Pub Date : 2025-09-01Epub Date: 2025-07-21DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106169
Cecilia Isola , Fabrizio Esposito
This article offers a clear definition of dark patterns and a comprehensive classification thereof using the framework provided by Directive 2005/29 on unfair commercial practices. The analysis builds on a systematic literature review that analyses how dark patterns are defined and the types of dark patterns discussed in 116 articles, conference papers and regulatory documents. Accordingly, 'dark pattern' can be defined as 'the design of a digital choice environment that is capable of distorting user behaviour'. We point out that the following elements should not be included in the definition of dark pattern: intentionality of the designer and exploitation of heuristics or cognitive bias. We identify 42 types of dark patterns. All of them can be classified as: misleading omission; misleading action; harassment; undue influence; coercion. This classification is based on legal categories and helps bridge the gap between research and legal practice, thereby increasing the expected social impact of research on dark patterns.
{"title":"A systematic literature review on dark patterns for the legal community: definitional clarity-and a legal classification based on the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive","authors":"Cecilia Isola , Fabrizio Esposito","doi":"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106169","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106169","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This article offers a clear definition of dark patterns and a comprehensive classification thereof using the framework provided by Directive 2005/29 on unfair commercial practices. The analysis builds on a systematic literature review that analyses how dark patterns are defined and the types of dark patterns discussed in 116 articles, conference papers and regulatory documents. Accordingly, 'dark pattern' can be defined as 'the design of a digital choice environment that is capable of distorting user behaviour'. We point out that the following elements should not be included in the definition of dark pattern: intentionality of the designer and exploitation of heuristics or cognitive bias. We identify 42 types of dark patterns. All of them can be classified as: misleading omission; misleading action; harassment; undue influence; coercion. This classification is based on legal categories and helps bridge the gap between research and legal practice, thereby increasing the expected social impact of research on dark patterns.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51516,"journal":{"name":"Computer Law & Security Review","volume":"58 ","pages":"Article 106169"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144670443","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-09-01Epub Date: 2025-08-12DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106180
Kasim Balarabe
In the rapidly evolving digital age, the confluence of cybersecurity threats and the assertion of digital sovereignty by states has created a complex, multi-dimensional challenge for international law. The existing legal regimes governing state behavior in cyberspace are fragmented, outdated, and ill-equipped to address the novel, intangible, and interconnected nature of the digital domain. This article examines the gaps and limitations in the current international legal frameworks and proposes a dynamic, adaptable approach to establishing a normative foundation for cybersecurity and digital sovereignty. The article highlights the urgent need for clear definitions and categories of cybercrimes and cyberwarfare under international law, as well as the development of appropriate legal responses and enforcement mechanisms. It also explores the tensions between state sovereignty and global Internet governance, proposing a balanced framework that upholds both the legitimate security interests of states and the fundamental principles of human rights, transparency, and multistakeholder collaboration. Central to the article's argument is the call for a flexible, evolutionary architecture of international cybersecurity law, capable of keeping pace with rapid technological advancements and the ever-changing threat landscape. This framework should incorporate mechanisms for continuous improvement, effective attribution and accountability, and the active engagement of international organizations and multistakeholder initiatives. The article further emphasizes the critical role of geopolitical challenges in shaping the development of international cybersecurity norms. It advocates for a nuanced, pragmatic approach that acknowledges the competing interests and values of different state actors while striving to find common ground and build trust through dialogue and cooperation. In an era of increasing digital interconnectedness and the erosion of traditional borders, this article presents a compelling case for the adaptation of international law to address the complex realities of the digital age. It offers valuable insights and recommendations for policymakers, legal experts, and scholars seeking to navigate the uncharted territories of cybersecurity and digital sovereignty in the 21st century.
