Health as a Means Towards Profitable Ends: mHealth Apps, User Autonomy, and Unfair Commercial Practices

In this article, we discuss mHealth apps and their potential to influence the user’s behaviour in increasingly persuasive ways. More specifically, we call attention to the fact that mHealth apps often seek to not only influence the health behaviour of users but also their economic behaviour by merging health and commercial content in ways that are hard to detect. We argue that (1) such merging of health and commercial content raises specific questions concerning the autonomy of mHealth app users, and (2) consumer law offers a promising legal lens to address questions concerning user protection in this context. Based on an empirically informed ethical analysis of autonomy, we develop a fine-grained framework that incorporates three different requirements for autonomy that we call “independence,” “authenticity,” and “options.” This framework also differentiates between three different stages of mHealth app use, namely installing, starting to use, and continuing to use an app. As a result, user autonomy can be analysed in a nuanced and precise manner. Since the concept of autonomy plays a prominent, yet poorly understood role in unfair commercial practice law, we utilize the ethical analysis of autonomy to guide our legal analysis of the proper application of unfair commercial practice law in the mHealth app domain.

[1]  Richard Bellamy,et al.  The morality of freedom , 1988 .

[2]  Bernard E. Harcourt,et al.  Exposed: Desire and Disobedience in the Digital Age , 2015 .

[3]  Karen Yeung,et al.  ‘Hypernudge’: Big Data as a mode of regulation by design , 2016, The Social Power of Algorithms.

[4]  Margaret C. Campbell When Attention-Getting Advertising Tactics Elicit Consumer Inferences of Manipulative Intent: The Importance of Balancing Benefits and Investments , 1995 .

[5]  Chris Willett Autonomy and fairness: the case of public statements , 2005 .

[6]  Michael Grüninger,et al.  Introduction , 2002, CACM.

[7]  Fernando Gómez Pomar,et al.  The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive: A Law and Economics Perspective , 2006 .

[8]  David A. Hyman,et al.  Going Native: Can Consumers Recognize Native Advertising? Does it Matter? , 2016 .

[9]  Bart Engelen,et al.  Judging Nudging: Answering the Manipulation Objection , 2017 .

[10]  Pelle Guldborg Hansen,et al.  Nudge and the Manipulation of Choice , 2013, European Journal of Risk Regulation.

[11]  N. McGlynn Thinking fast and slow. , 2014, Australian veterinary journal.

[12]  Douglas A. Kysar,et al.  Taking Behavioralism Seriously: The Problem of Market Manipulation , 1999 .

[13]  Sara Degli Esposti When big data meets dataveillance: the hidden side of analytics , 2014 .

[14]  C. Willett Fairness and Consumer Decision Making under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive , 2010 .

[15]  Nathaniel J. Evans,et al.  Going Native: Effects of Disclosure Position and Language on the Recognition and Evaluation of Online Native Advertising , 2016 .

[16]  J. Christman,et al.  Autonomy and Personal History , 1991, Canadian Journal of Philosophy.

[17]  Ross D. Petty,et al.  Covert Marketing Unmasked: A Legal and Regulatory Guide for Practices that Mask Marketing Messages , 2008 .

[18]  G. Howells,et al.  European Fair Trading Law: The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive , 2006 .

[19]  J. Prochaska,et al.  A meta-analysis of computer-tailored interventions for health behavior change. , 2010, Preventive medicine.

[20]  Michael J. Sandel The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self , 1984 .

[21]  Harry G. Frankfurt,et al.  The importance of what we care about: Freedom of the will and the concept of a person , 1971 .

[22]  S. Noar,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Web-Delivered Tailored Health Behavior Change Interventions , 2013, Journal of health communication.

[23]  L. Reisch,et al.  Sustainable food consumption: an overview of contemporary issues and policies , 2013 .

[24]  S. Breckler Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct components of attitude. , 1984, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[25]  Chris Arney Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness , 2015 .

[26]  June Cotte,et al.  Enhancing or disrupting guilt: the role of ad credibility and perceived manipulative intent , 2005 .

[27]  Daniel Thalmann,et al.  Autonomy , 2005, SIGGRAPH Courses.

[28]  Gerald Dworkin,et al.  The Concept of Autonomy , 1981 .

[29]  Rossella Incardona,et al.  The average consumer, the unfair commercial practices directive, and the cognitive revolution , 2007 .

[30]  Boris E. R. de Ruyter,et al.  Personalizing persuasive technologies: Explicit and implicit personalization using persuasion profiles , 2015, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[31]  P. Cartwright Understanding and Protecting Vulnerable Financial Consumers , 2015 .

[32]  Amandine Garde,et al.  The European Unfair Commercial Practices Directive: Impact, Enforcement Strategies and National Legal Systems , 2014 .

[33]  S. Noar,et al.  Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. , 2007, Psychological bulletin.

[34]  M. Prior Hooked , 2018 .

[35]  Marijn Sax,et al.  Big data: Finders keepers, losers weepers? , 2016, Ethics and Information Technology.

[36]  Catriona Mackenzie,et al.  Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Automony, Agency, and the Social Self (review) , 2002 .

[37]  W. Kroeze,et al.  A systematic review of randomized trials on the effectiveness of computer-tailored education on physical activity and dietary behaviors , 2006, Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine.

[38]  Mikhail Valdman Outsourcing Self‐Government* , 2010, Ethics.

[39]  J. Christman,et al.  The Inner citadel : essays on individual autonomy , 1989 .

[40]  V. Strecher,et al.  One size does not fit all: The case for tailoring print materials , 1999, Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine.

[41]  Nadine Bol,et al.  Differences in mobile health app use: A source of new digital inequalities? , 2018, Inf. Soc..