Search for:
Author

Daniel Villanueva-Plasencia

Browsing
Daniel Villanueva Plasencia is a partner of the Intellectual Property Practice Group at Baker McKenzie Guadalajara. He has extensive experience in data privacy, information and cybersecurity security matters; in regulatory issues related to information technologies and consumer protection; in intellectual and industrial property, especially focused on digital environments, including the use and licensing of trademarks, patents and copyrights. Daniel is a Certified Information Privacy Administrator (CIPM) by the International Association of Privacy Professionals. Before joining the Firm, he was a founding partner of a local firm in Guadalajara. During the last five years, Daniel has taught the intellectual property class at the Tecnológico de Monterrey, one of the most prestigious universities in Mexico.

On 21 August 2023, the decree by which the Influencers Advertising Guide of the Federal Consumer Protection Office (PROFECO) was published, which is a reference tool for content creators, influencers, and the general public for due compliance with the provisions on advertising established in the Federal Consumer Protection Law.

On 20 April 2023, a bill of law was published, approval pending, to amend the Federal Consumer Protection Law to prohibit suppliers of goods, products or services from charging a commission or additional fee to consumers when they use a debit or credit card as a payment method instead of cash. The foregoing is motivated by the fact that this practice of some suppliers is detrimental to the consumers’ economy and discourages the use of debit or credit cards as a payment method.

This January 2023, the Law for Improper Advertising Practices was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Justice, considering that it violates the human rights of freedom to work, free contracting, freedom to trade and autonomy of will. However, this ruling is one isolated criterion which is not binding and has no general application yet, as it will only protect those who are parties in the “amparo” action that gave origin to the court ruling (since it is not a general declaration of unconstitutionality). Nonetheless, this is an important precedent that should be used by all the courts to grant the “amparos”, and also will help to pursue in the future a general declaration of unconstitutionality.