Governing Global Gig Platforms in the Age of AI: When the Manager is an Algorithm

Gig workers are vulnerable to discrimination from the sharing economy platforms on which they work. This challenge is worsened by these platforms’ dependence on algorithms and artificial intelligence (AI) systems, which are used to control and direct gig workers. These platforms also often operate globally, and discrimination embedded within their algorithms can be magnified when exported into new cultural contexts.These platforms exercise significant influence over gig workers, but their for-profit nature means that their boards and directors often prioritize shareholder value over gig worker protection. This tension has led to intense debates, as platforms attempt to minimize the rights and benefits they provide to gig workers. Yet, recent legal developments from the European Union—specifically, the European Union’s Platform Workers’ Directive, AI Act, and Framework Convention on AI—signal the beginning of a global legal and policy shift towards protecting gig workers and regulating AI use.This Article examines the intricate interplay among algorithmic discrimination, corporate governance, and growing global legal scrutiny to protect gig workers and govern AI. This emerging legal and regulatory framework from the European Union has the potential to align platforms’ incentives with gig workers’ rights. Finally, this Article offers policy recommendations and actionable organizational changes for platforms to navigate this evolving legal landscape

Data Portability Revisited: Toward the Human-Centric, Al-Driven Data Ecosystems of Tomorrow

This Article critically examines the contemporary regulatory framework and discourse surrounding data portability in the United States. Using recent regulatory developments in the European Union as an illustration, this Article suggests that although data access and portability are identified as vital issues in multiple policy instruments, in its current iteration, at least, legal conceptions of portability continue to reinforce the interests of service providers and data controller enterprises rather than individual end users. This Article argues that a paradigm shift toward a more human-centric data approach to data governance must occur, under which data would be recognized as fundamental to an individual’s identity in a digital age. Therefore, it should be placed in the hands of individuals rather than service providers or data controller enterprises. This Article considers technical and market trends in the European Union that reveal and facilitate such a change. It suggests that regulatory frameworks should better align with these technological and market developments to encourage change-inducing trends among market actors. In short, this Article identifies a transformative approach to data portability that empowers individuals with the freedom and ability to aggregate their data in secure personal spaces under their control or dominion. Such a human-centric perspective on data portability is crucial in building Artificial Intelligence (AI)-powered applications for individual consumers that can pave the way for the human-centric, AI-driven data ecosystems of the future

How Different Are the Trump Judges?

Donald J. Trump’s first presidency broke the mold in many ways, including how to think about judicial appointments. Unlike other recent presidents, President Trump was open about how “his” judges could be depended on to rule in particular ways on key issues (e.g., guns, religion, and abortion) he was courting voters on. Other factors, such as age and personal loyalty to Trump, seemed important criteria as well. With selection criteria such as these, one might expect that Trump would select from a smaller pool of candidates than other presidents. Given the smaller pool and deviation from traditional norms of picking “good” judges, we were curious about how the Trump judges performed on a basic set of measures of judging. One prediction is that Trumpian constraints on judicial selection produced a different set of judges that underperform compared to judges appointed by other presidents. Using data on active federal appeals court judges from January 1, 2020, to June 30, 2023, we examine data on judges across three different measures: opinion production, influence (measured by citations), and independence or what we refer to as “maverick” behavior. With the caveat that we have less data on judges appointed by President Biden, Trump judges do not underperform. One might even say that they outperform expectations

NIL Speeds Ahead While Title IX Trails Behind: Finding Room for Title IX in the Evolving NIL Landscape

Title IX was enacted to eliminate sex-based discrimination in educational programs receiving federal funding, including intercollegiate athletics. While the law has successfully increased female participation in sports, disparities in the treatment of male and female athletes persist, particularly in the context of publicity and promotional resources. The rise of name, image, and likeness (NIL) opportunities has further widened this gap, as universities and their affiliated collectives disproportionately promote male athletes, enhancing their marketability and NIL earning potential. Schroeder et al. v. University of Oregon presents a novel legal issue—whether Title IX applies to NIL deals when universities provide unequal publicity resources to male and female student athletes. This Note examines how Title IX’s equal treatment mandate extends to NIL promotional efforts, arguing that when institutions directly or indirectly facilitate NIL opportunities in a manner that disproportionately benefits male athletes, they risk violating federal law. Furthermore, the entanglement between universities and NIL collectives raises critical questions of agency law, suggesting that collectives function as promotional arms of institutions rather than independent third parties. Without regulatory intervention, these inequities will continue to undermine Title IX’s purpose

Queering Carceralism

This article endeavours to expand the horizons of queer carceral studies, recognizing it is an apt frame of reference for reconsidering empirical research and advocacy which welcomes queerness as a central and fundamental analytic lens to interrogate carceral capitalist logics. As I have argued elsewhere, we find ourselves in quite the carceral age. Despite the fact queer, trans, and gender nonconforming people continue to be disproportionately incarcerated, if not otherwise affected by the carceral system, queer studies has paid scant attention to the prison, while critical prison studies has only somewhat engaged with queerness. Indeed, the historical illegality, costs, and subsequent consequences of queerness, broadly conceived, teaches many trans/queer/nonconforming folks their lives will be intimately connected to legal and prison systems. Therefore, it is important to expand the horizons of queer carceral studies to better situate carceral capitalistic conversations and concerns. This discussion provides a useful entry point for the analysis of costly legal challenges and associated barriers for queer and trans people; ongoing restrictions and decreases in correctional health care budgets; ongoing restrictions and decreases in community services; and ongoing restrictions and decreases in housing. Ultimately, I conclude that more challenges than solutions persist, a matter that will require remedial socio-legal and carceral policy work at all government levels

Roll for Lawsuit: Are Actual-Play Series Copyright Ingringers?

