A Blueprint for Online Dispute Resolution System Design

A great deal of discussion focuses on how arbitration and similar private dispute resolution harms consumers, and how businesses seek ways to avoid helping consumers. It is often assumed that companies and consumers are on opposing “teams.” In reality, however, consumers and companies enjoy more commonalities than contradictions. Both benefit when deals go well and disputes are resolved quickly and cheaply. The problem is that face-to-face dispute resolution can be costly in terms of time and money. Furthermore, getting lawyers involved may inspire gamesmanship and adversarial antics aimed to protect one’s reputation for staying “strong” and refusing to settle or admit wrongdoing. The solution is a well-designed online dispute resolution (ODR) system that harnesses business and consumer commonalities, and creates a win-win for all stakeholders in eCom-merce disputes

Primer on Post Claims Underwriting and Rescission Practices: Findings From Texas in the Individual Health Insurance Market

Explains the practice of insurers canceling, rescinding, or limiting coverage after claims are submitted and the variations in regulations and enforcement. Presents a case study of rescissions in Texas and efforts to enforce stronger state regulations

A Unified Theory of Data

How does the proliferation of data in our modern economy affect our legal system? Scholars that have addressed the question have nearly universally agreed that the dramatic increases in the amount of data available to companies, as well as the new uses to which that data is being put, raise fundamental problems for our regulatory structures. But just what those problems might be remains an area of deep disagreement. Some argue that the problem with data is that current uses lead to discriminatory results that harm minority groups. Some argue that the problem with data is that it impinges on the privacy interests of citizens. Still others argue that the problem with data is that its remarkable efficacy as a tool will lead to disruptions in labor markets. This Article will argue that the disagreements about data and its harms in modern society are the result of overly compartmentalized analyses of the nature of data itself. Data, after all, is a strikingly broad concept, one that spans everything from where you ate breakfast today to the genetic markers in your DNA to the returns on your 401(k) last year. By focusing narrowly on specific segments of the data industry, both scholars and policymakers have crafted a set of conflicting rules and recommendations that fail to address the core problem of data it-self. This Article aims to correct this gap. First, it provides a taxonomy of the core features of the data economy today and the various behaviors, both positive and negative, that these features make possible. Second, the Article categorizes the types of arguments made about costs and benefits of wider data usage. Finally, the Article argues that the only way to reconcile the varied and overlapping approaches to da-ta in our current regulatory system is to create a more unified law of data. This unified law of data would set forth harmonized and consistent rules for the gathering, storage, and use of data, and it would establish rules to incentivize beneficial data practices and sanction harmful ones. Ultimately, the Article concludes, governing data will require a more comprehensive approach than the limited and piece-meal efforts that have ruled to dat

Researching with Data Rights

The concentration and privatization of data infrastructures has a deep impact on independent research. This article positions data rights as a useful tool in researchers’ toolbox to obtain access to enclosed datasets. It does so by providing an overview of relevant data rights in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, and describing different use cases in which they might be particularly valuable. While we believe in their potential, researching with data rights is still very much in its infancy. A number of legal, ethical and methodological issues are identified and explored. Overall, this article aims both to explain the potential utility of data rights to researchers, as well as to provide appropriate initial conceptual scaffolding for important discussions around the approach to occur

Combating consumer discrimination in the Digital Single Market: preventing geo-blocking and other forms of geo-discrimination. CEPS Special Report September 2016

The paper conducts a stocktaking exercise of the state of play in the DSM and offers a critical assessment of the most relevant initiatives to combat consumer discrimination. It gives an overview of discriminatory practices in the online environment and assesses the magnitude of the problem. Differences between justified and unjustified geo-blocking are discussed. An in-depth analysis of the EC proposals on geo-blocking, portability and parcel delivery and the DG COMP investigation into the distribution of audiovisual content is then performed. This document was prepared by Policy Department A at the request of the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection

Slave to the Algorithm? Why a \u27Right to an Explanation\u27 Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For

