Abstract:
In Margaret Jane Radin’s book, BOILERPLATE: THE FINE PRINT, VANISHING RIGHTS AND THE RULE OF LAW, Radin presents the issue of adhesive terms as a social problem leading to normative and democratic degradation of important rights. In his review of Radin’s book, Omri Ben-Shahar outlines two approaches to regulation by boilerplate. He labels the first as “autonomism” which asks “how such one-sided dictation of terms by firms fits within a liberal account of good social order, of democratic control and participation, and of individual autonomy.” Ben-Shahar views Radin as representative of the autonomists. The second way of viewing regulation-by-boilerplate is “to ask how it affects the well being and satisfaction of consumers who buy products co-packed with boilerplate.” Ben-Shahar identifies himself with “boilerplate apologists,” who are primarily concerned with “the substance of the deal, its costs to consumers, the ease by which profitable deals are formed, and the opportunities to realize benefits from trade” and who are “largely numb to the inherent political value of private order, control, or “voice.”” According to Ben-Shahar, boilerplate apologists believe that boilerplate is welfare-enhancing because it reduces transaction costs and presumably, prices. Therefore, he argues, boilerplate is what consumers want anyway — a generalization which Radin disputes. This Essay continues the discussion by asking: Do consumers really want boilerplate? And how would we know?
Kim, Nancy S., Do Consumers Really Want Boilerplate? (November 15, 2013). The Green Bag (Forthcoming).
First posted 2013-11-17 10:59:16
Leave a Reply