Pub Date : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2022.2113673
Alexandra Molitorisova, K. Purnhagen, Pavel Sístek
ABSTRACT This article examines different forms of technological collaboration between Member States’ public administrations as currently present in the EU, namely institutional and transactional, drawing from examples in two sectors – telecommunications and food. The article argues that different collaboration forms can be explored more systematically by policy makers when faced with techno-regulatory choices. It subsequently argues that when developing techno-regulatory tools for the implementation and enforcement of EU law, national regulatory authorities should place technological cooperation at the forefront of their policy considerations. It concludes with a plea for an increased reciprocity in technological collaboration based on open-source solutions.
{"title":"Techno-regulation: technological collaboration between EU administrations","authors":"Alexandra Molitorisova, K. Purnhagen, Pavel Sístek","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2022.2113673","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2022.2113673","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article examines different forms of technological collaboration between Member States’ public administrations as currently present in the EU, namely institutional and transactional, drawing from examples in two sectors – telecommunications and food. The article argues that different collaboration forms can be explored more systematically by policy makers when faced with techno-regulatory choices. It subsequently argues that when developing techno-regulatory tools for the implementation and enforcement of EU law, national regulatory authorities should place technological cooperation at the forefront of their policy considerations. It concludes with a plea for an increased reciprocity in technological collaboration based on open-source solutions.","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"14 1","pages":"421 - 446"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42930102","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2022.2113670
Anna Huggins, Mark Burdon, Alice Witt, Nicolas Suzor
ABSTRACT Digitising legislation is an appealing concept, yet it raises a range of legal, regulatory and technological challenges. This article employs Brownsword’s ‘coherentist’, ‘regulatory-instrumental’ and ‘technocratic’ mind-sets to name and work through these challenges. We apply these mind-sets to illuminate diverse aspects of an attempt to convert select provisions of the Australian Consumer Data Right regime into computer code. This analysis shows that each mind-set highlights distinctive yet interconnected aspects of digitising legislation, underscoring the desirability of combining insights from all three mind-sets. Due to the constitutional backdrop against which legislation is created, interpreted and applied, rule of law and separation of powers values ought to shape and guide the constellation of mind-sets that applies. Overall, a divided legal and regulatory mind-set provides an incomplete picture of the challenges and opportunities associated with digitising legislation. Rather, we argue that a holistic regulatory mind-set, informed by overarching constitutional values, is critical in this context.
{"title":"Digitising legislation: connecting regulatory mind-sets and constitutional values","authors":"Anna Huggins, Mark Burdon, Alice Witt, Nicolas Suzor","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2022.2113670","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2022.2113670","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Digitising legislation is an appealing concept, yet it raises a range of legal, regulatory and technological challenges. This article employs Brownsword’s ‘coherentist’, ‘regulatory-instrumental’ and ‘technocratic’ mind-sets to name and work through these challenges. We apply these mind-sets to illuminate diverse aspects of an attempt to convert select provisions of the Australian Consumer Data Right regime into computer code. This analysis shows that each mind-set highlights distinctive yet interconnected aspects of digitising legislation, underscoring the desirability of combining insights from all three mind-sets. Due to the constitutional backdrop against which legislation is created, interpreted and applied, rule of law and separation of powers values ought to shape and guide the constellation of mind-sets that applies. Overall, a divided legal and regulatory mind-set provides an incomplete picture of the challenges and opportunities associated with digitising legislation. Rather, we argue that a holistic regulatory mind-set, informed by overarching constitutional values, is critical in this context.","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"14 1","pages":"325 - 354"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42243927","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2022.2113667
C. Ducuing
ABSTRACT In the EU sphere, the emergence in the political discourse of a potential innovation principle (‘IP’) has given rise to debates amongst scholars and stakeholders. The debate has mainly focused on the risk that an IP could pose to already-existing principles in EU law, such as the precautionary principle, and on the deemed deregulatory agenda of this industry-led initiative. As the IP is now making its way towards EU institutions and EU law, this article investigates the intuition that an IP could also encroach on democracy, namely the possibility for the sovereign people to make their own rules. Giving society a direction with respect to something as broad and ill-defined as ‘innovation’ indeed seems to fall within the core of politics. Based on a regulatory characterisation of the IP as a continuation of already-existing patterns, the article warns against possible further erosion of democracy.
