The possibility of using representative actions to pursue claims resulting from the Dieselgate scandal – the future of redress for infringements of collective consumer interests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the disclosure of unethical and illegal solutions used by Volkswagen A.G. during exhaust emission tests in many countries, proceedings are underway to impose an appropriate penalty on the company and to compensate the victims. On a global scale, the USA, Australia, South Korea and Canada can be mentioned. The European Union is not standing still. Until mid-February 2020, national courts and administrative bodies imposed various types of sanctions in Spain, Germany, Portugal, the Netherlands, Austria and Poland, among others. However, although the Volkswagen case is an infringement of collective consumer interests on a pan-European scale, Member States are resolving the problem through internal proceedings. Does this ensure effective and adequate compensation of affected consumers? The increase in protection would ensure, among other things, that there is a valid injunction for adequate compensation and that the proceedings are international in nature. The paper aims to show how the representative actions mechanism proposed in the “New Deal for Consumers” package could affect the effectiveness of decisions taken in the Volkswagen case by Member States’ competent authorities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.037 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".