fbpx

Month: May 2020

[Marketing Medium] Skihütten in Ischgl: Die Schuldigen nicht in den Alpen sondern in Peking suchen

Yaël Ossowski, Wiener und stellvertretender Direktor der weltweiten Verbraucherorganisation Consumer Choice Center sagt dazu: “Viele Rechtsexperten sehen die Folgen dieser Pandemie als höhere Gewalt. Klagen gegen Betriebe oder Gemeinden, in denen es schon früh COVID-19 Fälle gab, sollten daher als ungültig angesehen werden.”   

source http://meltwater.pressify.io/publication/5eb02876e04b81000406f43b/5aa837df2542970e001981f6

[Marketing Medium] Austrian ski huts shouldn’t face coronavirus lawsuits

Yaël Ossowski, Vienna-based deputy director of the global consumer advocacy group Consumer Choice Center, said “The effects of the pandemic have been recognized by many legal experts as Force Majeure, and thus lawsuits that attempt to place blame on individual establishments or towns for the spread of the coronavirus are just flat out wrong.

from Consumer Choice Center https://ift.tt/35wDZQA

[Marketing Medium] Skihütten in Ischgl: Die Schuldigen nicht in den Alpen sondern in Peking suchen

Yaël Ossowski, Wiener und stellvertretender Direktor der weltweiten Verbraucherorganisation Consumer Choice Center sagt dazu: “Viele Rechtsexperten sehen die Folgen dieser Pandemie als höhere Gewalt. Klagen gegen Betriebe oder Gemeinden, in denen es schon früh COVID-19 Fälle gab, sollten daher als ungültig angesehen werden.”   

from Consumer Choice Center https://ift.tt/3foG4TB

Can you sue the ski hut where you contracted coronavirus?

European nations may be opening up their economies throughout the month of May, but that grand opening is likely to be dogged by the wave of COVID-19-related lawsuits.

We learned over the weekend that over 5,000 international tourists to the ski town of Ischgl, Austria are in the process of filing a lawsuit against the town and public officials. There are also being considered against ski resort owners in the area.

The lawsuit is being prepared by the Austrian Consumer Protection Association, which claims health authorities and the bar owners were “negligent” in not shutting down ski huts and restaurants earlier. They launched a website asking potential plaintiffs to share their information in order to join a future class-action lawsuit.

Often described as the “Ibiza of the Alps,” Ischgl made international headlines as an epicenter of the coronavirus crisis. At one particular venue, Kitzloch, a German bartender reportedly tested positive for coronavirus on March 7th. The bar closed its doors two days later. The town went into lockdown on March 13th. Tyrolean Governor Günther Platter then issued a province-wide quarantine on March 18th.

By the end of March, nearly 1,000 cases across Europe could be traced back to the resort town, and as many of 1,500 to the region itself.

The complaint states that the delay from the first known case until the ski town was ordered into lockdown was “negligible” and that authorities should have “known of a threat of mass infection”. Some have even blamed “greed” and “toxic business” as the reason local officials and business owners waited before shuttering doors. But as covered above, ski lodges and restaurants shut before provincial and national lockdowns ordered them to.

The first death in Austria from the coronavirus wasn’t until March 12, after which the town of Ischgl went into complete lockdown. The national lockdown went into effect four days later.

Is this enough to make a case against ski huts and villages where tourists contracted coronavirus?

As my colleague Linda Kavuka has pointed out, the current pandemic is a living and breathing example of Force Majeure, an Act of God that indemnifies certain parties in lawsuits and breaches of contract because it is simply “beyond the control” of any person or organization.

That said, there are legitimate questions to be asked: should ski towns have shuttered their doors and closed down bars and restaurants earlier? Likely. But we simply didn’t have the same information then as we do now.

And considering the very disturbing revelations about obfuscation of information by both the Chinese Communist Party and the World Health Organization at the outset of this crisis, it’s hard to place blame solely at the feet of local mayors and ski hut owners in the Alps.

(That’s why the U.S. states of Mississippi and Missouri have filed lawsuits against China.)

Of course, the fact that any skier or holiday goer would contract the coronavirus at a place where they were supposed to be enjoying themselves is a tragedy. Many people unknowingly spread the virus, were hospitalized themselves and died as a result. No one can excuse that loss of life and the grief that ensues.

But what we must hold uphold, in this situation and many more to come, is the facts and cases we allow to enter our legal system and our courts.

