fbpx

Day: July 9, 2020

TikTok is problematic, and consumers should beware

CONTACT:
Yaël Ossowski
Deputy Director
Consumer Choice Center

TikTok is problematic, and consumers should beware

WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week, both President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have floated a ban on the controversial Chinese-owned video-sharing app TikTok, for national security concerns.

Consumer Choice Center Deputy Director Yaël Ossowski responded: “While the proximity to the Chinese Communist Party makes TikTok problematic, an outright ban would go too far by setting a dangerous precedent.

“The fact that the long arm of the Chinese Communist Party can reach into the phones of citizens of liberal democracies is indeed troubling and individuals should remain vigilant. A ban similar to critical network hardware components from companies like Huawei or ZTA is, however, not necessary. Contrary to infrastructure and network software, consumers can consciously choose to stay away from apps like TikTok,” said Ossowski.

“It is concerning that TikTok, with its security flaws and significant privacy issues, is used by over 80 million people in the United States.  

“Rather than a ban, we should be educating the public, especially younger consumers, on the dangers of low-security and risky applications tied to foreign regimes like the Chinese Communist Party.

“Resorting to bans should always be a last resort, while innovation and education can and should be used when all possible when faced with security concerns in the tech space,” said Ossowski.

***CCC Deputy Director Yaël Ossowski is available to speak with accredited media on consumer regulations and consumer choice issues. Please send media inquiries HERE.***

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.

New EU rule changes would mean bad news for #Smokers and #Vapers alike

In its conclusions in June, the European Council approved a new consensus on excise duties on tobacco. The member states suggest rule changes that would increase the price of tobacco, and equally affect non-tobacco products such as e-cigarettes, writes Bill Wirtz. 

Since 2011, the European Union has had a common minimum excise duty on tobacco products, which notably increased the price of cigarettes in those European countries where the prices are comparatively low. Neighbouring countries with higher taxes were claiming that the prevalence of cross-border purchases was subverting their own public health goals. For instance, German commuters buy tobacco in Luxembourg, as the price is lower than in their local shops.

Now that the 2011 directive has not yielded the benefits that some member states expected, or more plausibly, hasn’t produced the number of tax revenues that member states need in the current economic situation, they would like a revision. This revision, however, is not only targeting conventional tobacco products such as cigarettes, snuff, shisha, or cigars and cigarillos. For the first time, the European Council is asking for non-tobacco products also to be included in the… tobacco excise directive. This would make it hard for member states to pretend that the objective is public health and not reducing treasury deficits, as the logical equivalent of this move would be to classify non-alcoholic as an alcoholic beverage.

E-cigarettes or heat-not-burn devices represent viable alternatives for consumers of conventional tobacco products. We know that while not harmless, vaping is 95% less harmful than smoking cigarettes. By every available logic, governments should rejoice in the prevalence of these alternatives. However, the European Council concludes that “it is therefore urgent and necessary to upgrade the EU regulatory framework, to tackle current and future challenges in respect of the functioning of the internal market by harmonising definitions and tax treatment of novel products (such as liquids for e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products), including products, whether or not containing nicotine, that substitute tobacco, to avoid legal uncertainty and regulatory disparities in the EU”.

Adding excise taxes to reduced risk products sends the wrong signal to consumers that these products are just as risky as cigarettes. Research from the United States shows that every 10% increase in the price of vaping products results in an 11% increase in cigarettes purchases.

How serious are EU member states about increasing public health if their go-to method of prevention is raising the tax burden on consumers? E-cigarettes are one thing, but we should not disillusion ourselves with the idea that taxing cigarettes more does anyone any good either. The Council conclusions themselves recognize that Europe is facing a wave of the illicit tobacco trade, and asks for more solutions to fight it. Illegal trade correlates with increased tax burdens: by taxing low-income households out of cigarettes, which remain a legal product nonetheless, we are pushing them on the black market, where criminal elements profit off of bad public health management. In France for instance, a 2015 report found the country to be Europe’s largest consumer of fake cigarettes, with 15 per cent of the market share.

