WHEN TRANSPERENCY HURTS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON LEGAL AND ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES OF STIGMATIZED PROPERTY DISCLOSURE

Abstract

In recent years, the obligation to disclose “stigmatized properties”—residences or rental units linked to suicide, homicide, or other socially disapproved events—has emerged as a contentious topic at the convergence of law, ethics, and economics. Transparency is frequently advocated as a key element of consumer protection; however, excessive disclosure can unintentionally undermine business viability, perpetuate social stigma, and infringe upon privacy rights.  This study examines the balance of competing interests within legal systems through a comparative analysis of Thailand, Japan, and the United States. This study employs a doctrinal and socio-legal approach to analyze statutory duties, judicial interpretations, and industry practices concerning the disclosure of properties affected by psychological factors.  The findings indicate that Japan implements a "temporal disclosure duty," mandating limited disclosure within three years of an incident, while various U.S. states enforce more extensive disclosure regulations aligned with consumer expectations. Thailand, however, does not possess a specific regulatory framework and instead depends on general principles of good faith and fair dealing. The research posits that a balanced disclosure model—characterized by factual accuracy, temporal limitations, and anonymity—can safeguard consumer rights while maintaining economic viability and human dignity. Recommendations for policy development include the establishment of soft-law guidelines or voluntary codes of conduct to tackle issues related to stigmatized properties in emerging markets.