{"title":"A legal principle of innovation? Need for an assessment against the principle of democracy","authors":"C. Ducuing","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2022.2113667","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2022.2113667","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In the EU sphere, the emergence in the political discourse of a potential innovation principle (‘IP’) has given rise to debates amongst scholars and stakeholders. The debate has mainly focused on the risk that an IP could pose to already-existing principles in EU law, such as the precautionary principle, and on the deemed deregulatory agenda of this industry-led initiative. As the IP is now making its way towards EU institutions and EU law, this article investigates the intuition that an IP could also encroach on democracy, namely the possibility for the sovereign people to make their own rules. Giving society a direction with respect to something as broad and ill-defined as ‘innovation’ indeed seems to fall within the core of politics. Based on a regulatory characterisation of the IP as a continuation of already-existing patterns, the article warns against possible further erosion of democracy.","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"14 1","pages":"237 - 266"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44908093","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2022.2047518
Hin-Yan Liu
ABSTRACT Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Extended Reality (XR) technologies present regulators with powerful tools to manipulate human behaviour, but more perniciously, human desire and indeed human being. This is because AI applications can interfere with our internal decision-making processes, and XR applications can affect our sensations by creating and mediating our experiences of the external world. When these technologically driven affordances are strained through contemporary cognitive science research to ground the notion that perceptions are processes for prediction error minimisation, such interferences can amount to designing and engineering the regulatee herself. Effectively, regulation no longer needs to be signalled in a normative regulatory environment, nor must it hardcoded into the architecture or technologically managed. Instead, AI and XR make it possible to design and create regulatees that embody the desired regulatory outcome. Paradoxically, however, such regulatory incorporation looks very much like the exercise of the agency of an agent and therefore is not recognised as a problem by contemporary legal principles and processes which seek to push back against obviously external influences or pressures. As a result, it is immensely difficult to articulate the legal or regulatory challenges posed by these developments, and to identify the harms through these doctrinal lenses.
{"title":"Rule-following robots? Transitional legal disruption through regulatee design and engineering","authors":"Hin-Yan Liu","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2022.2047518","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2022.2047518","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Extended Reality (XR) technologies present regulators with powerful tools to manipulate human behaviour, but more perniciously, human desire and indeed human being. This is because AI applications can interfere with our internal decision-making processes, and XR applications can affect our sensations by creating and mediating our experiences of the external world. When these technologically driven affordances are strained through contemporary cognitive science research to ground the notion that perceptions are processes for prediction error minimisation, such interferences can amount to designing and engineering the regulatee herself. Effectively, regulation no longer needs to be signalled in a normative regulatory environment, nor must it hardcoded into the architecture or technologically managed. Instead, AI and XR make it possible to design and create regulatees that embody the desired regulatory outcome. Paradoxically, however, such regulatory incorporation looks very much like the exercise of the agency of an agent and therefore is not recognised as a problem by contemporary legal principles and processes which seek to push back against obviously external influences or pressures. As a result, it is immensely difficult to articulate the legal or regulatory challenges posed by these developments, and to identify the harms through these doctrinal lenses.","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"14 1","pages":"41 - 70"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45912543","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2022.2047520
Jyh-An Lee
ABSTRACT AI systems are increasingly deployed in both public and private sectors to independently make complicated decisions with far-reaching impact on individuals and the society. However, many AI algorithms are biased in the collection or processing of data, resulting in prejudiced decisions based on demographic features. Algorithmic biases occur because of the training data fed into the AI system or the design of algorithmic models. While most legal scholars propose a direct-regulation approach associated with right of explanation or transparency obligation, this article provides a different picture regarding how indirect regulation can be used to regulate algorithmic bias based on the New Chicago School framework developed by Lawrence Lessig. This article concludes that an effective regulatory approach toward algorithmic bias will be the right mixture of direct and indirect regulations through architecture, norms, market, and the law.
{"title":"Algorithmic bias and the New Chicago School","authors":"Jyh-An Lee","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2022.2047520","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2022.2047520","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 AI systems are increasingly deployed in both public and private sectors to independently make complicated decisions with far-reaching impact on individuals and the society. However, many AI algorithms are biased in the collection or processing of data, resulting in prejudiced decisions based on demographic features. Algorithmic biases occur because of the training data fed into the AI system or the design of algorithmic models. While most legal scholars propose a direct-regulation approach associated with right of explanation or transparency obligation, this article provides a different picture regarding how indirect regulation can be used to regulate algorithmic bias based on the New Chicago School framework developed by Lawrence Lessig. This article concludes that an effective regulatory approach toward algorithmic bias will be the right mixture of direct and indirect regulations through architecture, norms, market, and the law.","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"14 1","pages":"95 - 112"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41772742","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2022.2047524
Guobin Cui
ABSTRACT This article proceeds on the assumption that Chinese legislators are likely to choose special legislation of a property rights regime to protect publicly accessible datasets. Under such legislation, data collectors would be granted limited exclusive rights (right of public communication). It is argued that there should be three principal eligibility requirements in relation to such datasets, namely: the data entries in a dataset are made public; it contains a substantial number of data entries; and, it reflects a substantial collection cost to the collector. Through these elements, the special property rights legislation can be connected consistently with the existing trade secret protection system and copyright law. It can be distinguished from the US-style hot news doctrine and EU-style database directive to achieve different legislative purposes and effectively balance the interests of data collectors, competitors, and the public.