{"title":"Digital borders and beyond: Establishing normative grounds for cybersecurity and sovereignty in international law","authors":"Kasim Balarabe","doi":"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106180","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106180","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In the rapidly evolving digital age, the confluence of cybersecurity threats and the assertion of digital sovereignty by states has created a complex, multi-dimensional challenge for international law. The existing legal regimes governing state behavior in cyberspace are fragmented, outdated, and ill-equipped to address the novel, intangible, and interconnected nature of the digital domain. This article examines the gaps and limitations in the current international legal frameworks and proposes a dynamic, adaptable approach to establishing a normative foundation for cybersecurity and digital sovereignty. The article highlights the urgent need for clear definitions and categories of cybercrimes and cyberwarfare under international law, as well as the development of appropriate legal responses and enforcement mechanisms. It also explores the tensions between state sovereignty and global Internet governance, proposing a balanced framework that upholds both the legitimate security interests of states and the fundamental principles of human rights, transparency, and multistakeholder collaboration. Central to the article's argument is the call for a flexible, evolutionary architecture of international cybersecurity law, capable of keeping pace with rapid technological advancements and the ever-changing threat landscape. This framework should incorporate mechanisms for continuous improvement, effective attribution and accountability, and the active engagement of international organizations and multistakeholder initiatives. The article further emphasizes the critical role of geopolitical challenges in shaping the development of international cybersecurity norms. It advocates for a nuanced, pragmatic approach that acknowledges the competing interests and values of different state actors while striving to find common ground and build trust through dialogue and cooperation. In an era of increasing digital interconnectedness and the erosion of traditional borders, this article presents a compelling case for the adaptation of international law to address the complex realities of the digital age. It offers valuable insights and recommendations for policymakers, legal experts, and scholars seeking to navigate the uncharted territories of cybersecurity and digital sovereignty in the 21st century.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51516,"journal":{"name":"Computer Law & Security Review","volume":"58 ","pages":"Article 106180"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144826844","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-09-01Epub Date: 2025-06-07DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106161
Andrea Parziale
This case note examines a judgment by the Court of Justice on Europol's civil liability for unlawful disclosure of personal data during cross-border cooperation with Member State authorities. The Court overturned the General Court's decision, establishing that joint and several liability between Europol and Member States can arise under Article 50 of Regulation 2016/794 (Europol Regulation), informed by Recital 57. While this ruling facilitates compensation for injured parties when the exact source of data disclosure cannot be identified, the Court awarded only €2000 in damages to the appellant, a modest sum that may undermine Article 50′s effectiveness as a data protection mechanism. The case note analyzes both the joint liability determination and the damages quantification, arguing that while the recognition of joint liability strengthens data subject protection in principle, the symbolic damages awarded significantly limit its practical impact as an accountability tool for ensuring responsible data handling in cross-border criminal investigations.
{"title":"Joint and several liability between Europol and a Member State for damages from unlawful disclosure of personal data (comment on European Court of Justice, 5 March 2024, C‑755/21 P)","authors":"Andrea Parziale","doi":"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106161","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106161","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This case note examines a judgment by the Court of Justice on Europol's civil liability for unlawful disclosure of personal data during cross-border cooperation with Member State authorities. The Court overturned the General Court's decision, establishing that joint and several liability between Europol and Member States can arise under Article 50 of Regulation 2016/794 (Europol Regulation), informed by Recital 57. While this ruling facilitates compensation for injured parties when the exact source of data disclosure cannot be identified, the Court awarded only €2000 in damages to the appellant, a modest sum that may undermine Article 50′s effectiveness as a data protection mechanism. The case note analyzes both the joint liability determination and the damages quantification, arguing that while the recognition of joint liability strengthens data subject protection in principle, the symbolic damages awarded significantly limit its practical impact as an accountability tool for ensuring responsible data handling in cross-border criminal investigations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51516,"journal":{"name":"Computer Law & Security Review","volume":"58 ","pages":"Article 106161"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144240726","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-09-01DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106190
Stina Teilmann-Lock, Andrej Savin
The advent of generative AI raises profound questions about the ownership not only of data but also of data sets. European law has, in the main, sought to address these questions through the lens of copyright law in an attempt to address what the creative sector sees as a blatant theft of its work. While this approach has its merits, this paper suggests that key issues might be better dealt with using the AI Act of 2024. The Act has created an outline of a conceptual approach which we tentatively call “dataset law”. This is a more effective tool for dealing with violations at scale than copyright as it accents the inherent (economic and non-economic) value of data sets rather than on individual damage. Unfolding our argument in the article we also reflect on the fact that while this ex ante approach may appear novel in magnitude, it follows a pattern of innovative EU legal solutions in copyright and other areas.
