Lübbe-Wolff, Gertrude

<intR>²Dok

Choice Architecture in Democracies Constitutional limits to health-related nudging – a matter of balancing Gertrude Lübbe-Wolff Mo 5 Jan 2015Mo 5 Jan 2015Constitutional limits to health-related nudging – a matterof balancingverfassungsblog.de/constitutional-limits-health-related-nudging-matter-balancing-2/Politically as well as from the point of view of constitutional law, I see neither good reasonsto generally reject health-related nudging towards less self-damaging behavior (1.), norgood reasons to issue a general clearance certificate on the grounds that nudging alwaysleaves the addressee “at liberty” (2.). In both respects, I doubt that pondering or quarrellingover concepts of “embedded individualism” or “regulatory democracy” will bring us anycloser to rationality of or consensus about the policy choices that have to be made.1/31. General rejection to any sort of auto-health-related nudging (with respect to accountablepersons) would imply that whether, what, where and how much people smoke, drink andeat or whether they ever rise from their sofa or desk chair in order to get some exercise is amatter of no concern whatsoever to the state or any other public agency as long as only therespective individuals´ own health, not that of others, is put at risk. That would amount tothe view that the state must be neutral towards eating, drinking, smoking and physicalinertia habits as it must be towards religious beliefs. To me, this view – which would leavepeople exposed to all sorts of nudging by private companies and circumstantial nudgingwithout allowing the community to produce counterweights which only the community canprovide effectively – has no plausibility whatsoever. And it is certainly not the view of theGerman Federal Constitutional Court (FCC).The FCC has qualified public health as a community value of outstanding importance [1],capable of justifying interferences with fundamental rights guaranteed in the constitution.This qualification applies not only where state intervention aims at protecting health frombeing injured by others (as e.g. in the case of statutory reporting duties concerningcontagious diseases[2]). To give just one example: Considering that in industrializedcountries, more people die from smoking than from transport accidents, AIDS, alcohol,illegal drugs, murder and suicide taken together, and that in such countries smoking is themost frequent cause of death from cancer, the FCC held that warning people against thesedangers is a legitimate state responsibility, and that legislation may also interfere withprivate companies´ constitutionally protected freedom to exercise their trade by forcingthem to print a warning on their tobacco products[3]. This applies not only to products soldto minors or other persons generally thought to be legitimate objects of paternalism, but totobacco products in general. In other words: the state is not prohibited from taking sides inmatters of public health – neither generally, nor specifically insofar as self-damagingbehavior of accountable persons is concerned.2. If that is so, the constitutional admissibility of health-related nudging will usually be amatter of balancing. It is insufficient to point to the fact that people who are just beingnudged are free to resist the nudge. Nudges or regulations concerning nudges can interferewith constitutional rights in a variety of ways, for instance by shaming people, by forcingpeople or companies to nudge others – as in the case of mandatory warnings on tobaccoproducts –, or by forcing people to opt.Consider, for instance, nudging by default options, i.e. by selecting standard configurationswhich will apply unless individuals opt otherwise. Of the nudging examples given by Thalerand Sunstein, the most illustrative one is the idea of giving motor cyclists a choice withrespect to wearing a helmet: The default option will be that they have to wear one, but theycan get rid of that obligation by getting special biking training (or, in alternative designs: byshowing that they have insurance, or by marking their bike as belonging to a registeredorgan donator). The installation of such a framework interferes with constitutional rightsguaranteed under the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz, GG). This is easily overlookedbecause of a particular feature of the interference: its alternativity. The biker can choosebetween alternative restrictions of his constitutional liberty to act as he wishes[4], i.e.between the necessity to wear a helmet and the necessity to undergo extra training (or getinsurance, or donate organs), but he will be subject to at least one of them. It is established2/3FCC doctrine that interference with a constitutional right is not made constitutionallyirrelevant by allowing to escape it via some alternative option which, if mandatory, wouldequally be an interference.[5]Even where default options charging individuals with no more than a burden to “opt out” –be it out of a pension scheme or out of donating their organs –, this may be aconstitutionally relevant interference with their right to act (or omit) as they choose (Art. 2 IGG). Depending on form and frequency of the required act of opting, and probably alsodepending on the extent to which the default option can be presumed to be what mostpeople want, such a burden may easily turn out excessive. Just imagine a statute accordingto which you bequeathe your fortune to the republic unless you have made a declaration tothe contrary before a notary public no more than twelve months before your death. I ampositive this would find no mercy before the FCC.If frequency of the necessity to opt is one of the factors determining the weight of “burdensof opting out”, the acceptability of mandatory default options may also depend on howmany of them there are. In other words: If default options will turn out a favorite nudginginstrument, as I guess they will, we might get a problem of incrementally summed-upopting-out-burdens. This type of burden is hard to control by a Constitutional Court whoseimmediate object of scrutiny is the incremental unit. Nevertheless – and, politicallyspeaking: all the more – it ought to be taken into account from the outset in order to avoidheading towards a “smart republic” keeping us busy opting out of unwelcome choices.[1] BVerfGE 7, 377 (406, 408, 414 f.); 11, 168 (186); 80, 1 (24).[2] BVerfGE 32, 373 (380).[3] BVerfGE 95, 173 (183 ff.).[4] Art. 2 I GG. For the relevant broad reading of Art. 2 I GG see BVerfGE 80, 137 (153).[5] See, e.g., 128, 109 (125); more explicitly BVerfG, decision of 28 november 2013 – 2 BvR2784/12 – (www.bverfg.de).LICENSED UNDER CC BY NC NDSUGGESTED CITATION  Lübbe-Wolff, Gertrude: Constitutional limits to health-relatednudging – a matter of balancing, VerfBlog, 2015/1/05,https://verfassungsblog.de/constitutional-limits-health-related-nudging-matter-balancing-2/.3/3

Constitutional limits to health-related nudging – a matter of balancing

Gertrude Lübbe-Wolff

Crossref