It "prohibits firms that hold a dominant position on a given market to abuse that position, for example by charging unfair prices, by limiting production, or by refusing to innovate to the prejudice of consumers".
It "prohibits firms that hold a dominant position on a given market to abuse that position, for example by charging unfair prices, by limiting production, or by refusing to innovate to the prejudice of consumers". The phrase "for example" is doing a lot of work.
The work bears witness to the prejudices of consumer culture.
ad valorem, with the exception, however, of such as, without prejudice to the consumers amongst the lower orders, and without risk of being smuggled, can be charged with a higher rate of duty.
Recourse to courts - A significant number of stakeholders have taken the view that ODR processes should be without prejudice to the consumers' entitlement to seek redress in the courts.
But it's a completely different thing to enjoy Pride and Prejudice as a consumer and then to create your own version of it.
If you believe people like Oliver Thring and Tim Hanni, we are misguided elitists talking to one another rather than consumers, prejudiced snobs whose evening tipple is more likely to be Château Lafite sipped from a hand blown Riedel glass, than a bottle of Chilean Cabernet Sauvignon.
Is there any risk of causing prejudice to the consumer?
The media reinforce this public distrust - partly because they may wish to echo the prejudices of their consumers or owners, but also because (quite rightly) journalists regard holding the executive to account as a key part of their job.
Moreover, the law might indeed require firms to hire the best qualified applicant, meaning the one best able to perform the role being filled, even if hiring the best qualified in this sense would not be profit-maximizing, due to recalcitrant consumer prejudice.
