译者  |  杨宇      柏林洪堡大学LL.M.
审稿  |  Jessie   PKU  LL.M.
           Kristine BJTU LL.B.
编辑  |  张程畅    Vanderbilt LL.M.
1. ARTICLE:Consumer Psychology and the Problem of Fine-Print Fraud
消费者心理与细字欺诈问题
作者:Meirav Furth-Matzkin &
Roseanna Sommers
This Article investigates consumers’ beliefs about contracts that are formed as a result of fraud. Across four studies, we asked lay survey respondents to judge scenarios in which sellers use false representations to induce consumers to buy products or services. In each case, the false representations are directly contradicted by the written terms of the contract, which the consumers sign without reading. Our findings reveal that lay respondents, unlike legally trained respondents, believe that such agreements are consented to and will be enforced as written, despite the seller’s material deception. Importantly, fine print discourages consumers from wanting to take legal action, initiate complaints, or damage the deceptive firm’s reputation by telling others what happened. We find that the presence of deception during the contract formation process has little effect on consumers’ beliefs about whether the contract will be or should be enforced as written. While informing consumers about antideception consumer protection laws can alter their perceptions of fine-print fraud, we find that such information does not completely counteract the psychological effect of the fine print.
本文调查了消费者对因受到欺诈而订立的合同的看法。在四项研究中,我们要求非专业测试者对给定的案例提出解决方案,案件为卖家使用虚假陈述诱使消费者购买产品或服务。在每个案例中,虚假陈述都直接与合同的书面条款相矛盾,消费者没有阅读就直接签署了合同。我们的研究结果显示:与受过法律培训的测试者不同,非专业测试者认为尽管卖方存在实质性欺骗,但此类合同已达成合意并将按书面约定来履行。重要的是,细字(用小号字体打印的字)会阻止消费者采取法律行动,提起投诉,或通过告诉他人所发生的事情来降低欺诈消费者的公司声誉。我们发现,合同订立过程中是否有欺诈行为对消费者关于合同是否应该按书面规定履行的态度影响不大,虽然让消费者了解反欺诈消费者保护法可以改变他们对细字欺诈的看法,但我们发现这并不能完全抵消细字带来的心理影响。
Taken together, these findings suggest that consumers who would otherwise complain about being cheated become demoralized when they discover they have signed a contract whose terms contradict what they were promised. We posit that this occurs because many people are intuitive contract formalists: They assume that all contracts—even those induced by fraud—are binding. The implications, we argue, are that prevailing methods of addressing deceptive business practices, which often put the onus on victims of fraud to complain, fail to take account of consumer psychology.
综上所述,这些调查结果表明:本应投诉受到欺诈的消费者在发现他们签订的合同条款与承诺的内容相矛盾时会变得沮丧。我们假设发生这种情况是因为许多人是直观的合同形式主义者:他们假设所有合同——即使是那些因欺诈而缔结的合同——都具有约束力。我们认为,其原因是处理欺骗性商业行为的普遍方法往往将投诉的举证责任放在受欺诈的受害者身上,未能考虑到消费者的心理。
(图片来源于网络)
2.The Myth of Personal Liability——Who Pays When Bivens Claims Succeed
个人责任的神话——比文斯索赔案胜诉后谁来赔偿
作者:James E. Pfander, Alexander A. Reinert & Joanna C. Schwartz
In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, the Supreme Court held that federal law creates a right to sue federal officials for Fourth Amendment violations. For the last three decades, however, the Court has cited the threat of individual liability and the burden of government indemnification on agency budgets as twin bases for narrowing the right of victims to secure redress under Bivens. In its most recent decisions, Ziglar v. Abbasi and Hernandez v. Mesa, the Court said much to confirm that it now views personal liability less as a feature of the Bivens liability rule than as a bug. But, to date, there has been no empirical examination of who pays when Bivens claims succeed.
比文斯诉六名官员案
中,联邦最高法院认为:联邦法律规定了起诉联邦官员违反第四修正案的权利。然而,在过去的三十年里,法院将个人责任的威胁和政府赔偿对机构预算的负担作为缩小受害人根据比文斯案获得救济的双重依据。在最近的
金克拉诉阿巴西案
埃尔南德斯诉梅萨案
判决中,法院通过很多论述来证实与其说个人责任是比文斯责任规则的一个特点,不如说是一个缺陷。但是,到目前为止还没有关于比文斯索赔成功后由谁来支付这一问题的实证研究。

This Article studies the financial threat that successful Bivens claims pose to federal officers and their employing federal agency. Information supplied by the Federal Bureau of Prisons in response to a Freedom of Information Act request identified successful Bivens actions over a ten-year period; in the vast majority of cases (over 95%), individual defendants contributed no personal resources to the resolution of the claims. Nor did the responsible federal agency pay the claims through indemnification. The data suggest, in short, that recent hostility to Bivens litigation rests on a perceived threat of personal liability that is much more theoretical than real. The data also raise important questions about the adequacy of existing constitutional remedies and the manner in which the Department of Justice exercises its settlement authority under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Judgment Fund.
