The Promise and Perils of Crowdfunding: Between Corporate Finance and Consumer Contracts

J. Armour, L. Enriques
{"title":"The Promise and Perils of Crowdfunding: Between Corporate Finance and Consumer Contracts","authors":"J. Armour, L. Enriques","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12316","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"‘Crowdfunding’ — raising capital through large numbers of small contributions — is a burgeoning phenomenon, spurred by the internet’s capacity to reduce communication costs. Its still-evolving status is reflected in diversity of contracting practices: for example, ‘equity’ crowdfunders invest in shares, whereas ‘reward’ crowdfunders get advance units of product. These practices occupy a hinterland between existing regimes of securities regulation and consumer contract law, with no consistency of treatment. Thus consumer protection law in the UK (but not the US) imposes mandatory terms that impede risk-sharing in reward crowdfunding, whereas US (but not UK) securities law mandates expensive disclosures that hinder equity crowdfunding. This article offers a normative roadmap for the regulation of crowdfunding. We suggest that while crowdfunding poses real risks for funders, neither the classical regulatory techniques of securities or consumer law provide an effective response. At the same time, a review of rapidly-developing mechanisms in crowdfunding markets suggests they offer the potential to provide meaningful protection for funders. In light of this, a permissive regulatory approach — with a credible threat of intervention should the market fail to protect consumers — is justified.","PeriodicalId":142664,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Other Regulation that Pertains to Consumer Markets (Sub-Topic)","volume":"128 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"32","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Other Regulation that Pertains to Consumer Markets (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12316","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 32

Abstract

‘Crowdfunding’ — raising capital through large numbers of small contributions — is a burgeoning phenomenon, spurred by the internet’s capacity to reduce communication costs. Its still-evolving status is reflected in diversity of contracting practices: for example, ‘equity’ crowdfunders invest in shares, whereas ‘reward’ crowdfunders get advance units of product. These practices occupy a hinterland between existing regimes of securities regulation and consumer contract law, with no consistency of treatment. Thus consumer protection law in the UK (but not the US) imposes mandatory terms that impede risk-sharing in reward crowdfunding, whereas US (but not UK) securities law mandates expensive disclosures that hinder equity crowdfunding. This article offers a normative roadmap for the regulation of crowdfunding. We suggest that while crowdfunding poses real risks for funders, neither the classical regulatory techniques of securities or consumer law provide an effective response. At the same time, a review of rapidly-developing mechanisms in crowdfunding markets suggests they offer the potential to provide meaningful protection for funders. In light of this, a permissive regulatory approach — with a credible threat of intervention should the market fail to protect consumers — is justified.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
众筹的希望和风险:介于企业融资和消费者合同之间
“众筹”——通过大量小额捐款筹集资金——是一种新兴的现象,受到互联网降低沟通成本能力的推动。它仍在不断发展的地位反映在承包实践的多样性上:例如,“股权”众筹者投资股票,而“奖励”众筹者获得产品的预付款。这些做法介于现有的证券监管制度和消费者合同法之间,没有一致的处理方式。因此,英国(而不是美国)的消费者保护法规定了阻碍奖励众筹风险分担的强制性条款,而美国(而不是英国)的证券法规定了阻碍股权众筹的昂贵披露。本文为众筹监管提供了规范路线图。我们认为,虽然众筹给出资者带来了真正的风险,但传统的证券监管技术或消费者法都无法提供有效的应对措施。与此同时,对众筹市场快速发展机制的回顾表明,它们有可能为资助者提供有意义的保护。有鉴于此,一种宽松的监管方式是合理的——如果市场无法保护消费者,就会有干预的可信威胁。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Property Law of Tokens Gender in the Competition Law Curriculum? 보험시장에서의 거래구조 문제와 소비자보호제도에 대한 소비자평가 연구(Consumer Evaluation of Transaction Structure and Consumer Protection System on Life and Non-Life Insurance Markets in Korea) Predatory Pricing in India Personalized Choice of Private Law
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1