IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jcopol/v48y2025i3d10.1007_s10603-025-09583-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Digital Fairness and the Burden of Proof

Author

Listed:
  • P. Rott

    (Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg)

Abstract

Digital infrastructures, such as online platforms, and digital services, such as scoring, and the algorithms behind them, have often been described as a “black box.” This is a problem for consumers and consumer organizations that wish to enforce their individual rights or collective remedies in civil law litigation. The reason is that traditionally, the burden of proof is normally on the claimant, who has to prove those elements of a legal provision that act in their favour, whereas the burden of proof for defences is normally on the defendant. Burden of proof has therefore been identified as a major obstacle in the fight against digital unfairness. This means, at the same time, that the important element of private enforcement is insufficient, which hampers the effectiveness of EU consumer law in general. On this background, this article discusses, after some preliminary remarks addressing the scope of the problem, (1) to what extent EU law already requires alleviations of the burden of proof in litigation around unfair digital commercial practices in national courts and (2) how a tailor-made regime of specific provisions related to the burden of proof could, or should, be designed.

Suggested Citation

  • P. Rott, 2025. "Digital Fairness and the Burden of Proof," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 297-314, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jcopol:v:48:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s10603-025-09583-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10603-025-09583-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10603-025-09583-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10603-025-09583-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jcopol:v:48:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s10603-025-09583-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.