Classifying or assigning claims of negligence in the pandemic could likely mean thousands of unwitting public officials, business owners, and individuals will be held liable for what they didn’t know at the time. That would be a dangerous precedent.

We’ve often covered the incredibly litigious culture in the United States’ tort law system and articulated to reasons to reform it. Now, it seems, we’ll have to spread that same message throughout the European continent.

In light of COVID-19, what does banning flavored vaping achieve?

The nation is focused on containing a virus of mass proportions and mitigating the disastrous economic consequences of lockdowns.

But that didn’t stop Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo from cheerily pushing his flavored vape ban in the state budget passed a few weeks ago in Albany.

This follows Cuomo’s September 2019 emergency ban on vaping flavors, excluding tobacco and menthol, later struck down by the State Supreme Court because the governor “exceeded” his authority.

Now passed by the State Legislature, the new measure prohibits the sale of tobacco and vaping products in pharmacies, bans online sales, and restricts vape shops from selling any vaping liquid but tobacco flavor.

Move over drug dealers, flavored vapes are the new hot product to sling on the streets.

At a time when New York’s hospitals are overburdened with coronavirus patients, is this really the time for a ban that effectively creates a novel black market for unregulated flavored vaping products?

Demand for flavored vapes by responsible adults, the majority of whom are former smokers trying to consume nicotine in a less harmful way, may disappear from storefronts, but it’ll easily be replaced and sourced by street dealers with a new customer base.

The governor and his allies claim the measure was necessary to prevent teen vaping and lung illnesses, but that’s false on two counts.

First, this measure punishes adult smokers who’ve found alternative products to protect kids who seek out risky products — as they’ve always done. Mind you, the state hates flavored vapes, won’t dare touch alcohol ice cream cones, and is considering legalizing cannabis in the next few months. The hypocrisy is blaring.

Shops selling vapes to kids were already breaking the law but not getting penalized. Rather than outsourcing the product to the black market — where dealers don’t ask for ID — we should implement harsher penalties on shops that sell to underage kids. Simple.

When it comes to lung illnesses caused by vaping, the CDC has repeatedly stated this was the result of illegal vape cartridges containing THC, not nicotine. This is like banning Bud Light in hopes of tackling the running of moonshine.

By banning nicotine vaping flavors, New York is inviting yet more bad actors to produce their own products, beyond the purview of regulations and safety. Could we see a new wave of lung illnesses due to these bootleg products already found on the street?

Perhaps the state would focus more on the very real pandemic it is facing rather than trying to crack down on products that responsible adult users depend on to quit smoking.

As late as February, Cuomo was lauding his anti-vaping efforts as “leading the nation in confronting this new and deadly epidemic.”

Little did he know he’d be consumed with a global pandemic of this magnitude just weeks later.

If you want to uphold public health, we must continue to fight for the legal production and sale of flavored vaping products.

Yaël Ossowski is deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center.

This article was originally published in Newsday

The Covid-19 Response isn’t a Vindication for Socialism

The pandemic is not a crisis of capitalism, if anything it proves we will need free markets more than ever before, argues Joey Simnett

National emergencies are a breeding ground for those who claim it confirms their worldview, who use them to push their own agenda long after the crisis passes. And now, during Covid-19, they once again slither out of the woodwork.

There has been no shortage of state apologists who feel vindicated by this unprecedented event, and wish to keep it this way. Once again our decadent individualist culture and corrupt capitalist system have apparently failed us, and now big government has stepped in to save the day.

BBC Newsnight described Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s rescue package as “embracing Keynesianism”. Professor Mariana Mazzucato posited that we should use this crisis to “think about capitalism differently”, and recent resignee Jeremy Corbyn had a “told you so” moment where he stated he was “right” about public spending.

But this commentary on the government’s countermeasures fundamentally misses the point and the nature of the program.

What has happened with Covid-19 is a truly exogenous (i.e. non-economic) supply side shock. In fact, it behoves the government to actively and explicitly “freeze” the labour force until the crisis passes. And, until it does, it is imperative to maintain the intricate web of market relations that form the economy, as this crisis is not a result of them being inherently rotten.

There is no “crisis of capitalism” or traditional economic recession here; there have been no bad investments, malignant animal spirits, or popped bubbles. There is no need to “right the wrongs of the market” like Keynesians and socialists desire to do, nor has the Chancellor done so.

This is simply a case of governments spending money, as governments of all stripes do. But the key distinction lies in when, how, and why they do so.