本文研究了比文斯索赔对联邦官员及其所属联邦机构构成的财政威胁。联邦监狱局根据《信息自由法》的要求提供了十年间胜诉的比文斯诉讼案——在绝大多数案件中(超过95%)个人被告没有为解决索赔承担责任,需要为此负责的联邦机构也没有通过赔偿来支付这些索赔。简而言之,这些数据表明:最近对比文斯诉讼的敌意是基于对个人责任的感知威胁,而这种威胁的理论性远强于现实性。这些数据还提出了关于现有宪法补救措施是否充分以及司法部根据《联邦侵权索赔法》和判决基金行使其和解权力的方式的重要问题。
3.Executive (Agency) Administration
行政部门式的行政影响
作者:Bijal Shah
The current account of executive power is incomplete. Before joining the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan noted that the President seeks control over the executive branch. Kagan referred to this paradigm as “presidential administration.” Kagan’s work and the significant body of literature it spawned have also acknowledged, however, that independent agencies are generally outside the ambit of presidential power. Nonetheless, this scholarship has not looked beyond the White House to consider other forms of overarching executive influence on the administrative state.
目前行政部门的权力是不完整的,它们会受到总统的影响。埃琳娜·卡根在加入最高法院之前指出,总统寻求对行政部门的控制。卡根将这种范式称为 “总统行政”。然而,卡根的工作和她著述的大量文献也承认,独立机构通常不在总统权力的范围内。但是这项学术研究只是考虑其他形式的行政部门对行政国家的总体影响,并未覆盖总统及其相关机构。
This Article reveals that not only the President but also executive agencies seek and wield control over independent agencies for reasons that are distinct from the President’s interests. This results in what this Article calls “executive administration.” More specifically, executive agencies exert influence via litigation brought on their behalf by the Department of Justice against independent agencies before Article III courts. This contention is supported by an original dataset of approximately 120 cases spanning the mid-twentieth century through mid-2018.
本文揭示:不仅是总统,行政机构出于与总统利益不同的原因也在谋求控制独立机构。这就造成了本文所说的“行政部门式的行政影响(非总统形式的总体性行政影响)”。 更具体地说,行政机构在第三条法院通过司法部对独立机构提起诉讼,以此来施加影响。这一论点得到了约120个案件的支持,该原始案件数据横跨二十世纪中期至2018年中期。
Litigation has consistently furthered the interests of executive agencies, including their desire to limit independent agencies’ power to regulate them and in overlapping areas of policymaking authority. For instance, courts have reversed independent agency decisions binding executive agencies and have constrained independent agencies’ authority to implement their enabling statutes. This may be for the better, but may also be for the worse. On the one hand, litigation offers a meaningful vehicle for beneficial, ex post executive oversight of independent agencies, particularly in light of the dearth of presidential mechanisms of quality control. On the other hand, a recent Supreme Court decision suggests litigation may be used to walk back Chevron deference to independent agencies—to the detriment of their ability to enforce the law with nonpartisanship and expertise.
司法部门一直在致力于保障行政机构的利益,包括他们希望限制独立机构对其进行监管的权力,以及在决策权重叠的领域。例如,法院推翻了独立机构对行政机构有约束力的决定,并限制了独立机构执行其授权法规的权力。这可能是好事,但也可能是坏事。一方面,诉讼为对独立机构进行有益的事后行政监督提供了一个有意义的工具,特别是考虑到缺乏总统对此的有效控制。另一方面,最高法院最近的一项判决表明,诉讼可能会降低对独立机构的“谢弗林尊重”[1]——这不利于他们以无党派精神和专业知识适用法律的能力。
Finally, recent cases brought by the Trump Administration have sought to dislocate independent agencies in pursuit of a more unitary executive branch. These cases suggest that litigation could be a tool of presidential administration as well. Theoretically, this litigation exemplifies a constitutional prophylactic: In order to intensify control over the administrative state, the executive branch must cede power to the judiciary. However, courts will continue to serve as barriers to presidential abuse only as long as they remain nonpartisan.