{"title":"Beyond the AI-copyright wars: towards European dataset law?","authors":"Stina Teilmann-Lock, Andrej Savin","doi":"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106190","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106190","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The advent of generative AI raises profound questions about the ownership not only of data but also of data sets. European law has, in the main, sought to address these questions through the lens of copyright law in an attempt to address what the creative sector sees as a blatant theft of its work. While this approach has its merits, this paper suggests that key issues might be better dealt with using the AI Act of 2024. The Act has created an outline of a conceptual approach which we tentatively call “dataset law”. This is a more effective tool for dealing with violations at scale than copyright as it accents the inherent (economic and non-economic) value of data sets rather than on individual damage. Unfolding our argument in the article we also reflect on the fact that while this <em>ex ante</em> approach may appear novel in magnitude, it follows a pattern of innovative EU legal solutions in copyright and other areas.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51516,"journal":{"name":"Computer Law & Security Review","volume":"58 ","pages":"Article 106190"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144921685","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-09-01Epub Date: 2025-06-20DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106153
Qifan Yang
The Opinions on Building Basic Systems for Data to Better Exploit the Value of Data Factors (the 20 Key Measures on Data) in China has significantly influenced the discourse around propertising personal data, leading to a distinct approach to personal data protection from the EU and the US. The ownership-usufruct system and conditional personal data property system are raised as two representative property systems in China. In the ownership-usufruct system, the ownership of personal data belongs to the original subject, and the data processors (the data controllers in the GDPR) obtain their usufructuary right through “obtaining consent + consideration”. In the conditional personal data property system, the data processors originally acquired the data property right based on legitimate data collection behaviour. The data property right is limited by pre-existing rights, the proportionality principle, and the fair use principle. Rather than idealising the propertisation of personal data, this paper offers a nuanced critique of its limitations, including conceptual ambiguities, the failure of the consent mechanism, and unbalanced digital market structures. These challenges reveal that the propertisation of personal data is a socio-technical issue that requires legal frameworks and technical infrastructures.
{"title":"Personal data propertisation in China: A difficult road under the 20 Key Measures on Data","authors":"Qifan Yang","doi":"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106153","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106153","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The Opinions on Building Basic Systems for Data to Better Exploit the Value of Data Factors (the 20 Key Measures on Data) in China has significantly influenced the discourse around propertising personal data, leading to a distinct approach to personal data protection from the EU and the US. The ownership-usufruct system and conditional personal data property system are raised as two representative property systems in China. In the ownership-usufruct system, the ownership of personal data belongs to the original subject, and the data processors (the data controllers in the GDPR) obtain their usufructuary right through “obtaining consent + consideration”. In the conditional personal data property system, the data processors originally acquired the data property right based on legitimate data collection behaviour. The data property right is limited by pre-existing rights, the proportionality principle, and the fair use principle. Rather than idealising the propertisation of personal data, this paper offers a nuanced critique of its limitations, including conceptual ambiguities, the failure of the consent mechanism, and unbalanced digital market structures. These challenges reveal that the propertisation of personal data is a socio-technical issue that requires legal frameworks and technical infrastructures.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51516,"journal":{"name":"Computer Law & Security Review","volume":"58 ","pages":"Article 106153"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144322509","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-09-01Epub Date: 2025-09-04DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106193
Nick Pantlin
This article tracks developments at the national level in key European countries in the area of IT and communications and provides a concise alerting service of important national developments. It is co-ordinated by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP and contributed to by firms across Europe. This column provides a concise alerting service of important national developments in key European countries. Part of its purpose is to complement the Journal's feature articles and briefing notes by keeping readers abreast of what is currently happening “on the ground” at a national level in implementing EU level legislation and international conventions and treaties. Where an item of European National News is of particular significance, CLSR may also cover it in more detail in the current or a subsequent edition.
Pub Date : 2025-09-01Epub Date: 2025-07-30DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106165
Ha Thanh Nguyen , Wachara Fungwacharakorn , May Myo Zin , Randy Goebel , Francesca Toni , Kostas Stathis , Ken Satoh
Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated remarkable ease of application to numerous natural language processing tasks, however the question of how well they perform is in serious question. In the case of their use in application domains where precision and accuracy are paramount (e.g., law, medicine), the assessment of their performance is erratic. In particular, the application of these models to legal reasoning presents both unique challenges and substantial opportunities because of the inherently complex and multi-faceted nature of legal decision-making. To begin to harness the potential of LLMs in legal reasoning, we propose a framework for unified legal reasoning that combines rule-based, abductive, and case-based approaches, and then investigate possible methods for their integration with LLMs. The ultimate goal, which we take steps toward, is to provide comprehensive, accurate, and adaptable legal decision analysis.
