right honourable gentlemen would agree we do not want this act constantly having to be amended in this council because it was made far too specific and so didn't end up covering a new technology , service or product as a result. I invite the right honourable gentlement to propose amendments as he sees fit though that could perhaps have a way of achieving a little more specificity if he feels its needed.

On the other articles I think it is entirely reasonable one can expect a product to be safe if they maintain it to reasonable user guide requirements such as replacing components on schedule such as breaks. I fear if the act did not include allowing nations to exceed the standards of this act it would be seen as an attack on sovereignty which I know the right honourable gentlemen like myself values , some uniformity is good but if a nation seeks higher standards it can only be a good thing for all involved and they should have the power to do so in law.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies

BrumBrum

I will l propose the following ammendment to clarify the role of the EPCO and consider some other amendments if the right honorable Innimicus Councillor could suggest a figure he thinks is more appropiate to a lower income nation then maybe let us know:

Ammendment 3:
ARTICLE VI. Enforcement
I.A new European Agency called the ~~European Consumer Commission~~ European Consumer Protection Organisation shall set guidelines and deal with any disputes between consumers, government agencies tasked at implementing this law, and companies as an arbiter of last resort. The decisions of this agency shall be final but may be appealed within 3 years.The Organisation shall be run by a council consisting of 2 experts appointed from every member nation of the EU who will then select 2 experts for any sub-councils that may be formed. These will make decisions based on expert advice and experience in areas such as warranty periods, return periods , what counts as reasonable wear and tear , what is a safety issue(in handling complaints on safety) and reasonable precautions on a product for safety as well as what counts as durable and non-durable. Decisions by the European Consumer Protection Organisation shall be binding though may be appealed if two or three nations object and put to a vote where national governments may register their voting decision on an issue.

Istkalen

Debate shall be extended until 05:30 GMT on 9 February 2022.

Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

Istkalen

Debate has ended. Voting on amendments will begin and continue until 22:50 GMT on the 14th of February, 2022. There are THREE amendments, all proposed by Cllr. Mizrachi-Roscoe.

AMENDMENT I

ARTICLE I. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
I.“Software” means anything that is not physical but in the operations of computers or programmes
II.“Hardware” means the mechanical or physical parts of a product.
“Schematics” means the diagrams of the product showing parts required and how they are laid out
III. “Transportation Equipment Goods” means any vehicle or carriage including Cars, Commercial Vehicles ,Scooters, Bikes , Pedi-vehicles, Buses, Caravans, Trailers , Train Cars , Trains ,Trucks, Planes and Ships of any size
IV. “Durable Product” shall mean any product that the European Consumer Protection Organisation deems should be expected to last a significant amount of time.
V:"European Consumer Protection Organisation" is the agency within the EU that shall be set up to ensure common standards between nations for a simpler consumer protection minimum framework and to be an arbiter of last resort in any disputes between individuals and the national consumer protection regulator that countries have chosen to implement consumer protection regulations in this bill.

AMENDMENT II

ARTICLE VI. Enforcement
I.A new European Agency called the ~~European Consumer Commission~~ European Consumer Protection Organisation shall set guidelines and deal with any disputes between consumers, government agencies tasked at implementing this law, and companies as an arbiter of last resort. The decisions of this agency shall be final but may be appealed within 3 years.

AMENDMENT III

ARTICLE VI. Enforcement
I.A new European Agency called the ~~European Consumer Commission~~ European Consumer Protection Organisation shall set guidelines and deal with any disputes between consumers, government agencies tasked at implementing this law, and companies as an arbiter of last resort. The decisions of this agency shall be final but may be appealed within 3 years.The Organisation shall be run by a council consisting of 2 experts appointed from every member nation of the EU who will then select 2 experts for any sub-councils that may be formed. These will make decisions based on expert advice and experience in areas such as warranty periods, return periods , what counts as reasonable wear and tear , what is a safety issue(in handling complaints on safety) and reasonable precautions on a product for safety as well as what counts as durable and non-durable. Decisions by the European Consumer Protection Organisation shall be binding though may be appealed if two or three nations object and put to a vote where national governments may register their voting decision on an issue.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

Inimicus

The Empire of Inimicus votes FOR all Amendments.

Nicholas Benfield
Deputy Speaker

BrumBrum

On behalf of United Duchies I vote FOR ALL ammendments
James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor for United Duchies

Spain

I vote FOR all amendments.

Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain

BrumBrum

On behalf of United Duchies I vote for ALL ammendments
James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor for United Duchies

Istkalen

With three votes in favor and none against, Amendments I, II, and III have passed. Voting begins NOW and will continue until 21:40 GMT on 21 February 2022.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

BrumBrum

On behalf of United Duchies I vote FOR this act.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies

Inimicus

The Empire of Inimicus votes AGAINST this Act.

Nicholas Benfield
Deputy Speaker

Wimaland

On behalf of the Realm of Great Ruthund I vote AGAINST this Act.

Prince-Councilor Tony Odhinazen
EU Councilor for Ruthund

Spain

On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote AGAINST this act.

Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain

GANIA

On behalf of the Federal Republic of Gania, we vote AGAINST
Councillor: PEDRO BORDABERRY

Istkalen

With one vote for and four votes against, this act has FAILED.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen