Elements of a Successful E-commerce Regulatory Model - Essay Example

Running Head: e-commerce regulatory model Critically assess the elements of a successful e-commerce regulatory model appears here] [Name of institution appears here] Critically assess the elements of a successful e-commerce regulatory model Introduction Weve all heard the old adage, "nothing is certain but death and taxes". Nowadays, you can add "change" to that list. Indeed, change is certain, especially when it comes to the increasing influence of the internet and e-commerce on businesses. In fact, E-commerce has added a whole new dimension to shopping for consumers by providing easier access to goods and services of better quality and at lower prices. According to Allen Asher1, "about one-fifth of the whole electronic commerce is accounted for by business-to-consumer2 (B2C) transactions”. As such, "consumer trust is essential for its future development”. In the last 5 years, the government has contended that the introduction of several layers of regulation based on EU legislation into UK law has increased customer confidence in e-businesses3 and increased these businesses standards of good practice. Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 20004 The implementation of the Distance Selling directive into UK law was to inspire confidence and increase transactions in cross-border shopping, including the internet. The regulation cannot be contracted out and any inconsistencies between the terms of the contract and the regulations would make the contract void. It does not cover contracts relating to auctions, financial services or property and partial exemptions for accommodation, transport, catering or leisure services and goods intended for everyday consumption supplied by regular roundsmen. The supplier is required to provide, in a clear and comprehensible manner prior to the conclusion of the contract: *Identity and possibly address of the supplier; *Characteristics of the goods or services, their price (including all taxes) and delivery cost; *Arrangements for payment, delivery or performance; *Existence of a right of withdrawal; *Period the offer or price remains valid and the minimum duration of the contract, where applicable; *Cost of using the means of distance communication. This information must comply with the principles of good faith in commercial transactions and the principles governing the protection of minors. However, Consumers Internationals5 research revealed that 1 in 5 sites failed to give clear total cost of the transaction despite the fact that the price of goods and services including all taxes must be provided. They have also found very few sites actually providing written information on the right to a contract withdrawal. The consumer must also receive the information either in writing or in another durable medium which is available and accessible to the consumer at the time of performance of the contract, including: *Arrangements for exercising rights of withdrawal; *Place where the consumer may address complaints; *Information on after-sales service; *Conditions where the contract may be rescinded Subject to the following exceptions , once the supplier has met his obligations relating to the provision of information, the consumer has at least 7 working days to cancel the contract without penalty (the cooling-off period6) : *The supplier has complied with the requirements in relation to the cancellation right and performance of the contract has begun; *Price depends on financial market fluctuations uncontrolled by the supplier; *Specified or personalised goods; *supply of audio or video recordings or computer software once unsealed by the consumer; *Supply of newspapers, periodicals or magazines; *Gaming, betting or lottery services. If the supplier fails to meet his obligations to provide information, this period is extended by 3 months. He also has 30 days to repay the amounts paid by the consumer and, in certain cases, may deduct from the refund the costs of recovering the goods. If the consumers payment card was fraudulently used, he may request cancellation of payment and reimbursement of the amounts paid. The burden of proof lies on the card issuer to prove that the cards use was authorised. If unsolicited goods or services are supplied, the consumer can treat it as an unconditional gift. The supplier sending the goods will cease to have any rights over them. He will be guilty of a criminal offence if he demanded remuneration or threaten to bring legal action against a consumer. The Office of Fair Trading7 (OFT) has been empowered with policing the Regulations. Compliance is achieved by use of injunctions against suppliers who breach the Regulations. They are also statutorily inclined to publish, inform and advice consumers regarding the regulation and have published information leaflets with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)8 for consumers wary about e-shopping. However, an unnecessary dispute has occurred. Although clearly exempted from the 7 day cooling-off period, OFT claimed that EasyCar, a car rental company does not fall into this category. If the OFT is correct, EasyCar would be a victim