With a lack of quality control, these illegal smokes represent are much more endemic threat to consumer health. Adding to that, the revenues from the sale of these cigarettes benefits international terrorism — the French Centre d’analyse du terrorisme (Centre for Terrorism Analysis) even showed that illicit tobacco sales finance 20 per cent of international terrorism. Organizations such as the IRA, Al-Qaida and ISIS fund their activities that way.

The European Council’s suggested changes to the Tobacco Excise Directive is counterproductive to the goals of public health, and are set to reduce consumer choice and health. We need to analyse rule-changes for more than just their intentions, but look at their prospective results.

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

Open Canada’s air travel market

Air Canada planes in Arizona.

The war between Canadian consumers and Air Canada drags on, with the airline still refusing to issue refunds for cancelled flights departing from Canada. To make matters worse, Transport Minister Marc Garneau says the Trudeau government will not force airlines to issue refunds.

Getting money back when a business doesn’t provide a service is pretty basic fair play. In an environment in which no one knows when plane travel will be back to normal, a voucher for a future trip is a poor substitute for cash. If you are one of the 14 per cent of Canadians without a job and struggling to pay your bills, a voucher is a real slap in the face, while a refund could go a long way in helping you stay afloat. It’s hard to understand why the government is letting the airline stick it to consumers this way.

If Air Canada is incapable of doing what’s right, that’s just one more reason to rethink how we regulate the domestic airline industry. The easiest way to shake things up would be to change our approach regarding international ownership. As it stands, airlines that fly domestic routes in Canada need to be majority-owned by Canadian citizens, which means international investors cannot account for more than 49 per cent of company ownership. Canada should follow Chile’s lead, eliminating ownership requirements altogether and allowing for international carriers to fly domestic routes.

This would be a huge benefit to consumers, as it would put much-needed downward pressure on travel prices in Canada. Based on aggregate data from international travel booking company Kiwi.com, Canada ranks 65th globally in terms of flight affordability. Our cost per 100 kilometres travelled is 2.1 times higher than in the United States, 2.8 times higher than in New Zealand and 3.6 times higher than in Portugal.

When it comes to air travel, Canadian consumers need more competition. Permitting international carriers to better optimize their routes by including additional Canadian cities would be a great step forward. For example, why shouldn’t British Airways be allowed to sell seats from Vancouver to Toronto while en route to London? Or American Airlines from Halifax to Calgary, while en route to Seattle? Or Air France from Calgary to Montreal, en route to Paris? Why not, indeed? It would save us all a lot of money.

Critics will argue that more competition will decrease Air Canada’s ability to connect our smaller towns and cities. But considering Air Canada has just announced the indefinite suspension of 30 small-market domestic routes, it’s a moot point. Air Canada’s decision shows exactly why now is the time to open the market to more competition.

If international discount carriers think they can make (our domestic) routes profitable, let’s make it legal for them to try

If international discount carriers think they can make those routes profitable, let’s make it legal for them to try. If a Canadian airline wants to attract international investment to expand its ability to fly domestic routes, it should be able to do so without arbitrary ownership limits. Air Canada may not be able to fly those routes and make a profit, but that doesn’t mean other airlines couldn’t. We should let them try.

No doubt some people believe the current turmoil is a reason to re-nationalize Air Canada and bring it back under government control. That is a terrible idea — for taxpayers and travellers alike. Both in Canada and internationally the airline industry has shown itself to be extremely volatile. In the past 20 years alone, the sector was devastated by 9/11, dealt another blow by SARS and didn’t see its stock prices recover to pre-9/11 levels until 2014.

COVID-19 highlights this volatility, as the pandemic has caused airline stock prices to fall at a rate never seen. A nationalized airline would not be immune to those shocks, which would then force taxpayers to foot the bill every time a crisis erupted. For a country with high — and rising — public debt, taking on a hugely risky public investment wouldn’t just be misguided, it would be reckless.

On the consumer side, the idea of a nationalized airline isn’t worth celebrating, either. For decades, the government has consistently failed to deliver the mail on time. Putting it in charge of getting you to your connecting flight is a recipe for widespread travel disaster.

Consumers would have more choice and more routes as a result of eliminating ownership restrictions. When we do travel again, the experience should be as consumer-friendly as possible. More competition is the only way to ensure that.

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
en_USEN