The highlight of the Chancellor’s plan is to pay a portion of people’s wages for a period of time. Direct cash transfers are some of the most economically neutral interventions a government can perform. It does not remotely resemble the kind of top-down Soviet economic planning or the grotesque market distortions we’ve witnessed both preceding and proceeding economic crashes.

But, the critics say, we do see mass mobilisation in the production and acquisition of medical equipment under Matt Hancock—surely this demonstrates the effectiveness of government-led planning?

It does in one respect, in the same way conscription was necessary in World War II. But this does not mean it’s a good idea in day-to-day life. Governance involves learning, choices, and trade-offs, which means we shouldn’t forever sit in our bunkers with a rifle aimed at the door in anticipation of all manner of hypothetical events.

Who wants to see our dear comrades at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs decide who produces our food, how much food to produce, and who to give it to on an on-going basis—one brief glimpse at Maoist China suggests that governments are simply incapable of managing such complex and ever-changing economic processes.

But while there’s nothing inherently revolutionary about how our government is functioning, there’s certainly a risk that it could be as soon as Covid-19 is out of the picture.

The horrors of World War II didn’t stop after the flattening of Nagasaki. Rather, an ideological battle emerged between those who wished to return to normalcy, and those who saw merit in a state-led society. It was the darlings of 20th century progressivism, the Attlee government, who pushed to make food rationing and identity cards a permanent feature in day-to-day life.

In fact, it would take nine whole years to finally lay them to rest under Churchill’s second shot as Prime Minister.

Sunak stated that “this is not a time for ideology or orthodoxy”, but given the dramatic shift to the left in both the Conservative and Labour parties in recent years, it may well be once we are all fit and healthy again.

Author: Joey Simnett is a UK policy fellow at the Consumer Choice Center, and has previously written for American physicians on the US healthcare system, and on fiat alternatives in the payments world

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Netflix series reveal injustice and junk science are plaguing our nation’s courts

With so many of us doing our part to stay at home, it’s been the perfect time to dive into binge-worthy Netflix series.

For many, it’s been Tiger King or reruns of Friends, but some of the more interesting series deconstruct the American justice system and its complexities: innocence or guilt, truth and facts, and institutional bias.

Because television series allow directors to carefully examine a story and interview dozens of witnesses and experts, audiences have become addicted to the very real characters dealing with tragedy and the inadequacies of our courts.

Shows such as “Making a Murderer” and “The Staircase,” in which their principal characters cling to innocence, inspired millions to ask the simple question: is the American legal system just and can it deliver justice? What happens when experts lead juries and judges astray?

It should be no surprise then that miscarriages of justice and tainted evidence, mixed in with biased scientific evidence, are not just fodder for documentarians but are represented in thousands of cases that don’t get their own TV deal.

Our binge sessions allow us to rummage through the hundreds of examples of “junk science” that has been taken for a fact before judges and juries, sending innocent people to prison or resulting in multi-million-dollar lawsuit settlements to tort injury lawyers. In “The Innocence Files,” it was a controversial “bite mark” analysis that sent an innocent man to death row for nearly 16 years. Earlier this year, Washington Post writer Radley Balko examined the very bogus forensic science that has plagued our nation’s courts: bite mark analysis, tire treads, ballistics evidence, carpet fibers, and more.

One tool our legal system has devised to counter bogus science, however, is the process of a Daubert standard, an eponymous process from a Supreme Court trial that seeks to classify expert testimony and evidence.

Daubert hearings empower judges to examine the gathering of evidence and whether it should be allowed in court cases. And this applies to broader scientific evidence beyond simple forensics. Balko mentions one D.C. judge’s Daubert ruling on ballistics specifically, calling into question the black-or-white conclusions such science could produce. That’s inspired lawyers around the country to ask for Daubert rulings in their cases.

One such example in the headlines is whether or not baby powder, an essential product for new moms and dads and a staple of the female hygiene industry, contains cancer-causing minerals such as asbestos.

Rulings on both sides have awarded up to $4.7 billion to plaintiffs suing pharmaceutical and beauty giant Johnson & Johnson. Select scientific evidence, and whether it can be admitted as evidence at trial, is at the heart of these cases.

To that end, a U.S. District Court in New Jersey is currently reviewing whether submittedscientific evidence that purports a link between talc, a main ingredient of baby powder, and various cancers should be allowed as evidence. Thus far, major independent studies have found no causal link, including evaluations by the American Cancer Society and a recent study from the National Institutes of Health.

But expert witnesses brought in by the plaintiffs have conducted studies that say the opposite. Some of those studies have yet to be peer-reviewed or replicated, but they’ve been admitted regardless. Which evidence will get the light of day? That is what the judge will have to decide.