of unfair discrimination compared to other transport service companies such as airlines, buses and trains. OFT will keep under review the need for any additional sanctions (including criminal sanctions and consumer compensation) and will amend the Regulations at a later date if it decides that it is necessary but in the overwhelming majority of cases, consumers will purchase goods and services online with no problem whatsoever and the additional requirements of the Regulations would be superfluous. In a survey conducted by DTI, only 1% of UK reported online credit card fraud. The concerns over online shopping would, therefore, appear exaggerated compared to the reality. Although risk is no longer a major concern with the enforcement of this regulation, there are still issues of convenience. In their research, Consumers International came across a number of websites who specified delivery cost only after the customer has submitted their credit card and address details, and at this point there was not always an option to cancel the order. Consumers are also often left confused as to whether goods were available for purchase and there is no requirement in the directive to specifically provide information on availability of stock. Moreover, some websites have been found to charge consumers after their orders have been placed but before it arrives or even when stock is available. The idea behind on-line shopping was to provide a consumer the benefits of shopping from the comforts of home and although they were overlooked, OFT could put this in their agenda on its newly-implemented statutory power of promoting good practice. Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 The Electronic commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 was fully enforced on 23rd October 2002 but was partly implemented from the original directive. The regulation imposes certain duties on Information Society Service9 (ISS) Providers, which covers a great deal of B2C transactions except for those that fall under Regulation 3(1). ISS providers are required to provide the name , geographic address , details including a rapid, direct and effective method of communicating them (e.g. e-mail) , details of any trade registrations , authorisation or regulatory schemes , details of regulated profession (if applicable) ; and VAT identification number(if applicable) "in a form and manner which is easily, directly and permanently accessible" to the recipient. If referring to prices, they must state them clearly and unambiguously", including tax and delivery costs. Since their activities are covered by this regulation, suppliers that are not exempted from the distance selling regulations would still need to comply with these regulations despite its similarity. They must also ensure that any commercial communications sent by them, especially e-mails, be clearly and unambiguously identified as: *Commercial communication, *Made by the identified organisation, *A promotional offer and *A promotional competition or game This is to ensure that commercial communications will be made subject to certain transparency requirements to ensure consumer confidence and fair trading. This would mean that websites using cookies for example should clearly publish information of their presence and provide details of how users can disable them. The growth of the unsolicited e-mails (or spams) has been exponential in 2002 and according to spam filtering software companies the trend is set to continue. Fortunately, the regulation does deal with them, whereby any such spams are identifiable as such "as soon as it is received”. The consumer then has the choice of reading the email, deleting it or requesting the sender to have his or her name removed from the marketing list under the rules of the Data Protection Act10. UKs position differs from the EU when it did not implement Article 7(2) of the directive, maintaining that harmonised opt-in is a "disproportionate response" to unsolicited commercial communications and supports the opt-out principle. The EU European and Social Committee is of the view that consumer interests should take precedence over suppliers convenience and noted that the system already works in Germany, Austria, Italy, Denmark and Finland. For the consumers clarity and convenience, the regulations also provide the technicalities of how an order is placed electronically, how the on-line contract is ended, how to rescind the contract. Damages will be awarded for breach of duty on the part of the ISS and court order for a failure to provide the terms and conditions to the consumer. Existing Laws Having been consolidated from the Sale of Goods Act 1893, The 1979 Act applies equally to on-line purchases as it would to other conventional methods of purchase, namely, the implied terms that goods will correspond with their description and be of satisfactory quality. The existing laws will be strengthened when the new Consumers Regulation is put into force on 31st March 2002 after much delay, making amendments to the 1979 Act. Regulation 5 will introduce to the 1979 act additional consumer rights when goods do not conform to the contract when it was delivered. Upon