Abstract
AbstractDuring the past decade, a small but rapidly growing number of Law&Tech scholars have been applying algorithmic methods in their legal research. This Article does it too, for the sake of saving disclosure regulation failure: a normative strategy that has long been considered dead by legal scholars, but conspicuously abused by rule-makers. Existing proposals to revive disclosure duties, however, either focus on the industry policies (e.g. seeking to reduce consumers’ costs of reading) or on rulemaking (e.g. by simplifying linguistic intricacies). But failure may well depend on both. Therefore, this Article develops a `comprehensive approach', suggesting to use computational tools to cope with linguistic and behavioral failures at both the enactment and implementation phases of disclosure duties, thus filling a void in the Law & Tech scholarship. Specifically, it outlines how algorithmic tools can be used in a holistic manner to address the many failures of disclosures from the rulemaking in parliament to consumer screens. It suggests a multi-layered design where lawmakers deploy three tools in order to produce optimal disclosure rules: machine learning, natural language processing, and behavioral experimentation through regulatory sandboxes. To clarify how and why these tasks should be performed, disclosures in the contexts of online contract terms and privacy online are taken as examples. Because algorithmic rulemaking is frequently met with well-justified skepticism, problems of its compatibility with legitimacy, efficacy and proportionality are also discussed.
Funder
Lady Davis Fellowship Trust, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Università del Salento
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Law,Artificial Intelligence
Reference76 articles.
1. Agnoloni T, Bacci L, van Opijnen M (2017) BO-ECLI parser engine: the extensible european solution for the automatic extraction of legal links. In: Wyner A, Casini G (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems, proceedings of the 2nd workshop on automated detection, extraction and analysis of semantic information in legal texts, June 16, 2017, London, UK, pp 113–118. https://ebooks.iospress.nl/publication/48052
2. Akerlof GA (1970) The market for “Lemons”: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q J Econ 84:488–500
3. Alschner W, Skougarevskiy D (2015) Consistency and legal innovation in the BIT Universe. Stanford Public Law Working Paper No. 2595288, p 2
4. Ashley KD, Kevin D (2017) Artificial intelligence and legal analytics: new tools for law practice in the digital age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
5. Ayres I, Schwartz A (2014) The no-reading problem in consumer contract law. Stan L Rev 66(3):545–610
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献