We critically examine this combination of reasoning methods, their formalizations, and their relevance to the legal domain, including the consideration of calibration methods to assess their performance. Moreover, we discuss current research and challenges in applying LLMs to legal reasoning tasks, highlight the importance of reconciling different reasoning paradigms, analyze cultural notions of justice, and address issues of uncertainty, vagueness, and ambiguity. Our study offers insights into the benefits and complexities of integrating LLMs within a proposed unified reasoning framework, with the hope of addressing some of the diverse legal challenges, and to advance the capabilities of AI-driven legal analysis.
{"title":"LLMs for legal reasoning: A unified framework and future perspectives","authors":"Ha Thanh Nguyen , Wachara Fungwacharakorn , May Myo Zin , Randy Goebel , Francesca Toni , Kostas Stathis , Ken Satoh","doi":"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106165","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106165","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated remarkable ease of application to numerous natural language processing tasks, however the question of how well they perform is in serious question. In the case of their use in application domains where precision and accuracy are paramount (e.g., law, medicine), the assessment of their performance is erratic. In particular, the application of these models to legal reasoning presents both unique challenges and substantial opportunities because of the inherently complex and multi-faceted nature of legal decision-making. To begin to harness the potential of LLMs in legal reasoning, we propose a framework for unified legal reasoning that combines rule-based, abductive, and case-based approaches, and then investigate possible methods for their integration with LLMs. The ultimate goal, which we take steps toward, is to provide comprehensive, accurate, and adaptable legal decision analysis.</div><div>We critically examine this combination of reasoning methods, their formalizations, and their relevance to the legal domain, including the consideration of calibration methods to assess their performance. Moreover, we discuss current research and challenges in applying LLMs to legal reasoning tasks, highlight the importance of reconciling different reasoning paradigms, analyze cultural notions of justice, and address issues of uncertainty, vagueness, and ambiguity. Our study offers insights into the benefits and complexities of integrating LLMs within a proposed unified reasoning framework, with the hope of addressing some of the diverse legal challenges, and to advance the capabilities of AI-driven legal analysis.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51516,"journal":{"name":"Computer Law & Security Review","volume":"58 ","pages":"Article 106165"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144724670","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-09-01Epub Date: 2025-06-23DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106163
Cheng L. SAW, Bryan Zhi Yang TAN
Generative AI (“GAI”) refers to deep learning models that ingest input data and “learn” to produce output that mimics such data when duly prompted. This feature, however, has given rise to numerous claims of infringement by the owners of copyright in the training material. Relevantly, three questions have emerged for the law of copyright: (1) whether prima facie acts of infringement are disclosed at each stage of the GAI development lifecycle; (2) whether such acts fall within the scope of the text and data mining (“TDM”) exceptions; and (3) whether (and, if so, how successfully) the fair use exception may be invoked by GAI developers as a defence to infringement claims. This paper critically examines these questions in turn and considers, in particular, their interplay with the so-called “memorisation” phenomenon. It is argued that although infringing acts might occur in the process of downloading in-copyright training material and training the GAI model in question, TDM and fair use exceptions (where available) may yet exonerate developers from copyright liability under the right conditions.
