fbpx

Month: July 2020

Scrapping COVID Patents: PM Johnson needs to resist populist calls

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Image

CONTACT:

Fred Roeder, Managing Director, Consumer Choice Center

Scrapping COVID Patents: PM Johnson needs to resist populist calls

London, UK –  In a report published today by the House of Commons International Trade Committee, Members of Parliament suggest to allow for compulsory licensing of drugs for COVID-19. Under compulsory licensing laws, a government has the power to revoke patent rights from innovators or companies if a discovery they made provides vital treatment or protection related to a national health emergency. Fred Roeder, Health Economist and Managing Director of the Consumer Choice Center warns that such erosion of intellectual property would lead to the opposite and eventually harm patients:

“Compulsory licensing is threatening to move the goalposts on how intellectual property rights are protected. If domestic and foreign companies are prevented from retaining their patent licenses, this could hinder the production and supply of essential goods to the population further than they already are. A compulsory licensing bill could place even more barriers for pharmaceutical innovators, which could further discourage these kinds of companies from investing or listing their drugs in the UK.

There are many ways to make easier access to vaccines and drugs for example a mutual recognition of FDA and EMA approvals and fast-tracking some type of medicines. In order to be prepared for the next pandemic, we need to increase and not curb incentives for innovation. Right now we need to do everything that makes pharmaceutical research more agile – Introducing compulsory licensing on COVID drugs and vaccines is not the right way. While might help in the short term but jeopardizes our ability to tackle health crises early on in the long run,” concludes Roeder.

***CCC’ Fred Roeder is available to speak with accredited media on consumer regulations and healthcare 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

Waco Tribune-Herald

GOP bill would deter frivolous COVID lawsuits

As customers slowly trickle back into stores and workers punch back in at reopened businesses, one thought dominates all our minds: caution.

Protective plastic shields and screens, face masks and gloves are a new reality, and it is a small price to pay for coming out of state-mandated lockdowns. But months into the all-encompassing coronavirus pandemic, there is another cost many entrepreneurs and administrators fear: future legal bills.

While voluntary precautions will be plentiful in every situation where a customer, student or worker is getting back out in the world, the nature of the virus means it is almost certain that someone, somewhere, will catch the virus. That means huge potential legal ramifications if a person wants to hold an institution or business liable.

A demonstrable lawsuit epidemic already exists. Between March and May of this year, more than 2,400 COVID-related lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts. These cases are likely to blow up the legal system as we know it, elevating accusations of blame, clogging every level of our courts and keeping judges and lawyers busy for some time.

That is why the idea of a liability shield for schools, businesses and organizations has taken up steam. In a recent letter to congressional leaders, 21 governors, all Republicans, called on both houses of Congress to include liability protections in the next round of coronavirus relief.

“To accelerate reopening our economies as quickly and as safely as possible, we must allow citizens to get back to their livelihoods and make a living for their families without the threat of frivolous lawsuits,” the governors wrote.

While a liability shield will not give cover to institutions that are negligent or reckless, and reasonably so, it would ensure that blatantly frivolous or unfounded lawsuits are not allowed to go forward. For the average entrepreneur or school administrator, this would help alleviate some of the worries that are keeping many institutions and businesses closed or severely restricted.

No one wants customers or workers catching the virus in these environments, but creating 100 percent COVID-free zones would be next to impossible, a fact many scientists are ready to acknowledge. That’s why state governors, lawmakers and business leaders want to ensure that our states can open back up, yet be cognizant of the risk.

There is still plenty of uncertainty related to transmission of the virus, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has pointed out, and that is why a liability shield — at least for those who follow health and safety recommendations — makes sense. Businesses and schools that willfully endanger citizens through negligence, though, should rightfully be held liable. This is the idea currently being debated in the nation’s capital, as Senate Republicans have stated they want a liability shield to avoid a lawsuit contagion.

Unfortunately, the idea is likely to be mired in a toxic partisan death spiral. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York decries such a plan as “legal immunity for big corporations” and national reporting on the topic has suggested as much.

But these protections would most benefit small businesses and schools that follow health recommendations and still find themselves the subject of lawsuits. It’s no secret that many attorneys see a potential payday in the wake of the pandemic. Already hundreds of law firms are pitching “coronavirus lawyers.”

And much as in consumer fraud cases before the pandemic, a favorite tool of coronavirus tort lawyers will be large class-action lawsuits that seek huge payouts. These are the cases that usually end up lining the pockets of legal firms instead of legitimately harmed plaintiffs, as a recent Jones Day law firm report finds. And that does not even speak to whether these cases have merit or not.

