The “sharing economy” represents a growing challenge to regulatory policy. In this article, I argue that these debates about the sharing economy are better understood as a broader normative and policy problem of updating our regulatory tools for the new dynamics of 21st century capitalism. The new “on-demand” economy reflects more widespread trends in the structure of business organization, driven by new developments in finance and technology. I argue that we should analyze these changes through the normative lens of the balance of economic power: what is especially troubling about the on-demand economy is the way in which it outstrips the modes of accountability and countervailing power enabled by 20th century labor, safety net, and economic regulations. The article then suggests key frontiers for regulatory innovation, in particular: (1) expanding regulatory oversight of concentrated market and economic power among on-demand platforms; (2) expanding the relative power of workers to counteract the concentrated power of platforms in the on-demand economy (for example by expanding safety net protections and the ability to organize collectively); and (3) by reinventing systems of collective urban planning processes in the face of the on-demand economy. All three of these focus areas for regulation would entail a variety of specific interventions, but share a common premise of rebalancing economic power in this new economy. The payoffs of these shifts would be more than an expansion of welfare or efficiency, but rather the creation of a policy regime that enables a richer form of economic freedom that achieves more genuine economic independence from domination of various kinds.

The sharing economy phenomenon is expected to expand and grow steadily in the coming years. Yet, this sector lacks solid regulation, which raises concerns about its potential risks. However, users continue to engage in sharing economy practices, as opportunities appear to outweigh the perceived risks. This article argues that it is important to look beyond regulatory frameworks, and unravel the social embeddedness of sharing practices in order to provide complementary approaches to risk analysis. In particular, the focus of this article will be placed on the opportunities for building and deploying social capital in the sharing economy and its fundamental role in the development of new sharing economy practices.

Underground kitchens, public fridges and local meals at strangers’ homes offer an interesting and economically attractive alternatives to traditional channels of food distribution. The new practices of food sharing facilitated by technological development and using new social media combine an interest in modern engaged consumerism with a promise of more sustainable food chains and waste reduction. The main objective of this article is to map and analyse the risks and regulatory challenges posed by the variety of emerging sharing economy practices in the food sector. Drawing on the identification of the key features of sharing economy and the specificity of food in that context, this article discusses various forms, scales and motivations behind the existing food sharing initiatives. The article describes three main categories of food sharing models, namely harvest sharing, meal sharing and leftover sharing, and illustrates them with concrete examples of networks or platforms. Against this background, the article scrutinizes the major risks and challenges of food sharing, ranging from individual and public health and safety to market fragmentation. Reviewing the available regulatory options to address these risks, and juxtaposing them with the risks stemming out of regulatory intervention as such, the contribution calls for balanced approach to food sharing governance in the European Union.

Web-based financial intermediation on a peer-to-peer (P2P) basis will eventually prevail as an economically superior form of organisation compared to the traditional banking business model. P2P lending is the most popular type of crowdfunding, whereby an internet platform collects small amounts of funds from individuals in a crowd to finance collectively a larger loan to individuals or businesses. Unlike a commercial bank, the platform does not take risks through its own contractual positions. Whereas banks accumulate risks by taking positions on their balance sheet, platforms decentralise the risks by spreading them to their users. The emergence of financial platform businesses challenges legislators and regulators in several respects: the “easy way” of modifying existing finance and banking laws is inadequate; the internal organisation and knowledge of staff is not well suited to regulating crowdfunding; and capital mediation by crowdfunding platforms requires a different regulatory approach than banking. Finally, there is no doubt that P2P lending platforms will in the long run need a dedicated, single European regulatory framework.

The sharing economy has become a reality in many sectors, including energy. Energy consumers are increasingly able and willing not only to produce their own energy and thus become prosumers, but also to sell this energy on the local or national energy market along with ‘traditional’ energy market players. Thus, the role of prosumers is de facto extended as to include the parallel roles of consumers, producers, suppliers and traders. Against this background, this article inquires whether it is possible for prosumers to share energy under the current Dutch regulatory framework. This question has been evaluated from the theoretical perspective of the regulatory disconnection between innovation and regulation.

The rise of the sharing economy is transforming the way we produce and consume goods and services. This transformation requires a revision of current legal rules concerning sectors where the sharing economy is emerging. Taking the regulation of the taxi industry as a main example, this article analyses why those rules ought to be reviewed, the obstacles law makers have to face in order to perform such a task, and the regulatory strategies they could use for that purpose. The paper considers a variety of regulatory approaches including regulatory impact assessment, legal variation, the coexistence of different legal regimes, experimental legislation and compensation.

The global obesity epidemic was in focus at the 7th Summer Academy on Global Food Law and Policy in Gexco/Bilbao in July 2015. It approached this accelerating public health concern from the angle of risk regulations as linked to processing, trade, marketing and choice/consumption of foodstuffs, addressing also risks of negative impacts on public health at the consumer end. A wealth of expertise enlightened participants about current developments regarding EU and US legislation on risk assessments and risk management.

European law of risk regulation is commonly intended to be limited to the European regulation in the internal market. However, risk is also regulated in Europe by human rights law, which is often left aside in this area. In fact, disregard for the risk entailed by certain manmade activities as well as by natural events, may imply restrictions to, inter alia, the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. This article aims at studying the manner in which this Convention regulates risk through human rights norms. It provides an overview of the standards set by the European Court of Human Rights in this field.