non-conformity, the consumer would first have the right to repair or replace; If S fails to perform either of them as requested by B within reasonable time and without causing significant inconvenience to B, B may have the right a further right to reduce purchase price or rescind the contract. Although it does not have a significant impact on e-commerce per se, it does provide the consumer with the protection given to all methods of purchase. TrustUK Codes for e-commerce could help protect consumers rights and offer consumer protection and service above the basics set down in law as well as improve consumer confidence and keep pace with rapid market developments. The UK government has stated that it considers self-regulation through code of practice run by trade associations to be an effective way of strengthening protection for consumers. TrustUK11 is a joint effort between the Alliance for Electronic Business and the Consumers Association at the governments request over concerns that the large number of schemes developed world-wide allowing individual web-traders to use a symbol or hallmark on their websites would confuse consumers and have them make false assumptions about the value of the symbol and trustworthiness of traders using it. Its role was to bring together the various schemes and hallmarks and ensure they reach an agreed minimum service level for consumers. For its failure to contain third party verification, leniency, limited scope and minimal requirements for a websites approval, the schemes launch in July 2000 did come under fire by businesses, organisations and rival schemes. However, TrustUK defended themselves of the claims saying its establishment was over the governments concern that consumers would become confused by a proliferation of similar schemes across the web. A supplier displaying the TrustUK hallmark on their website will operate at TrustUKs agreed level of commercial standard designed to: *Protect consumer privacy; *Ensure payments are secure; *Help make an informed buying decision; *Allow for cancellation of orders and know what consumers have agreed to; *Deliver the goods or services ordered in time; *Protection of minors; *Seek the help of a code owner if a consumer faces a problem with the Trust UK web trader; A separate, independent Approvals Committee decides whether a code of practice meets the minimum standards set in TrustUKs Accreditation Criteria and also consider appeals from consumers who feel a code owner has not handled their complaint in the proper, approved procedure. To date, 4 code owners have received TrustUK approval : Association of British Travel Agents Ltd (ABTA), UKs Premier Trade Association for Tour Operators and Travel Agents; Direct Marketing Association (DMA), Europes largest trade association in the marketing and communications sector, Which? Webtrader, a Consumers Association (CA) division which encourages the development of consumer confidence in the UK online shopping environment and, most recently, The German Group Trusted Shops , a German equivalent of Which? Webtrader. Each Code owner reviews applications from all UK-based businesses on the internet wishing to gain a TrustUK stamp of accreditation for their trade. If successful, the e-business is entitled to display either or both the Trust UK and the code owners hallmarks which would inform consumers theyve met the required standards which could potentially gain consumer confidence in dealing with the approved business. Trust UK has been a well regarded and influential regulatory model. On a UK level, the scheme is working with the DTI, businesses, consumer and regulatory organisations for the scheme to mesh with the Office of Fair Tradings (OFT) new statutory role of promoting good practice in carrying out its activities which may affect the consumers interest. Moreover, according to Robert Dirskovski, Secretary of Trust UK, the scheme has helped generate confidence in buying from smaller e-tailers. He said that "by becoming accredited many have identified an increase in sales of 25%. A scheme that will do this also widens the choice for the consumer..." On a European level, the scheme have been participating in European Commission Stakeholders meetings organised by the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection (DG SANCO) to draw up an EU criteria based on the TrustUK model . Recent EU directives encourage the adoption of codes of practice to improve consumer trust and confidence and quality of services provided on the internet. In an effort to set up a worldwide standard, the scheme has registered domain names for Trustworld, awaiting international acceptance of its online trading standards. Colin Lloyd, chairman of TrustUK and president of the Direct Marketing Association have met government representatives from Singapore, who announced TrustSG, a website accreditation scheme in Singapore. TrustSG are currently working with Korea, Japan, Malaysia and Indonesia to create an Asia Pacific seal of approval. The Which? Web trader will be closing on January 31 2003, after over 3 years in operation, accepting about 2,700 from over 8,000 applications and resolving over 2,000 customer disputes. As a