最后,最近特朗普政府提起的一系列诉讼试图拆散独立机构,以追求一个更加统一的行政部门。这些案件表明,诉讼也可以成为总统管理的工具。从理论上讲,这一诉讼体现了一种宪法预防措施:为了加强对行政国家的控制,行政部门必须向司法部门让渡权力。然而,只有在保持无党派立场的情况下,司法部门才会继续阻止总统滥用职权。
(图片来源于网络)
4.Fallacious Reasoning——Revisiting the Roper Trilogy in Light of the Sexual-Abuse-to-Prison Pipeline
谬误的推理——从 “性虐待到监禁”的角度重新审视罗珀三部曲
作者:Marjory Anne Henderson Marquardt
Roper v. Simmons and its progeny fundamentally altered juvenile justice jurisprudence. In the aftermath of these cases, scholars devoted research to the force behind the Supreme Court’s requirement that children have “a meaningful opportunity for release,” state judicial and legislative responses to the cases, and possible extensions of these cases to abolish certain juvenile sentencing and confinement practices.
罗珀诉西蒙斯案及其后判决从根本上改变了未成年司法判决。在这些案件之后,学者们专门研究了联邦最高法院要求儿童有“有意义的释放机会”背后的力量,各州司法和立法部门对这些案件的回应,以及这些案件可能延伸到废除某些未成年判决和监禁做法。
This Note takes a different tack. The Roper trilogy’s central principle declares juveniles to be distinct from adults in terms of cognitive and socioemotional development. The trilogy then makes these differences relevant to criminal liability and punishment. But these differences come into greater relief for adolescents, particularly girls, who have suffered trauma in the form of sexual abuse. This Note thus examines the Roper trilogy’s application to girls who have been sexually abused and subsequently swept into the criminal justice system, the so-called sexual-abuse-to-prison pipeline.
本评注采取了不同的思路。罗珀三部曲的中心原则宣称未成年人在认知和社会情感发展方面与成年人不同。然后,三部曲将这些差异与刑事责任和惩罚互相关联。但这些差异对于遭受性虐待的青少年,特别是女孩来说,就显得更加重要了。因此,本评注研究了罗珀三部曲对被卷进刑事司法系统的女孩的适用性,这些女孩都曾遭受性虐待,即所谓的“从性虐待到监狱”。
In finding that these adolescents are meaningfully different from their peers in their socioemotional and cognitive development, not to mention different from adults, this Note argues that we should change juvenile justice law to conform to the Roper trilogy’s “children are different” principle. These girls’ unique circumstances require alterations to jury instructions and broader latitude for adolescent psychologists to contextualize their actions and behaviors. Moreover, to the extent that mens rea analysis is intended to determine actual criminal culpability, that analysis should similarly evolve to account for these girls’ histories of sexual abuse.
这些青少年在社会情感和认知发展方面与同龄人有明显的不同,更不啻与成年人的不同。鉴于此,本评注认为应该修改少年司法法,以符合罗珀三部曲中的“儿童不同”原则。这些女孩的特殊情况需要改变法官对陪审团的指示,并为青少年心理学家提供更广泛的空间,以使他们的行为符合背景情况。此外,如果分析犯罪意图是为了确定实际的刑事罪责,那么考虑到这些女孩的遭遇,这种分析也应同样进行调整。

But the analysis cannot stop here. Broader research is urgently needed to extend this analysis to children of all genders who have survived childhood sexual abuse. And adolescents who have suffered other types of trauma similarly deserve to have their actions understood in light of their experiences.
但分析不能止于此,需要将这种分析尽快扩展到在童年阶段遭受性虐待的所有性别儿童,再扩展到遭受其他类型创伤的青少年。

(图片来源于网络)
5.Antitrust and Authorized Generics——A New Predation Analysis
反垄断和授权的仿制药——一种新的掠夺性分析
作者:Natalie Peelish
Much attention in the antitrust world has been focused on efforts by brand drug manufacturers to delay or deter generic entry into the pharmaceutical markets following these brand drugs’ loss of patent exclusivity. Scholars have recounted and criticized recent exclusionary techniques by brand drug manufacturers, including pay-for-delay (or reverse-payment settlement) agreements, noncash pay-for-delay agreements, and product hopping. These efforts, while successful in stymieing generic entry into the prescription drug market, have largely been struck down by courts as anticompetitive in a series of recent decisions. In light of these decisions, a key, but underanalyzed, concern now is that in order to keep generics out of the market, or at least delay their entry, brand manufacturers will turn to a new tactic: predatory pricing using authorized generics. While some scholarly attention was paid to authorized generics in the early 2000s, almost none has been given since the Supreme Court held unlawful brand drug manufacturers’ other main exclusionary tactics, despite the fact that the time is now ripe for the launch of authorized generics. Given that courts have already permitted a brand manufacturer’s launch of an authorized generic during a first-filer generic’s exclusivity period, brand manufacturers could deter generic entry by launching an authorized generic upon the start of the first filer’s exclusivity period but pricing the authorized generic below the generic’s costs, thereby preventing the generic from recouping its substantial entry costs. Eventually, if generics see a pattern of brands launching authorized generics during the first filer’s period of exclusivity, generics may be deterred from entering the market at all before patent expiration, thereby depriving consumers of price competition in the pharmaceutical market, resulting in higher drug prices overall.