Whether it’s the local community college or bakery, we must all recognize that assigning blame for virus contraction will be a frequent topic of concern. But those accusations must be founded, and be the result of outright harmful and negligent behavior, not just because students are back in class or customers are once again buying cakes. A liability shield for the responsible citizens of our country is not only a good idea but necessary.

Yaël Ossowski is deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center. This article was published in the Waco Tribune-Herald.

RESPONSIBLE BUSINESSES AND SCHOOLS NEED COVID-19 LIABILITY SHIELDS

A Liability Shield For Small Businesses And Schools

Part of this proposal is a liability shield for small businesses and schools, to protect them from unreasonable lawsuits related to COVID-19.

Consumer Choice Center Deputy Director Yaël Ossowski responded: “The nature of the virus means it is almost certain that someone, somewhere, will catch the virus. That means huge potential legal ramifications if a person wants to hold an institution or business liable,” he wrote in the Detroit Times.

“There is already a demonstrable lawsuit epidemic. These cases are likely to blow up our legal system as we know it, elevating accusations of blame and clogging every level of our courts that will keep judges and lawyers busy for some time.

“That’s why responsible businesses and schools that follow federal recommendations on health and safety should not be subject to outrageous lawsuits that bring our society to a halt,” said Ossowski. “Only legitimate lawsuits, based on some measure of negligence or recklessness, should be heard in our nation’s courts.”

“For the average entrepreneur or school administrator, a liability shield would help alleviate some of the worries that are keeping many of these institutions closed or severely restricted,” he added.

“Stopping the coming wave of unfounded and frivolous lawsuits will be important if we want to actually identify citizens and consumers who have been harmed by institutions that have not taken the right precautions. That’s why a liability shield is necessary for getting our country back on the right track,” concluded Ossowski.

Learn more about Consumer Choice Center’s #LegalReform campaign here

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

Yahoo Finance

Les nouvelles règles de l’UE pénaliseront les fumeurs et utilisateurs de cigarettes électroniques

Dans ses conclusions de juin, le Conseil européen a approuvé un nouveau consensus sur les droits d’accises sur le tabac. Les États membres suggèrent des modifications des règles qui augmenteraient le prix du tabac et affecteraient également les produits non liés au tabac tels que les cigarettes électroniques.

Depuis 2011, l’Union européenne dispose d’un droit d’accise minimum commun sur les produits du tabac, ce qui a notamment entraîné une augmentation du prix des cigarettes dans les pays européens où les prix sont comparativement bas (comme la Pologne ou la Hongrie). Les pays voisins où les taxes sont plus élevées affirment que la prévalence des achats transfrontaliers va à l’encontre de leurs propres objectifs de santé publique. Par exemple, les frontaliers français achètent du tabac au Luxembourg.

Les avantages escomptés ne sont pas au rendez-vous

Maintenant que la directive de 2011 n’a pas apporté les avantages escomptés par certains États membres, ou, plus vraisemblablement, n’a pas produit le nombre de recettes fiscales dont les États membres ont besoin dans la situation économique actuelle, ils souhaiteraient une révision. Cette révision, cependant, ne vise pas seulement les produits du tabac conventionnels tels que les cigarettes, le tabac à priser, la shisha, ou les cigares et cigarillos. Pour la première fois, le Conseil européen demande que les produits autres que le tabac soient également inclus dans la directive sur les accises sur le tabac. Il serait ainsi difficile pour les États membres de prétendre que l’objectif est la santé publique et non la réduction des (…) Lire la suite sur La Tribune.fr

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

Flavor bans push consumers across borders

David Clement, North American Affairs Manager with the Consumer Choice Center responded: “How many times do we have to be reminded that prohibition doesn’t work? A decline in tax revenue is a predictable consequence of prohibition-style bans. It was naive for Massachusetts legislators to think that their ban wouldn’t increase sales across state lines. To make matters worse, other states like California and Illinois are considering enacting similar bans in their states,” said Clement.

source http://meltwater.pressify.io/publication/5f2053fcd5a41e0004c1b417/5aa837df2542970e001981f6

Businesses and schools need COVID-19 liability shields

Consumer Choice Center Deputy Director Yaël Ossowski responded: “The nature of the virus means it is almost certain that someone, somewhere, will catch the virus. That means huge potential legal ramifications if a person wants to hold an institution or business liable,” he wrote in the Detroit Times.

source http://meltwater.pressify.io/publication/5f204b99d5a41e0004c1b416/5aa837df2542970e001981f6

Flavor bans push consumers across borders

David Clement, North American Affairs Manager with the Consumer Choice Center responded: “How many times do we have to be reminded that prohibition doesn’t work? A decline in tax revenue is a predictable consequence of prohibition-style bans. It was naive for Massachusetts legislators to think that their ban wouldn’t increase sales across state lines. To make matters worse, other states like California and Illinois are considering enacting similar bans in their states,” said Clement.