Dungeons and Dragons is a highly popular Tabletop Role-Playing Game designed by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson in 1973. The game’s emphasis on narrative storytelling makes it an interesting subject for copyright analysis. When a group plays Dungeons and Dragons (D&D) for an audience, using copyrighted materials from Dungeons and Dragons’s publisher, Wizards of the Coast, there is an open question about whether the players infringe on Wizards of the Coast’s exclusive rights under § 106 of the Copyright Act of 1976. This issue is further complicated by Wizards of the Coast’s unique approach to licensing.This Note examines how Dungeons and Dragons performances implicate Wizards of the Coast’s exclusive rights under the Copyright Act. After establishing that groups playing D&D publicly are likely liable for infringement of the reproduction, derivative work, and public performance rights of Wizards of the Coast, a statutory solution is proposed based on the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Allen v. Academic Games League of America, Inc

Data-Driven Police Profiling

Police departments increasingly rely on algorithms and other data- driven methods of identifying high-crime areas andpeople who are at high risk for involvement in crime. This Article examines several constitutional obstacles to this type ofpolicing. First, to the extent that these algorithms rely on data entitled to privacy protection, they may violate the Fourth Amendment. Second, the steps police take in response to a hot place or person designation must also be subject to constitutional regulation. Further, the principle of legality should prohibit the police from acting on any risk designation, even one that is very likely accurate, in the absence of direct observation of risky conduct. For the same reason, and to combat the influence of racially based dirty data, algorithm developers must finely tune both the inputs and outputs of their profiles. Finally, a failure to disclose the inner workings ofa predictive algorithm may violate the Confrontation Clause. Combined, these legal concerns could well spell the demise of profile-driven policing

Destroy, Rebuild, Repeat: How to Break the Climate Disaster Cycle

Climate change is fundamentally reshaping how we live, where we live, and whether we invest in or retreat from climate-exposed communities—but climate and disaster law is not changing with the climate. This legal latency is driven by antiquated statutes, doctrines, and policies that have not kept pace with the climate moment. Ex ante adaptation decisions governing where to live are life and death choices that shape ex post disaster response. Laws and policies should facilitate sound climate decisionmaking, but too often they frustrate individual and governmental decisions on whether to stay or retreat. In this Article, I argue that laws designed for a different physical environment, an environment more stable than the one we currently have, harm our ability to respond to climate-induced disasters. What is our national adaptation strategy to counteract the climate crisis? We do not have one. What we do have can be described as “unmanaged retreat”—a reactive, disjointed, and ad hoc “strategy” that exacerbates inequalities. Unmanaged retreat also traps communities in a cycle of repeated rebuilding after climate-induced destruction. This “strategy” stands in stark contrast to what climate change demands: proactive, forward-looking, and innovative laws and policies that address climate risk. Achieving a more effective legal framework begins by dismantling legal barriers and breaking the destroy, rebuild, repeat cycle. This Article provides a new normative framework to break the climate disaster cycle. Legal evolution will require a shift away from a reactive “destroy, rebuild, repeat” model to a systematic, proactive “inform, retreat, suspend” strategy. This transformation favors information (by increased transparency with the public about climate risk), retreat (by voluntary buyouts from climate hazard zones), and suspension (by halting governmental services). Our ability to make this legal shift will determine future adaptation and disaster progress

The Sports-Betting Market: A Road to Sports Betting as Viable Investing

Since its legalization, sports betting has experienced rapid growth, both in terms of economic output and expansion into more states. The current system of sports betting in the United States requires individuals to place bets using a sportsbook. The sportsbook sets the lines on every bet. If an individual wins their bet, the sportsbook pays them money according to the listed odds. If an individual loses their bet, the sportsbook keeps the amount staked. Sportsbooks set lines in a way to ensure that on average, they make money on every bet. This system has been widely accepted, often based on the common understanding that “the house always wins.” When the house wins, the individual loses. Sports betting in its current state is riddled with pricing inefficiencies that can be best remedied by treating sports betting as a market in which individuals can buy and sell bets. By reimagining the way sports betting is regulated, a system can be created where individuals can place bets at fair prices and be rewarded with gains based on superior ability. By thinking of sports betting like a capital market, it becomes clear how flawed the current system is, and we can draw inspiration from other capital markets to create a vision of an efficient sports-betting marketplace that protects investors instead of exploiting them

State and Regulatory Agency Approaches to Limiting Deepfakes in Political Advertising

With recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), regulators have turned their attention to the issue of how—and whether—to regulate the use of AI in political advertisements. While nineteen states have passed legislation regulating AI in political advertising, such regulations may be challenged as violations of the First Amendment. Furthermore, federal agencies also dispute which regulatory agency has jurisdiction to address the problem, with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) both claiming authority. Beyond issues of jurisdiction, agency action is also limited by the US Supreme Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.As deepfakes in political advertisement present the clearest threat of electoral confusion and deception, lawmakers should focus on deepfakes and craft content-neutral regulations of the manner of speech that can be used in AI-generated political advertisements. Such regulations would advance the strong government interest of preventing misrepresentation and electoral confusion. These regulations should be narrowly tailored to require labeling of deepfakes, while leaving open ample channels of alternative communication. The FCC and FEC should exercise complementary roles, with the FCC focusing on deepfakes in robocalls, television, and radio, and the FEC focusing on prohibiting fraudulent misrepresentation