{"title":"Unpacking copyright infringement issues in the GenAI development lifecycle and a peek into the future","authors":"Cheng L. SAW, Bryan Zhi Yang TAN","doi":"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106163","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106163","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Generative AI (“GAI”) refers to deep learning models that ingest input data and “learn” to produce output that mimics such data when duly prompted. This feature, however, has given rise to numerous claims of infringement by the owners of copyright in the training material. Relevantly, three questions have emerged for the law of copyright: (1) whether <em>prima facie</em> acts of infringement are disclosed at each stage of the GAI development lifecycle; (2) whether such acts fall within the scope of the text and data mining (“TDM”) exceptions; and (3) whether (and, if so, how successfully) the fair use exception may be invoked by GAI developers as a defence to infringement claims. This paper critically examines these questions in turn and considers, in particular, their interplay with the so-called “memorisation” phenomenon. It is argued that although infringing acts might occur in the process of downloading in-copyright training material and training the GAI model in question, TDM and fair use exceptions (where available) may yet exonerate developers from copyright liability under the right conditions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51516,"journal":{"name":"Computer Law & Security Review","volume":"58 ","pages":"Article 106163"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144338751","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-09-01Epub Date: 2025-07-10DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106164
Marco Siino
This article delves into recent applications of Transformers (also, Large Language Models or LLMs) in the context of the Italian legal language. The impressive speed at which the literature in this domain has recently grown (i.e., in 2022 and 2023) is proved by the number of related works that we collected in this study. The focus of this work is on exploring how LLMs are being utilized within the framework of Italian law. In detail, we first introduce the tasks that have been addressed in the Italian legal domain. When introducing the tasks, to motivate and to provide the most relevant works, we reference worldwide literature. After introducing the tasks, we report and discuss all the existent applications to these tasks, specifically in the Italian legal domain. Through this work, we intend to deliver the state of the art in LLM applications in the Italian legal domain to researchers as well as practising attorneys.
{"title":"Exploring the use of LLMs in the Italian legal domain: A survey on recent applications","authors":"Marco Siino","doi":"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106164","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106164","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This article delves into recent applications of Transformers (also, <em>Large Language Models</em> or <em>LLMs</em>) in the context of the Italian legal language. The impressive speed at which the literature in this domain has recently grown (i.e., in 2022 and 2023) is proved by the number of related works that we collected in this study. The focus of this work is on exploring how LLMs are being utilized within the framework of Italian law. In detail, we first introduce the tasks that have been addressed in the Italian legal domain. When introducing the tasks, to motivate and to provide the most relevant works, we reference worldwide literature. After introducing the tasks, we report and discuss all the existent applications to these tasks, specifically in the Italian legal domain. Through this work, we intend to deliver the state of the art in LLM applications in the Italian legal domain to researchers as well as practising attorneys.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51516,"journal":{"name":"Computer Law & Security Review","volume":"58 ","pages":"Article 106164"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144588726","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-09-01Epub Date: 2025-08-01DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106175
Dr Qingxiu Bu (Fellow)
The rivalry between the U.S. and China remains intense, driven by their competition for technological dominance and geopolitical influence. Both powers are escalating efforts to secure data, aiming to strengthen domestic control and expand international reach. This creates significant challenges for companies like DiDi and TikTok, which must navigate an increasingly polarised and complex environment. DiDi's delisting from the U.S. underscores how big data has become a critical battleground in this rivalry, with far-reaching implications for the global economy. The ongoing TikTok controversy goes beyond security concerns, framing China’s technological advancement as a direct challenge to U.S. dominance in shaping global discourse and public opinion. This confrontation raises crucial questions: Is the focus on accounting oversight, or do deeper conflicts over sovereignty and ideology drive the tension? Does controlling data flow represent a game changer or merely a tool for regulatory arbitrage? From a game theory perspective, addressing this challenge requires a delicate balance—regulating tech giants, safeguarding data security, and sustaining economic growth.
{"title":"A game changer or jurisdictional arbitrage? De-risking global capital markets amid cross-border data governance resilience","authors":"Dr Qingxiu Bu (Fellow)","doi":"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106175","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106175","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The rivalry between the U.S. and China remains intense, driven by their competition for technological dominance and geopolitical influence. Both powers are escalating efforts to secure data, aiming to strengthen domestic control and expand international reach. This creates significant challenges for companies like DiDi and TikTok, which must navigate an increasingly polarised and complex environment. DiDi's delisting from the U.S. underscores how big data has become a critical battleground in this rivalry, with far-reaching implications for the global economy. The ongoing TikTok controversy goes beyond security concerns, framing China’s technological advancement as a direct challenge to U.S. dominance in shaping global discourse and public opinion. This confrontation raises crucial questions: Is the focus on accounting oversight, or do deeper conflicts over sovereignty and ideology drive the tension? Does controlling data flow represent a game changer or merely a tool for regulatory arbitrage? From a game theory perspective, addressing this challenge requires a delicate balance—regulating tech giants, safeguarding data security, and sustaining economic growth.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51516,"journal":{"name":"Computer Law & Security Review","volume":"58 ","pages":"Article 106175"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144750304","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号