Cross-border surrogacy transactions [CBST] entail several risks for the participants and the resulting child and, consequentially, for their states. In the absence of clear standards or coherent legal rules, the global industry depends on private contracts, the result of negotiations between parties from different countries with unequal bargaining power, which distributes risks and benefits unfairly. In this article I suggest a Fair Trade model as an instrument for the regulation of these transactions.

The Fair Trade model addresses market failures and the externalization of risks. The basic principles of Fair Trade include trading process according to proper standards of quality and ethics based on a certification mechanism, a minimum price to producers, direct purchasing, transparent rules and fair distribution. In addition to quality and ethics, Fair Trade is a developmental tool, ensuring more of the economic benefits to producers in the global south.

Applying these elements on the cross-border surrogacy market can be fruitful for the regulation of risks entailed in CBST. Certification of surrogacy services can ensure proper medical standards and fundamental rights, and decrease health risks; direct purchasing through democratically elected surrogates’ co-operatives could improve the surrogates’ power of negotiation and decrease contractual risks; a minimum price could guarantee a greater income to surrogates, and social premium could be used to fund communal projects and help surrogates to improve their social position. Finally, transparency can address administrative risks and ensure that children’s rights are not violated.

Linking the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) to the Chinese national ETS promises considerable economic and political benefits. However, different policy choices regarding cap setting between the systems are likely to impede a potential linking. A striking distinction is that the EU ETS relies upon an absolute cap, while the Chinese national ETS appears to apply an ‘intensity-based cap’ during the early stages. The current linking literature focuses on mapping legal barriers in general and has not yet focused on EU and China, let alone the intricacies of policy design. This article seeks to fill this gap by concentrating on (static and dynamic) efficiency and environmental effectiveness implications of linking and cap design. From the analysis of the cap we derive policy implications for a hypothetical ETS linking between the EU and China. In response, comprehensive and predictable regulation is needed to ensure the attainment of ETS targets and thus facilitate better regulation.

This section aims to update readers on decisions related to marketing products of modern biotechnology (e.g., GMOs, animal clones) at EU level and on national measures concerning their production. Special attention is devoted to problems of competence between Member States and the EU in regulating biotechnology issues; the institutional dynamics of decision making regarding products derived from modern biotechnology; the relationship between the EFSA and the EU institutions on green biotech-related issues; the evolution of EU regulatory framework and of national attitudes towards the risks and benefits of biotechnology derived products and their production. This section will also delve into the interaction between the EU legislation and WTO law regarding advances in the application of biotechnology within the agri-food value chain.

In February 2016, the Feasibility Report on options for an EU ecolabel scheme for fishery and aquaculture products was published. The study did not make a strong case for the introduction of a seafood EU Ecolabel and it is unlikely that the European Commission will pursue this policy option. We argue that sustainability information on seafood should not be framed through the EU Ecolabel debate. The more pressing issue concerns self-declared sustainability claims on seafood products. As a possible solution, we propose to address these by re-invigorating the labelling rules on seafood information in the Regulation on the Common Organisation of the Markets in Fishery and Aquaculture Products.

This section discusses the regulation of “lifestyle risks” a term that can apply to both substances and behaviours. Lifestyle risks take place along the line of “abstinence - consumption - abuse - addiction”. This can concern substances such as food, alcohol or drugs, as well as behaviours such as gambling or sports. The section also addresses the question of the appropriate point of equilibrium between free choice and state intervention (regulation), as well as the question of when risks can be considered to be acceptable or tolerable. In line with the interdisciplinary scope of the journal, the section aims at updating readers on both the regulatory and the scientific developments in the field. It analyses legislative initiatives and judicial decisions and at the same time it provides insight into recent empirical studies on lifestyle risks.

This section highlights the interface between international trade and investment law and municipal and international risk regulation. It is meant to cover cases and other legal developments in WTO law (SPS, TBT and TRIPS Agreements and the general exceptions in both GATT 1994 and GATS), bilateral investment treaty arbitration and other free trade agreements such as NAFTA. Pertinent developments in international standardization bodies recognized by the SPS and TBT Agreement are also covered.

Case C-528/13, Léger v. Ministre des Affaires sociales, de la Santé et des Droits des femmes; Établissement français du sang [2015] ECLI: EU:C:2015:288 (Fourth Chamber).

In the case of Léger commented on, the Court of Justice of the European Union dealt with a blanket ban on blood donation for men who had sexual relations with other men (MSM) in France. The Court found that such restrictions can be justified in light of specific epidemiological context and scientific knowledge available in Member States. The judgment, therefore, sheds lights on the boundaries of public health justifications, discrimination of gay and bisexual individuals, as well as the rising scope of EU sexual risk regulation. The present annotation argues that the Court has undermined the principle of non-discrimination and shows how the matter of blood donations should have been treated instead as a prerequisite of active sexual citizenship.

Case C-221/15 Criminal proceedings against Etablissements Fr. Colruyt NV [2016] ECLI:EU:C: 2016:704