{"title":"The eligibility requirements for legal protection of publicly accessible datasets","authors":"Guobin Cui","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2022.2047524","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2022.2047524","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article proceeds on the assumption that Chinese legislators are likely to choose special legislation of a property rights regime to protect publicly accessible datasets. Under such legislation, data collectors would be granted limited exclusive rights (right of public communication). It is argued that there should be three principal eligibility requirements in relation to such datasets, namely: the data entries in a dataset are made public; it contains a substantial number of data entries; and, it reflects a substantial collection cost to the collector. Through these elements, the special property rights legislation can be connected consistently with the existing trade secret protection system and copyright law. It can be distinguished from the US-style hot news doctrine and EU-style database directive to achieve different legislative purposes and effectively balance the interests of data collectors, competitors, and the public.","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"14 1","pages":"157 - 203"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43377369","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2022.2047519
Tianxiang He
ABSTRACT Concentration of power in terms of user traffic and copyright content is most evident in content platforms in China. Such concentration has generated an unexpected impact on the way we understand and appreciate creativity, on copyright enforcement and determination of liability on content platforms, and on the regulation of the cultural market by the government. Specifically, the concentration of power in content platforms has not only curbed direct online piracies to a large extent but has also accelerated the fragmentation of copyright enforcement and spawned the need for algorithmic recommendation and filtering systems, which in turn has reinforced the cultural censorship system of China. This paper argues that the employment of algorithms by platforms must be treated with prudence: the algorithmic decision-making systems employed by platforms must be transparent as much as possible, and remedies must be provided for concerned users. The algorithms employed by content platforms must be adjusted to reflect not just the interests of the platforms but also the public interest in accessing and delivering information and local policy considerations. This paper suggests that our regulatory framework should reflect the algorithmic turn of content platforms in its legal and non-legal instruments and alleviate their negative impact on society.
{"title":"Online content platforms, copyright decision-making algorithms and fundamental rights protection in China","authors":"Tianxiang He","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2022.2047519","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2022.2047519","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Concentration of power in terms of user traffic and copyright content is most evident in content platforms in China. Such concentration has generated an unexpected impact on the way we understand and appreciate creativity, on copyright enforcement and determination of liability on content platforms, and on the regulation of the cultural market by the government. Specifically, the concentration of power in content platforms has not only curbed direct online piracies to a large extent but has also accelerated the fragmentation of copyright enforcement and spawned the need for algorithmic recommendation and filtering systems, which in turn has reinforced the cultural censorship system of China. This paper argues that the employment of algorithms by platforms must be treated with prudence: the algorithmic decision-making systems employed by platforms must be transparent as much as possible, and remedies must be provided for concerned users. The algorithms employed by content platforms must be adjusted to reflect not just the interests of the platforms but also the public interest in accessing and delivering information and local policy considerations. This paper suggests that our regulatory framework should reflect the algorithmic turn of content platforms in its legal and non-legal instruments and alleviate their negative impact on society.","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"14 1","pages":"71 - 94"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41476964","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2022.2047517
R. Brownsword
ABSTRACT This article identifies and discusses three waves of technological disruption to the authority of law and, concomitantly, to the demand for respect for the law. The first wave disrupts the claim made by national legal systems to recognise their authority and the demand that their decrees and decisions should be respected. This disruption, which is particularly associated with cybertechnologies and actions in cyberspace, is likely to occur whenever technologies develop significant new regulatory spaces in which humans (or their extensions) transact and interact (such as the metaverse). The second wave disrupts the debate about the demand that the law should be respected, simply because it is the law and any reservations notwithstanding. Traditionally, this demand is justified by reference to a picture of law as a rule-based order or as an aspiration for just order. However, this is disrupted by the prospect of technologies that promise to ‘do governance’ better than humans with rules, this generating a picture of law as governance by smart technologies and, in opposition, a picture of law as self-governance by humans. Instead of a debate between two modes of governance by rules, we now have a debate between various modes of human governance by rules and governance by technologies. The third wave disrupts the conceptual scheme that underlies our thinking about the authority of, and respect for, the law. In particular, the picture of law as governance by smart technologies throws into doubt the relevance of questions about the authority of law (when law is no longer governance by humans and governance by rules) and about respect for the law (when the reservations that we have about governance by fellow humans are no longer applicable).