在反垄断领域,人们对品牌药制造商在失去专利独占权后为延迟或阻止仿制药进入药品市场所做的努力多有关注。学者们对品牌药制造商最近的排他性做法进行了阐述和批评,包括有偿延迟(或反向支付和解)协议、非现金付费延迟协议和产品跳转。这虽然成功地阻止了仿制药进入处方药市场,但在最近的一系列判决中,法院基本上将其视为反竞争行为而予以驳回。通过分析这些判决可知,现在没有得到充分分析的关键问题是:为了将仿制药挡在市场外,或者推迟它们的进入,品牌药制造商将转向一种新策略——利用授权仿制药进行掠夺性定价。虽然在21世纪初,学术界对授权仿制药进行了一些关注,但自从最高法院认定品牌药制造商的其他主要排他性策略为非法后,几乎没有人再关注过——尽管现在推出授权仿制药的时机已经成熟。鉴于法院已经允许品牌药制造商在首仿制药的独占期内推出授权仿制药,品牌药制造商可以通过在首仿制药的独占期开始时推出低于仿制药成本的授权仿制药,从而阻止仿制药收回其大量成本,以此来阻止仿制药进入市场。最终,如果仿制药制造商看到品牌药制造商在第一个申请者的独占期内推出授权仿制药,那么仿制药制造商可能会在品牌药专利到期前不敢将仿制药投入市场,导致药价上涨,使消费者无法在药品市场上享受不同药物价格竞争带来的好处。
The problem, however, is that if brand manufacturers are in fact pricing their authorized generics below the generic manufacturers’ costs in order to deter generic entry, it is unduly difficult to hold the brand manufacturers accountable under the Supreme Court’s current predatory pricing doctrine. Its test, as enunciated in Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., only imposes liability if a predator prices below some measure of its own costs and if there is a reasonable probability that the predator will recoup its initial investment in low prices. This Note provides a new analysis that better accounts for the unique regulatory structure and patent protection of the prescription drug market. It argues that a test based on limit pricing, or pricing below the entrant’s costs, would more effectively address this exclusionary conduct that harms consumers.
然而,如果品牌药制造商将其授权仿制药定价低于仿制药的成本,以阻止仿制药进入,那么根据最高法院目前的掠夺性定价理论,要追究品牌药制造商的责任是非常难的。正如布鲁克集团公司诉威廉姆烟草公司案中法院所阐述的那样,只有当掠夺者的价格低于其自身成本的某种衡量标准,并且掠夺者有合理的可能性以低价收回其最初的投资时,它才需要承担责任。本评注提供了一个新的视角,更贴合处方药市场的独特监管结构和专利保护特性进行分析。本文认为,基于极限定价或低于进入者成本的定价测试将更有效地解决这种损害消费者的排他性行为。
译者注:
[1]所谓谢福林尊重,即为对于“正式决定”中蕴含的行政解释的司法审查标准。“正式决定”是指《美国程序法》规定的,行政机关在提供了听证机会并基于听证笔录所作的决定。该标准在联邦最高法院审理谢弗林诉自然资源保护委员会案(Chevron U.S.A v. Natural Resources Defense Council)后确立。   谢弗林尊重要求联邦法院对行政机关依据听证等特定程序作出的行政解释保持一定的谦抑性。当法律规范中蕴含的国会政策倾向不明晰时,行政机关有权根据社会实际情况的需要,依据自身的专业判断形成或者选择政策,司法机关应避免干涉。具体而言,谢弗林尊重包括以下两点:第一,法院对行政解释进行司法审查时,首先应判断该行政解释涉及的问题,是否已有国会的明确表态。如果有,行政机关便不能再对该问题进行行政解释,否则就侵犯了国会的政策形成权;第二,如果联邦法院认为国会对该问题立场含糊或没有明确表态,则应判断行政解释是否合理,若该解释是合理的,联邦法院则不能以自己的解释代替行政机关的解释。  谢弗林案后,关于是否对所有形式的行政解释均需适用谢弗林尊重,各联邦法院的判决并没有形成定论,联邦最高法院的意见也摇摆不定。直至克里斯滕森诉哈里斯县(Christensen v. Harris County)案,联邦最高法院明确了谢弗林尊重只适用于通过正式决定程序所形成的行政解释,并由此提出了对行政解释的程序性要求。
资料来源:中国法院
https://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2020/03/id/4859843.shtml
END
继续阅读
阅读原文