In this civil trial, millions of dollars and reputations are at stake. In so many others, it’s the lives of innocent men and women.

As citizens, taxpayers, and consumers, one major concern with our justice system should be that only the most rigorous and reputable science be admitted as evidence. Only incontrovertible truth and seasoned scientific inquiry should sway juries, not evidence that can be easily debunked or will be easily refuted years later.

If we uphold that as our standard, we can strive toward the legal reform we truly deserve, both for those accused of crimes and those in the crosshairs of civil disputes. That’s the only way we’ll achieve true justice in our nation’s courts.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Netflix series reveal injustice and junk science are plaguing our nation’s courts

With so many of us doing our part to stay at home, it’s been the perfect time to dive into binge-worthy Netflix series.

For many, it’s been Tiger King or reruns of Friends, but some of the more interesting series deconstruct the American justice system and its complexities: innocence or guilt, truth and facts, and institutional bias.

Because television series allow directors to carefully examine a story and interview dozens of witnesses and experts, audiences have become addicted to the very real characters dealing with tragedy and the inadequacies of our courts.

Shows such as “Making a Murderer” and “The Staircase,” in which their principal characters cling to innocence, inspired millions to ask the simple question: is the American legal system just and can it deliver justice? What happens when experts lead juries and judges astray?

It should be no surprise then that miscarriages of justice and tainted evidence, mixed in with biased scientific evidence, are not just fodder for documentarians but are represented in thousands of cases that don’t get their own TV deal.

Our binge sessions allow us to rummage through the hundreds of examples of “junk science” that has been taken for a fact before judges and juries, sending innocent people to prison or resulting in multi-million-dollar lawsuit settlements to tort injury lawyers. In “The Innocence Files,” it was a controversial “bite mark” analysis that sent an innocent man to death row for nearly 16 years. Earlier this year, Washington Post writer Radley Balko examined the very bogus forensic science that has plagued our nation’s courts: bite mark analysis, tire treads, ballistics evidence, carpet fibers, and more.

One tool our legal system has devised to counter bogus science, however, is the process of a Daubert standard, an eponymous process from a Supreme Court trial that seeks to classify expert testimony and evidence.

Daubert hearings empower judges to examine the gathering of evidence and whether it should be allowed in court cases. And this applies to broader scientific evidence beyond simple forensics. Balko mentions one D.C. judge’s Daubert ruling on ballistics specifically, calling into question the black-or-white conclusions such science could produce. That’s inspired lawyers around the country to ask for Daubert rulings in their cases.

One such example in the headlines is whether or not baby powder, an essential product for new moms and dads and a staple of the female hygiene industry, contains cancer-causing minerals such as asbestos.

Rulings on both sides have awarded up to $4.7 billion to plaintiffs suing pharmaceutical and beauty giant Johnson & Johnson. Select scientific evidence, and whether it can be admitted as evidence at trial, is at the heart of these cases.

To that end, a U.S. District Court in New Jersey is currently reviewing whether submittedscientific evidence that purports a link between talc, a main ingredient of baby powder, and various cancers should be allowed as evidence. Thus far, major independent studies have found no causal link, including evaluations by the American Cancer Society and a recent study from the National Institutes of Health.

But expert witnesses brought in by the plaintiffs have conducted studies that say the opposite. Some of those studies have yet to be peer-reviewed or replicated, but they’ve been admitted regardless. Which evidence will get the light of day? That is what the judge will have to decide.

In this civil trial, millions of dollars and reputations are at stake. In so many others, it’s the lives of innocent men and women.

As citizens, taxpayers, and consumers, one major concern with our justice system should be that only the most rigorous and reputable science be admitted as evidence. Only incontrovertible truth and seasoned scientific inquiry should sway juries, not evidence that can be easily debunked or will be easily refuted years later.

If we uphold that as our standard, we can strive toward the legal reform we truly deserve, both for those accused of crimes and those in the crosshairs of civil disputes. That’s the only way we’ll achieve true justice in our nation’s courts.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Netflix series reveal injustice and junk science are plaguing our nation’s courts

With so many of us doing our part to stay at home, it’s been the perfect time to dive into binge-worthy Netflix series.

For many, it’s been Tiger King or reruns of Friends, but some of the more interesting series deconstruct the American justice system and its complexities: innocence or guilt, truth and facts, and institutional bias.

Because television series allow directors to carefully examine a story and interview dozens of witnesses and experts, audiences have become addicted to the very real characters dealing with tragedy and the inadequacies of our courts.