{"title":"Law, authority, and respect: three waves of technological disruption","authors":"R. Brownsword","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2022.2047517","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2022.2047517","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article identifies and discusses three waves of technological disruption to the authority of law and, concomitantly, to the demand for respect for the law. The first wave disrupts the claim made by national legal systems to recognise their authority and the demand that their decrees and decisions should be respected. This disruption, which is particularly associated with cybertechnologies and actions in cyberspace, is likely to occur whenever technologies develop significant new regulatory spaces in which humans (or their extensions) transact and interact (such as the metaverse). The second wave disrupts the debate about the demand that the law should be respected, simply because it is the law and any reservations notwithstanding. Traditionally, this demand is justified by reference to a picture of law as a rule-based order or as an aspiration for just order. However, this is disrupted by the prospect of technologies that promise to ‘do governance’ better than humans with rules, this generating a picture of law as governance by smart technologies and, in opposition, a picture of law as self-governance by humans. Instead of a debate between two modes of governance by rules, we now have a debate between various modes of human governance by rules and governance by technologies. The third wave disrupts the conceptual scheme that underlies our thinking about the authority of, and respect for, the law. In particular, the picture of law as governance by smart technologies throws into doubt the relevance of questions about the authority of law (when law is no longer governance by humans and governance by rules) and about respect for the law (when the reservations that we have about governance by fellow humans are no longer applicable).","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"14 1","pages":"5 - 40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48969722","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2022.2047522
A. Sanders
ABSTRACT This article seeks to address the impact of digitisation of the agricultural market in assessing the market definitions in the context of potential harm to competition in this sector. In doing so, the emphasis will be on the role of trust, frontier technologies, and intellectual property in this market and the article asks the question how the transfer, processing, and analytics of data can be made broadly accessible to all stakeholders, while assessing regulation on the basis of competition law and the law against unfair competition.
{"title":"Intellectual property in digital agriculture","authors":"A. Sanders","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2022.2047522","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2022.2047522","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article seeks to address the impact of digitisation of the agricultural market in assessing the market definitions in the context of potential harm to competition in this sector. In doing so, the emphasis will be on the role of trust, frontier technologies, and intellectual property in this market and the article asks the question how the transfer, processing, and analytics of data can be made broadly accessible to all stakeholders, while assessing regulation on the basis of competition law and the law against unfair competition.","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"14 1","pages":"113 - 127"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46132336","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2022.2047523
Mateja Đurović, Tim Kniepkamp
ABSTRACT Consumer decisions have always been influenced by others’ opinions. The era of digital platforms, however, introduced a significant change: While in the past, consumers were likely to consult their social environment and credible literature, they nowadays rely on the views of other consumers they do not personally know via online review. Consequently, reliability of the reviews is no longer safeguarded by social coercion. This paper will explore how EU law has responded to this challenge. It will argue that while EU law prohibits a wide range of actions that harm reliability of online reviews, it is evidently failing to enforce consumer law judging from the scale of persistent violations. In response, the paper will suggest measures to minimise manipulation and scarcity of online reviews by primarily reducing the accountability deficit of online platforms. These tools could serve as an impulse during the ongoing legislative process of the Digital Services Act.
{"title":"Good advice is expensive – bad advice even more: the regulation of online reviews","authors":"Mateja Đurović, Tim Kniepkamp","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2022.2047523","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2022.2047523","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Consumer decisions have always been influenced by others’ opinions. The era of digital platforms, however, introduced a significant change: While in the past, consumers were likely to consult their social environment and credible literature, they nowadays rely on the views of other consumers they do not personally know via online review. Consequently, reliability of the reviews is no longer safeguarded by social coercion. This paper will explore how EU law has responded to this challenge. It will argue that while EU law prohibits a wide range of actions that harm reliability of online reviews, it is evidently failing to enforce consumer law judging from the scale of persistent violations. In response, the paper will suggest measures to minimise manipulation and scarcity of online reviews by primarily reducing the accountability deficit of online platforms. These tools could serve as an impulse during the ongoing legislative process of the Digital Services Act.","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"14 1","pages":"128 - 156"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46818545","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：