consequence, the members will no longer be able to display the Which? Webtrader logo on their site. Instead of directing the members to other similar schemes, they will be directed to TrustUK because they are "hesitant to direct traders to them in case they are disappointed”. The scheme succeeded in its aim of increasing consumer confidence online and has promoted higher standards in e-commerce but CA could no longer allocate sufficient resources for the scheme. The UK retailing industry had recently criticized all hallmark schemes, contending that the e-hallmark trusted shopping site concept has outlived its usefulness considering the increased protection afforded to consumers by recent legislations such as the Distance Selling Regulations. In fact, a study conducted by Consumer Web Watch revealed only 3.4% would evaluate a websites credibility on affiliations, the top being Design Look, at 46.1%. This suggests that a web traders affiliation to any particular kiting scheme does not influence a users perception of the website; but how the website presents itself. Although the arguments are valid, this does not rule out the fact that small e-businesses have thrived since joining a scheme that helped give consumers the confidence to shop with them. EEJ Net European Extra-Judicial Network12 (EEJ-Net) is seen as a means of boosting consumer confidence in cross-border shopping. If consumers are dissatisfied with a product purchased in another country, they can take their complaint to one of the national clearing houses that will form the nodes of the EEJ-Net. The clearing houses, which are being set up in all EU countries as well as Norway and Iceland, will provide information and support on relevant ADR procedures. Both businesses and consumers will be able to avoid expensive and time-consuming litigation. EEJ-Net is expected to remove a principal disincentive to cross-border commerce. "By using ADR, both parties can avoid the irritation and expense of potentially complex, cross-jurisdictional litigation, through structured but informal negotiation. EEJ-Net arrives hot on the heels of FIN-Net, which provides similar out-of-court dispute resolution for financial services. The Commission is aiming further to enhance cross-border consumer confidence on that score with its directives on e-commerce and distance selling of financial services. Ministers recently reached political agreement on the latter, which sets harmonised minimum standards for consumer protection (BE Oct 17th). Businesses eager to exploit the cross-border and e-commerce opportunities of the single market can sign up voluntarily to take part in the scheme. EEJ-Nets initial pilot phase is intended to develop the most effective working methods for the new dispute resolution mechanism, which will be fully rolled out next year. Although the adopted EC directives provide for the rights of consumers, if they are to acquire practical value, mechanisms must exist to ensure its efficient enforcement. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) schemes (e.g. ombudsmen and arbitration) are the best choice; offering low cost, user-friendly alternatives to going to court. Experience at national level has demonstrated the effectiveness of ADRs but many practical obstacles confront consumers who want to use an ADR in a country outside their own. Lack of information as well as linguistic and geographical barriers would inhibit consumer redress and enforcement of their rights. European Extra-Judicial Network (EEJ-Net) was therefore set up on 16th October 2001 with an initial one-year trial basis backed by a financial support of 100,000 euros from the European Commission to co-ordinate the out-of-court settlement procedures throughout Europe and facilitate the solution of cross-border disputes. It provides a communication support structure made up of national contact points (Clearing Houses) established in each member states to help the consumer with information and support in making a claim to an appropriate ADR, thus making it easier for consumers to seek redress from suppliers in EU countries, including Iceland and Norway . The UK clearing house is "Citizens Advice" funded by DTI. From DTIs Modernisation Fund, the consumer complaint website was launched by the Trading Standards Institute in January 2002. The site would act as a single point of contact for consumer complaints or advice, enabling non-UK consumers to make complaints or enquiries about UK traders. A wide range of ADR procedures already exist at national level to deal with consumer complaints. The decisions reached by these bodies differ greatly and some are not always supplied with adequate guarantees. To promote consistency and ensure a minimum number of quality guarantees the European Commission adopted Recommendations, a set of principles to which each ADRs must abide by to join the network. Recommendation 98/257/EC was adopted in 1998 by the commission to the bodies responsible for the out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes. Recommendation 2001/310/EC on the principles for out-of-court bodies involved in the consensual resolution of consumer disputes followed in April 2001. All participating