Shows such as “Making a Murderer” and “The Staircase,” in which their principal characters cling to innocence, inspired millions to ask the simple question: is the American legal system just and can it deliver justice? What happens when experts lead juries and judges astray?

It should be no surprise then that miscarriages of justice and tainted evidence, mixed in with biased scientific evidence, are not just fodder for documentarians but are represented in thousands of cases that don’t get their own TV deal.

Our binge sessions allow us to rummage through the hundreds of examples of “junk science” that has been taken for a fact before judges and juries, sending innocent people to prison or resulting in multi-million-dollar lawsuit settlements to tort injury lawyers. In “The Innocence Files,” it was a controversial “bite mark” analysis that sent an innocent man to death row for nearly 16 years. Earlier this year, Washington Post writer Radley Balko examined the very bogus forensic science that has plagued our nation’s courts: bite mark analysis, tire treads, ballistics evidence, carpet fibers, and more.

One tool our legal system has devised to counter bogus science, however, is the process of a Daubert standard, an eponymous process from a Supreme Court trial that seeks to classify expert testimony and evidence.

Daubert hearings empower judges to examine the gathering of evidence and whether it should be allowed in court cases. And this applies to broader scientific evidence beyond simple forensics. Balko mentions one D.C. judge’s Daubert ruling on ballistics specifically, calling into question the black-or-white conclusions such science could produce. That’s inspired lawyers around the country to ask for Daubert rulings in their cases.

One such example in the headlines is whether or not baby powder, an essential product for new moms and dads and a staple of the female hygiene industry, contains cancer-causing minerals such as asbestos.

Rulings on both sides have awarded up to $4.7 billion to plaintiffs suing pharmaceutical and beauty giant Johnson & Johnson. Select scientific evidence, and whether it can be admitted as evidence at trial, is at the heart of these cases.

To that end, a U.S. District Court in New Jersey is currently reviewing whether submittedscientific evidence that purports a link between talc, a main ingredient of baby powder, and various cancers should be allowed as evidence. Thus far, major independent studies have found no causal link, including evaluations by the American Cancer Society and a recent study from the National Institutes of Health.

But expert witnesses brought in by the plaintiffs have conducted studies that say the opposite. Some of those studies have yet to be peer-reviewed or replicated, but they’ve been admitted regardless. Which evidence will get the light of day? That is what the judge will have to decide.

In this civil trial, millions of dollars and reputations are at stake. In so many others, it’s the lives of innocent men and women.

As citizens, taxpayers, and consumers, one major concern with our justice system should be that only the most rigorous and reputable science be admitted as evidence. Only incontrovertible truth and seasoned scientific inquiry should sway juries, not evidence that can be easily debunked or will be easily refuted years later.

If we uphold that as our standard, we can strive toward the legal reform we truly deserve, both for those accused of crimes and those in the crosshairs of civil disputes. That’s the only way we’ll achieve true justice in our nation’s courts.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Ukraine mulls ban on wheat exports, minister claims

Ukraine, one of the world’s top grain exporters, has announced it will ban wheat exports if its sales exceed limits agreed with traders, according to Taras Vysotskiy, the deputy economy minister for agriculture.

The move was preceded by a March call from Ukrainian bakers and millers to limit grain exports to maintain bread prices in light of the coronavirus crisis.

In response, Maria Chaplia, European Affairs Associate, said that banning exports in order to ensure unimpeded and sufficient supply to the domestic market is a well-intended policy but one that will have adverse economic effects in the long-run.

“Export bans are a natural response to the emergency situation caused by the pandemic. The aim is to prevent a shortage of supply and spikes in grain prices. But the worry is that this move will lead to losses in the future in the form of hijacked relationships with trading partners and damaged export capacity,” said Chaplia.

“Grain exports are a crucial part of Ukraine’s economy, and banning or restricting them will hurt domestic exporters. It is likely that they will ask for some kind of subsidy from the state to sustain their production. Ukraine, a country simultaneously at war with Russia and coronavirus, indebted in and out, cannot afford it.

“But it’s not just Ukraine. Multiple countries have signalled their willingness to turn inwards. Recently, Romania introduced a ban on the export of grains and processed grains (including bakery) outside the European Union, and Romanian farmers have already voiced their concerns.

“Though tempting, economic nationalism is incredibly expensive, especially in the long run. It is a wolf in sheep’s clothing that will push the Ukrainian economy even further down.”

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Scroll to top