Algorithms, particularly machine learning (ML) algorithms, are increasingly important to individuals’ lives, but have caused a range of concerns revolving mainly around unfairness, discrimination and opacity. Transparency in the form of a “right to an explanation” has emerged as a compellingly attractive remedy since it intuitively promises to open the algorithmic “black box” to promote challenge, redress, and hopefully heightened accountability. Amidst the general furore over algorithmic bias we describe, any remedy in a storm has looked attractive. However, we argue that a right to an explanation in the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is unlikely to present a complete remedy to algorithmic harms, particularly in some of the core “algorithmic war stories” that have shaped recent attitudes in this domain. Firstly, the law is restrictive, unclear, or even paradoxical concerning when any explanation-related right can be triggered. Secondly, even navigating this, the legal conception of explanations as “meaningful information about the logic of processing” may not be provided by the kind of ML “explanations” computer scientists have developed, partially in response. ML explanations are restricted both by the type of explanation sought, the dimensionality of the domain and the type of user seeking an explanation. However, “subject-centric explanations (SCEs) focussing on particular regions of a model around a query show promise for interactive exploration, as do explanation systems based on learning a model from outside rather than taking it apart (pedagogical versus decompositional explanations) in dodging developers\u27 worries of intellectual property or trade secrets disclosure. Based on our analysis, we fear that the search for a “right to an explanation” in the GDPR may be at best distracting, and at worst nurture a new kind of “transparency fallacy.” But all is not lost. We argue that other parts of the GDPR related (i) to the right to erasure ( right to be forgotten ) and the right to data portability; and (ii) to privacy by design, Data Protection Impact Assessments and certification and privacy seals, may have the seeds we can use to make algorithms more responsible, explicable, and human-centered

Prawnoporównawcze ujęcie zasad ochrony danych osobowych w handlu elektronicznym w Unii Europejskiej, Stanach Zjednoczonych, Republice Macedonii Północnej i Albanii. Modele i specyfika

The advantages of electronic communications in the e-commerce sector and the rapid exchange of information continue to have enormous benefits, but they come at a cost in terms of privacy protection and legal gaps. Privacy is defined differently in each jurisdiction – the EU and the US, and despite widespread agreement on the importance of privacy, there is no single definition of the concept in scientific circles. The difficulties of transferring personal data between the European Union and the United States were once again at the forefront of the country’s highest privacy and data protection concerns. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) positioned data protection to the highest level of company directions throughout the requirements imposed on any organization that collects, processes, manages, or stores information about European citizens, requiring stricter standards and giving users more control over their data. The new regulation has an impact on businesses and users all over Europe. The study’s goal is to compare the level of protection and security provided to e-commerce users in the European Union, the United States of America, the Republic of North Macedonia, and Albania. Also, the correlation between the obligations and the effect of the GDPR was studied in order to determine whether it will guarantee a higher level of protection of individuals’ rights, or whether will it primarily result in the bureaucratization of the processes for protecting personal data performed in e-commerce actions.Zalety elektronicznych środków komunikacji w sektorze e-commerce oraz szybkiej wymiany informacji nadal przynoszą olbrzymie korzyści, ale kosztem ochrony prywatności i powstawania luk prawnych. W każdym systemie prawnym – czy to unijnym, czy to amerykańskim – prywatność jest definiowana inaczej; pomimo tego, że waga prywatności jest szeroko akceptowana, brak jest jednolitej definicji tego pojęcia w środowisku naukowym. Trudności w przenoszeniu danych osobowych pomiędzy Unią Europejską a Stanami Zjednoczonymi znów wyszły na pierwszy plan pośród najważniejszych kwestii związanych z prywatnością i ochroną danych w poszczególnych krajach. Rozporządzenie o ochronie danych osobowych (RODO) postawiło ochronę danych na najwyższym poziomie działalności przedsiębiorstw poprzez wymagania nałożone na każdą organizację zbierającą, przetwarzającą, zarządzającą lub przechowującą informacje o europejskich obywatelach, wymuszając surowsze standardy i dając użytkownikom większą kontrolę nad swoimi danymi. Nowe rozporządzenie oddziałuje na przedsiębiorców i użytkowników w całej Europie. Celem opracowania jest porównanie poziomu ochrony i bezpieczeństwa zapewnianego użytkownikom e-commerce w Unii Europejskiej, Stanach Zjednoczonych Ameryki, Republice Macedonii Północnej i Albanii. Ponadto zbadano korelację pomiędzy obowiązkami a skutkami RODO w celu stwierdzenia, czy zapewni ono wyższy poziom ochrony praw jednostek czy też raczej przede wszystkim wywoła zbiurokratyzowanie procesów ochrony danych osobowych prowadzonych w ramach czynności e-commerce