A framework for evaluating alternative consumer information regulations is developed by integrating economic, consumer behavior, and legal theory. This “Remedies Continuum” which classifies regulations from least to most restrictive of marketplace forces, is used to select the most appropriate regulatory approach.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977), 433 U.S. 350.
2.
Beneficial Corporation v. FTC (1976), 542 F. 2d 611, 618–19 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied 430 U.S. 983 (1977).
3.
BenhamLee and BenhamAlexandra (1975) “Regulating through the Professions: A Perspective on Information Control,” Journal of Law and Economics, 18 (October), 421–447.
4.
BettmanJames (1975), “Issues in Designing Consumer Information Environments,” Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (September), 169–177.
5.
CohenDorothy (1978) “Advertising and the First Amendment,” Journal of Marketing, 42 (July), 59–68.
6.
EnisBen M., KangunNorman, and MokwaMichael P. (1978), “Public Policy Development: A Marketing Perspective,” Marketing News, XII (February 24) 2, 4.
7.
Federal Trade Commission (1970), “Incandescent Lamp (Light Bulb) Industry,” Federal Register, 35 (July 23), 11784.
8.
Federal Trade Commission (1972), “Cooling-Off Period for Door-to-Door Sales,” Federal Register, 38 (November 19), 31828–30.
9.
Federal Trade Commission (1974), “Food Advertising,” Federal Register, 39 (November 11), 39842–62.
10.
Federal Trade Commission (1975), “Health Spas,” Federal Register, 40 (August 18), 34615–19.
11.
Federal Trade Commission (1978a), “Advertising of Opthalmic Goods and Services,” Federal Register, 43 (June 2), 23992–96.
12.
Federal Trade Commission (1978b), Funeral Industry Practices, final staff report, June.
13.
Federal Trade Commission (1978c), Television Advertising to Children, final staff report, February.
14.
Federal Trade Commission (1979), Consumer Information Remedies, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, no. 018-000-00-253-1.
15.
Food and Drug Administration (1973) “Nutrition Labeling,” Federal Register38 (January 19), 2125–49.
16.
Friedman et al. v. Rogers et al. (1979), U.S. 99 Supreme Court, 887.
17.
Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York (1980), U.S. 100 Supreme Court, 2343, 2350.
18.
JacobyJacob, SpellerDonald E., and KohnCarol A. (1974), “Brand Choice Behavior as a Function of Information Load,” Journal of Marketing Research, 11 (February), 63–69.
19.
KatzBenjamin and RoseJane A. (1976), “Information Utilization and the Awareness Criterion in Labeling Regulation,” in 1976 Educators’ Proceedings, BernhardtKenneth L., ed., Chicago: American Marketing Association, 202–04.
20.
Office of Technology Assessment (1977) Perspectives on Federal Retail Food Grading, OTA-F-47, June.
21.
SalopSteven (1976), “Information and Monopolistic Competition,” American Economic Review Papers & Proceedings, 66 (May), 240–245.
22.
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council Inc. (1976), U.S. 96 Supreme Court, 1817.
23.
WilkieWilliam L. and GardnerDavid M. (1974), “The Role of Marketing Research in Public Policy,” Journal of Marketing, 38 (January), 38–47.
24.
J.B. Williams Co., Inc. et al. (1965), 68 F.T.C. 481, affirmed 381 F. 2d (6th Circuit 1967), order modified, 72 F.T.C. 865 (1967).