ADRs in conformity with the Commissions Recommendation would be notified to the Commission by Member States. The recommendations do not prescribe procedures that ADRs should operate, but a set of principles that such procedures should follow. As such, there is a built-in mechanism and review process to allow for flexibility and for structures to evolve and develop allowing the network to continually improve. In a speech during the Opening of the European Consumer Centre for Belgium in Brussels and Launch of the pilot phase of EEJ-Net in Brussels , David Byrne13, European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection14 expressed hopes that the project will give consumers greater confidence in shopping throughout the internal market. Greater consumer involvement will help create a more competitive marketplace where they can benefit from lower prices, wider choice and better service. EEJ-Net has so far handled over 1,100 complaints across all participating countries. It will take time and knowledge gained from experience to turn the potential inherent in EEJ-Net into a successful functioning reality. Although not a system set in stone, it is one thats adaptable and ready to meet new challenges and the news of the European Commission Consumer Policy Councils agreement to extend the project until March 2003 reflects on its efficacy. There have been efforts in establishing an On-line dispute resolution (ODR) system by various governmental and private organisations but they appear scattered and decentralised. However, the European Commissions Joint Research Centre (JRC) has plans to establish a consensus-based technical criterion for developing and implementing ODR systems, which would provide optimal levels of consumer protection on a global level, within individual jurisdictions and across jurisdictions. Such initiatives will greatly benefit businesses and consumers and is the next step forward in addressing consumer rights and redress. Conclusion The key to understanding the world we live reflects upon our general observation of the past. Although the fear of on-line shopping had much to play with the protection of consumer rights (and therefore instil confidence to consumers and encourage the growth of e-commerce), it has actually planted its roots from the harsh realities of 19th century economic and social policy culminating to what it is today. The result is a shift of balance from the traditional common law doctrine of caveat emptor, let the buyer beware’, to a regime known as caveat venditor, let the seller beware’. This therefore creates a level-playing field between buyer and seller. But then again, a stringent legal regime could cause a serious and damaging blow to sellers. Strict rules mean strict compliance and can be much equated to indirect tax, which will be inputted to the cost of goods and services provided. The internet is seen as a platform for small businesses to thrive avoiding competition in the high streets by providing the convenience of shopping and purchasing goods and services at the press of a key. However, if the cost of this convenience is exorbitant, buyers would turn to conventional methods of shopping, reserving the luxury of e-shopping to the higher-income group. Nevertheless, the trend in consumer protection is set to continue, providing buyers a better bargaining position than the seller. Bibliography Author Unknown, TrustUK set for kitemark uptake, New Media Age 3rd May 2001, pg. 2 Better Regulation Task Force, Regulating Cyberspace: Better Regulation for E-Commerce, December 2000, http://www.brtf.gov.uk/taskforce/reports/BRTF-E-Commerce.pdf Better Regulation Task Force, Regulating Cyberspace: Better Regulation for E-Commerce - Government Response, December 2000, http://www.brtf.gov.uk/taskforce/reports/entry%20pages/ecomentry.htm Better Regulation Task Force, Regulating Cyberspace: Better Regulation for E-Commerce - Progress Table, December 2000, http://www.brtf.gov.uk/taskforce/progress/regulatingcyberspace.htm BJ Fogg, Leslie Marable, Julianne Stanford and Ellen Tauber, How do people evaluate a websites credibility? 29th October 2002, http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/news/report3_credibilityresearch/stanfordPTL_TOC.htm Charlotte Goddard, Which? Webtrader set to close, 1st February 2003 (As dated from source), Revolution, pg. 9 Commission Recommendation 2001/310/EC on the principles for out-of-court bodies involved in the consensual resolution of consumer disputes, http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/policy/developments/acce_just/acce_just12_en.pdf Consumer Policy Council: Minister backs Commission Strategy, European Information Service December 4 2002 Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 Corinna Shulze and Jeffrey Baumgartner, (European Commission Electronic Commerce Team - Information Society Directorate General) Dont Panic! Do E-Commerce: A Beginners Guide to European Law Affecting E-Commerce 2001 http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/ecommerce/books/dont_panic.pdf David Morris, Economics of Consumer Protection, Heinemann Educational Books, 1980 David Rowe-Francis, Misrepresentation and