Chilling effect: how bad regulation killed comparative advertising in Peru

Authors

  • Alfonso Rivera Serrano Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.

    Abogado egresado de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Abogado Consejero en el estudio jurídico Miranda & Amado asociados. LLM por la Universidad de Columbia (EE.UU.), 2000; LLM en Derecho Europeo por la Universidad de Estocolmo (Suecia), 2002; y MBL en Derecho de Negocios, Competencia y Regulación Europeo e Internacional por la Universidad Libre de Berlín (Alemania), 2012.

Keywords:

Freedom of speech, Commercial speech, Chilling effect, Commercial advertising, Comparative advertising

Abstract

This article provides a criticism of the Peruvian policy regulating comparative advertising.
The first section of the article describes the evolution of the regulatory treatment of comparative advertising in Peru and explains the “chilling effect” caused by its current regulation. The second section introduces the concept of “chilling effect” used in decisions about freedom of speech, analyzes the constitutional protection of commercial speech as a manifestation of the freedom of speech, and describes the test developed in the United States and Spain to analyze restrictions to commercial speech. The third section applies the test to the regulation of comparative advertising in Peru and concludes that this regulation is unconstitutional.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Published

2017-04-24

How to Cite

Rivera Serrano, A. (2017). Chilling effect: how bad regulation killed comparative advertising in Peru. Derecho & Sociedad, (49), 249–261. Retrieved from https://revistas.pucp.edu.pe/index.php/derechoysociedad/article/view/19891

Issue

Section

Derecho de la Competencia