Governing Consumer Information in the Digital Age: Lessons from a Controversy Between a Food Rating App and Processed Meat Manufacturers

Abstract

Abstract This article examines the legal response to a controversy on dietary information in the context of commercial court and appellate court rulings. Against a backdrop of health and environmental crises, the construction of information on such risks has become a sensitive issue for market actors, as a result of which courts are asked to arbitrate conflicts. This is particularly important at a time when informational mediations carried out by new actors increasingly take the form of digital ratings and augmented information. The dispute involving the firm Yuca and the French agro-industrial processed meat sector is a case in point. This paper analyses the structural arguments put forward in this legal dispute at the first instance and appeal stages. In the light of law and socio-economics, it untangles questions pertaining to the link between denigration and freedom of expression and the definition of the role of scientific research and consensus in the decisions. This leads us to shed light on the contents of the changing missions of two central types of actors: the mediators who monitor and regulate market practices and the judges that arbitrate these mediations and settle controversies.