from Consumer Choice Center https://ift.tt/3hW5bxx

Businesses and schools need COVID-19 liability shields

Consumer Choice Center Deputy Director Yaël Ossowski responded: “The nature of the virus means it is almost certain that someone, somewhere, will catch the virus. That means huge potential legal ramifications if a person wants to hold an institution or business liable,” he wrote in the Detroit Times.

from Consumer Choice Center https://ift.tt/3jLegL7

Les nouvelles règles de l’UE pénaliseront les fumeurs et utilisateurs de cigarettes électroniques

Le Conseil européen a approuvé une modification de la directive de 2011 qui va non seulement augmenter le prix du tabac mais aussi des produits apparentés comme les cigarettes électroniques. Ces nouvelles règles expriment davantage la volonté d’augmenter les recettes fiscales qu’une préoccupation en matière de santé publique. Par Bill Wirtz, analyste de politiques publiques pour l’Agence pour le choix des consommateurs (Consumer Choice Center) (*).

Dans ses conclusions de juin, le Conseil européen a approuvé un nouveau consensus sur les droits d’accises sur le tabac. Les États membres suggèrent des modifications des règles qui augmenteraient le prix du tabac et affecteraient également les produits non liés au tabac tels que les cigarettes électroniques.

Depuis 2011, l’Union européenne dispose d’un droit d’accise minimum commun sur les produits du tabac, ce qui a notamment entraîné une augmentation du prix des cigarettes dans les pays européens où les prix sont comparativement bas (comme la Pologne ou la Hongrie). Les pays voisins où les taxes sont plus élevées affirment que la prévalence des achats transfrontaliers va à l’encontre de leurs propres objectifs de santé publique. Par exemple, les frontaliers français achètent du tabac au Luxembourg.

Les avantages escomptés ne sont pas au rendez-vous

Maintenant que la directive de 2011 n’a pas apporté les avantages escomptés par certains États membres, ou, plus vraisemblablement, n’a pas produit le nombre de recettes fiscales dont les États membres ont besoin dans la situation économique actuelle, ils souhaiteraient une révision. Cette révision, cependant, ne vise pas seulement les produits du tabac conventionnels tels que les cigarettes, le tabac à priser, la shisha, ou les cigares et cigarillos. Pour la première fois, le Conseil européen demande que les produits autres que le tabac soient également inclus dans la directive sur les accises sur le tabac. Il serait ainsi difficile pour les États membres de prétendre que l’objectif est la santé publique et non la réduction des déficits du Trésor, car l’équivalent logique de cette démarche serait de classer les produits non alcoolisés parmi les boissons alcoolisées.

Les cigarettes électroniques ou les dispositifs “heat-not-burn” représentent des alternatives viables pour les consommateurs de produits du tabac conventionnels. Nous savons que, bien qu’elles ne soient pas inoffensives, ces vapeurs sont 95 % moins nocives que la cigarette. Selon toutes les logiques disponibles, les États devraient se réjouir de la prévalence de ces alternatives. Toutefois, le Conseil européen conclut qu’“il est donc urgent et nécessaire de moderniser le cadre réglementaire de l’UE, afin de relever les défis actuels et futurs en ce qui concerne le fonctionnement du marché intérieur en harmonisant les définitions et le traitement fiscal des nouveaux produits”.

Mauvais signal

L’ajout de droits d’accises aux produits à risque réduit envoie un mauvais signal aux consommateurs, à savoir que ces produits sont tout aussi risqués que les cigarettes. Des recherches menées aux États-Unis montrent que chaque augmentation de 10% du prix des produits à faible risque entraîne une augmentation de 11% des achats de cigarettes.

Dans quelle mesure les États membres de l’Union européenne sont-ils sérieux lorsqu’il s’agit d’améliorer la santé publique si leur méthode de prévention consiste à augmenter la charge fiscale pesant sur les consommateurs ? Les cigarettes électroniques sont une chose, mais nous ne devons pas nous faire d’illusions sur l’idée que taxer davantage les cigarettes n’est pas sans effet négatif. Les conclusions du Conseil reconnaissent elles-mêmes que l’Europe est confrontée à une vague de commerce illicite du tabac, et demandent davantage de solutions pour le combattre. Le commerce illégal est en corrélation avec l’augmentation des charges fiscales : en taxant les ménages à faibles revenus sur les cigarettes, qui restent néanmoins un produit légal, nous les poussons sur le marché noir, où des éléments criminels profitent d’une mauvaise gestion de la santé publique. Un rapport publié en 2015 a révélé que la France était le plus grand consommateur de fausses cigarettes d’Europe, avec 15 % de part de marché.