Fraud, Fraud Intelligence April 2001 36(11) Department of Trade and Industry, Distance Selling and E-Commerce 22nd November 2002, http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/ecomm.htm Department of Trade and Industry, Distance Selling Regulations (Summary), 5th November 2002, http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/guide/distsell.htm Department of Trade and Industry, Home Shopping: Your right as a consumer, 2000, http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/guide/homeshop.htm Dinah Greek, Hallmark scheme fails to boost e-commerce, 12th December 2002, VNU Net http://www.vnunet.com/News/1137546 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of Information Society Services DTI, Internet and cross-border shopping, 2002, http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/pdf1/mori2002sum.pdf e-Confidence forum, ODR Standardisation effort, 19th March 2001, http://econfidence.jrc.it/default/show.gx?Object.object_id=EC_FORUM0000000000000DEB e-Confidence forum, ODR Standardisation effort, 19th March 2001, http://econfidence.jrc.it/default/show.gx?Object.object_id=EC_FORUM0000000000000DEB European Commission, Consumer Affairs: Access to Justice and Injunctions, 2002 http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/policy/developments/acce_just/index_en.html European Commission, Consumer Affairs: European Consumer Centres (Euroguichet), 2002, http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/policy/euroguichets/index_en.html European Commission, Consumer Affairs: Out-of-court bodies involved in the consensual resolution of consumer disputes (Commission Recommendation 2001/310/EC) 2002, http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/policy/developments/acce_just/2001-310/acce_just_2001-310_en.html European Commission, Consumer Affairs: Out-of-court bodies responsible for the settlement of consumer disputes (Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC) 2002, http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/policy/developments/acce_just/acce_just04_en.html European Commission, Green Paper on Consumer Protection to stimulate a debate on "options to improve the functioning of the Business-to-Consumer (B2C) Internal Market, 2nd October 2001 http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/library/press/press191_en.pdf European Council, Council Resolution on a community-wide network of national bodies for the extra-judicial settlement for consumer disputes, 11th May 2000, http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/00/st07/07876en0.pdf Ian Lynch, Government web hallmark under fire, 19th July 2000, VNU Net http://www.vnunet.com/News/1107020 Jeffery Belson Certification Marks, Guarantees and Trust European Intellectual Property Review 2002 24(7), pg. 340-352 Jeremy Warner, The New EC Regulations, Company Lawyer, 2002, 23(10), 313-314 Kevin Murphy, Where the heck is all this spam coming from?, Computerwire, 25th November 2002 http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/23/28268.html Maria Anasstuzi, E-Commerce Directive 00/31, International Company and Commercial Law Review, 2002, 13(9), pg. 337-342 Michael Harrison, Stelios sues OFT over cooling off time, The Independent, Nov 22 2002 pg 27 Nick Thompson, eEurope Action Plan 2002: Full Progress Updates (UK and other actors), February 2002, http://www.dti.gov.uk/cii/e_europe/UK-EU%20full%20progress%20report%20chapter%203a.pdf Office of Fair Trading, Shopping from Home: Your shopping rights explained, 2002, http://www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/e3aikihctkhb34yfrd47gin2ry6hb66u5v46uwuwzvj3ueovlpi6bhzsvmrukigqkfj6tuvo433jxlddh4b6skzjf2h/oft334.pdf Office of the e-Envoy, UK On-line Annual Report 2002 http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/oee/oee.nsf/sections/esummit-ukoannrep/$file/download.htm Office of the e-Envoy, UK On-line Annual Report 2002, http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/oee/oee.nsf/sections/esummit-ukoannrep/$file/04-07.htm Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), United Kingdom Annual Report on Consumer Policy Developments, 2001, http://www.oecd.org/pdf/M00034000/M00034136.pdf Paul Meads, E-Consumer Protection - Distance Selling, International Company and Commercial Law Peter Wilson and Simon Stokes, Computing, Planning an E-Venture? Know the rules, October 31 2002 Pg.54 Press release New European network to help consumers settle cross-border disputes out-of-court, 16 October 2001, http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/library/press/press197_en.pdf Quicklinks, Consumer Protection, 2002 http://www.qlinks.net/quicklinks/consumer.htm Steve Ranger, E-government project suffers delays, 23rd March 2001, VNU Net, http://www.vnunet.com/News/1121915 Sunwinder Mann and Aron Youngerwood, Extra Armoury for Consumer - The New Distance Selling Directive Journal of Information, Law and Technology 2000(3) Tom Berry, Financial Director, E-Commerce Directive in Detail, October 1 2002 pg 53 Will Roebuck A Response to the DTI Consultation on the Electronic Commerce (E-Commerce Directive) Regulations 2002, Computer and Telecommunications Law Review 2002 8(7) 163-166 Read More