Un profit pour le terrorisme international

En l’absence de contrôle de qualité, ces cigarettes illégales représentent une menace beaucoup plus endémique pour la santé des consommateurs. De plus, les revenus de la vente de ces cigarettes profitent au terrorisme international – le Centre d’analyse du terrorisme français a même montré que les ventes illicites de tabac financent 20 % du terrorisme international. Des organisations telles que l’IRA, Al-Qaida et Daesh financent leurs activités de cette manière.

Les modifications proposées par le Conseil européen à la directive sur les accises sur le tabac vont à l’encontre des objectifs de santé publique et visent à réduire le choix et la santé des consommateurs. Nous devons analyser les changements de règles non seulement en fonction de leurs intentions, mais aussi de leurs résultats potentiels.

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

The Detroit News

Responsible businesses need COVID-19 liability shields

As customers slowly trickle back into stores and workers punch back in at reopened businesses, there’s one thought on all our minds: caution.

Protective plastic shields and screens, face masks and gloves are a new reality, and it is a small price to pay for coming out of state-mandated lockdowns.

But months into the all-encompassing coronavirus pandemic, there is another cost many entrepreneurs and administrators fear: future legal bills. 

While voluntary precautions will be plentiful in every situation where a customer, student or worker is getting back out in the world, the nature of the virus means it is almost certain that someone, somewhere, will catch the virus. That means huge potential legal ramifications if a person wants to hold an institution or business liable.

In this April 15, 2020, file photo, two people walk past a closed sign at a retail store in Chicago.Nam Y. Huh, AP

There is already a demonstrable lawsuit epidemic. Between March and May of this year, more than 2,400 COVID-related lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts. These cases are likely to blow up our legal system as we know it, elevating accusations of blame and clogging every level of our courts that will keep judges and lawyers busy for some time.

That is why the idea of a liability shield for schools, businesses and organizations has taken up steam.

In a recent letter to congressional leaders, 21 governors, all Republicans, called on both houses of Congress to include liability protections in the next round of coronavirus relief.

“To accelerate reopening our economies as quickly and as safely as possible, we must allow citizens to get back to their livelihoods and make a living for their families without the threat of frivolous lawsuits,” the governors wrote.

While a liability shield will not give cover to institutions that are negligent or reckless, and reasonably so, it would ensure that blatantly frivolous or unfounded lawsuits are not allowed to go forward.

For the average entrepreneur or school administrator, that would help alleviate some of the worries that are keeping many of these institutions closed or severely restricted.

No one wants customers or workers catching the virus in these environments, but creating 100% COVID-free zones would be next to impossible, a fact many scientists are ready to acknowledge. That’s why state governors, lawmakers and business leaders want to ensure that our states can open back up, but be cognizant of the risk. 

There is still plenty of uncertainty related to the transmission of the virus, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has pointed out, and that is why a liability shield — at least for those who follow health and safety recommendations — makes sense. Businesses and schools that willfully endanger citizens through negligence though, should rightfully be held liable.

This is the idea currently being debated in the nation’s capital, as Senate Republicans have stated they want a liability shield to avoid a lawsuit contagion.

Unfortunately, the idea is likely to be mired in a toxic partisan death spiral. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York decries such a plan as “legal immunity for big corporations” and reporting on the topic has resembled such. 

But these protections would most benefit small businesses and schools that follow health recommendations and still find themselves the subject of lawsuits. 

It is no secret that many attorneys see a potential payday in the wake of the pandemic. There are already many law firms pitching “coronavirus lawyers” and many have reassigned entire teams and departments to focus on providing legal advice and counsel for COVID-19 cases. 

And much like in consumer fraud cases before the pandemic, a favorite tool of coronavirus tort lawyers will be large class-action lawsuits that seek huge payouts. These are the cases that usually end up lining the pockets of legal firms instead of legitimately harmed plaintiffs, as a recent Jones Day report finds. And that does not even speak to whether or not these cases have merit or not.

In debating the next level of pandemic relief for Americans, including a liability shield would be a great measure of confidence for responsible and cautious businesses and institutions in our country. 

Whether it is the local community college or bakery, we must all recognize that assigning blame for virus contraction will be a frequent topic of concern. But those accusations must be founded, and be the result of outright harmful and negligent behavior, not just because students are back in class or customers are once again buying cakes.

A liability shield for the responsible citizens of our country is not only a good idea but necessary.

Originally published in the Detroit Times 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

Fun Police

ConsEUmer Podcast

Consumer Choice Center Cast

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

Contact Info

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2024, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Scroll to top
en_USEN
it_ITIT pt_BRPT fr_FRFR es_ESES de_DEDE en_USEN