Coordinating Digital Regulation in the UK: Is the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum (DRCF) up to the task?

The shift to online commerce and communication in the global pandemic, the Cambridge Analytica scandal and the cancel culture exacerbated by social media platforms have demonstrated our increasing reliance on digital platforms. Digital regulation is receiving increasing scrutiny globally and, in the UK, as exemplified by the recent Digital Markets and Digital Services Act by the European Union and the establishment of the Digital Markets Unit within the Competition and Markets Authority in the UK. In July 2020, the Competition and Markets Authority, the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Office of Communications formed the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum (DRCF) to coordinate digital regulation between various regulators. In April 2021, the Financial Conduct Authority also joined the DRCF as a full member. Against this backdrop, the paper explores the coordination of digital regulation in the UK and analyses how effective the DRCF is in contributing to this objective. It is argued that to effectively respond to the challenges posed by digital technologies, coordination between various regulatory authorities must be extended and formalised to avoid fragmented enforcement. Whilst the DRCF is a step in the right direction, it needs to engage more closely with other relevant stakeholders

The proposed directive for the supply of digital content: Is it fit for purpose?

In December 2015, the European Commission proposed a new Directive for the Supply of Digital Content. This Directive was presented along with a second proposed Directive on Online and Distant Sale of Goods. These proposed Directives form part of the European Union Digital Single Market Strategy. This paper critically examines the Directive for the Supply of Digital Content to establish whether it fits the purposes for which it is drafted and whether it fits the goals of the Digital Single Market Strategy. It is submitted that although the Directive is presented as part of the Digital Single Market Strategy and as an instrument to fill a gap in the Consumer Acquis, it is mainly concerned with harmonising contract law and it is driven by the Commission’s previous failed attempts to harmonise Contract law. The paper also highlights that in its current form due to some of its requirements on businesses the proposed Directive may lead to negative consequences for consumers. The paper argues that the Directive and some of its provisions needs to be revisited

The right to privacy revisited: different international perspectives

This book focuses on the right to privacy in the digital age with a view to see how it is implemented across the globe in different jurisdictions. The right to privacy is one of the rights enshrined in international human rights law. It has been a topic of interest for both academic and non-academic audiences around the world. However, with the increasing digitalisation of modern life, protecting one’s privacy has become more complicated. Both state and non-state organisations make frequent interventions in citizens’ private lives. This edited volume aims to provide an overview of recent development pertaining to the protection of the right to privacy in the different judicial systems such as the European, South Asian, African and Inter-American legal systems. The chapters in this book were originally published as a special issue of The International Journal of Human Rights

The right to data portability in the GDPR and EU competition law: odd couple or dynamic duo

The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 4 May 2016. It will become applicable on May 25, 2018. The GDPR comprises a new right to data portability for individuals, which requires data controllers to ensure that they can hand over the personal data that has been provided by the data subject himself/herself, in a structured, commonly used and transferable format. This paper critically examines the right to data portability and suggests that in order to ensure comprehensive data portability that reaches out to all relevant stakeholders, including businesses, the provisions in the GDPR need to be analysed by taking into account EU competition rules. It suggests that lessons can be drawn from EU competition law to limit the potential adverse consequences of the right to data portability particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. It also asserts that EU competition rules, especially Article 102 TFEU and the essential facilities doctrine, can complement data portability by facilitating mandatory access to specific data

BILETA REF Consultation response

There has been a consultation underway for the next Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2028 exercise. The proposals could lead to a significant step change in the way in which research in many disciplines is measured. This document sets out British and Irish Law Education and Technology Association's (Bileta's ) response to the government consultation. It has been written by Professor Basu (Leeds), Professor Kim Barker (Lincoln), Dr Edina Harbinja (Aston), and Dr Aysem Vanberg (Goldsmiths, University of London)

Draft Online Safety Bill. Written evidence submitted by the British and Irish Law, Education and Technology Association (BILETA) (OSB0073)

The British and Irish Law Education Technology Association (BILETA) was formed in April 1986 to promote, develop and communicate high-quality research and knowledge on technology law and policy to organisations, governments, professionals, students and the public. BILETA also promotes the use of and research into technology at all stages of education. The present inquiry raises significant questions relating to the proposed Online Safety Regime, the intended regulatory body, and the scope of content within the measures proposed by the Bill. The present call for evidence raises technological and legal challenges that our membership explores in their research. As such, we believe that our contribution will add significant value to the scrutiny of the Draft Online Safety Bill. Summary (i) We agree that there is a need to address the regulation of online speech, and online content. We also accept, and are supportive of the need to enhance protection of vulnerable users online. (ii) That said, we have some serious concerns over the proposed Draft Online Safety Bill (OSB), both in terms of its substantive aim, but also it's likely practical implications. (iii) The policy intention is clear, but it is not similarly clear as to how it is intended that this legislation will operate in practice. (iv) The Draft OSB lacks clarity in relation to how it will operate in relation to some elements of free speech, especially in the areas of democratic and journalistic content. (v) It is our view that the Draft OSB is a work in progress at best, and poses significant risks to content, but also expression rights. We also retain concerns as to the choice of the regulatory body, and the likely enforceability requirements that will be needed. PLEASE CITE AS Kim Barker, Guido Noto La Diega, Ruth Flaherty, and Aysem Diker Vanberg, ‘Draft Online Safety Bill. Written evidence submitted by the British and Irish Law, Education and Technology Association (BILETA) (OSB0073)’ (UK Parliament, 28 September 2021

AI White Paper Consultation Response

This paper is prepared on behalf of the British Irish Law, Education and Technology Association (BILETA) by Dr Megan Blakely, Dr Aysem Diker Vanberg, Dr Edina Harbinja and Dr Felipe Romero – Moreno. The present AI White Paper inquiry raises technological, economic and legal challenges that the members of (BILETA) explore in their research. As such, this consultation response adds to the public discourse and the inquiry on the future of AI regulation in the UK

Protecting People from illegal harms online Consultation Response

The British and Irish Law Education Technology Association (BILETA) was formed in April 1986 to promote, develop and communicate high-quality research and knowledge on technology law and policy to organisations, governments, professionals, students and the public. BILETA also promotes the use of and research into technology at all stages of education. The present inquiry raises significant questions relating to protecting people from illegal harms online As such, we believe that our contribution will add significant value to the ongoing consultation and the role of OFCOM in enhancing online safety

Draft Online Safety Bill. Written evidence submitted by the British and Irish Law, Education and Technology Association (BILETA) (OSB0073)

The British and Irish Law Education Technology Association (BILETA) was formed in April 1986 to promote, develop and communicate high-quality research and knowledge on technology law and policy to organisations, governments, professionals, students and the public. BILETA also promotes the use of and research into technology at all stages of education. The present inquiry raises significant questions relating to the proposed Online Safety Regime, the intended regulatory body, and the scope of content within the measures proposed by the Bill. The present call for evidence raises technological and legal challenges that our membership explores in their research. As such, we believe that our contribution will add significant value to the scrutiny of the Draft Online Safety Bill. Summary (i) We agree that there is a need to address the regulation of online speech, and online content. We also accept, and are supportive of the need to enhance protection of vulnerable users online. (ii) That said, we have some serious concerns over the proposed Draft Online Safety Bill (OSB), both in terms of its substantive aim, but also it's likely practical implications. (iii) The policy intention is clear, but it is not similarly clear as to how it is intended that this legislation will operate in practice. (iv) The Draft OSB lacks clarity in relation to how it will operate in relation to some elements of free speech, especially in the areas of democratic and journalistic content. (v) It is our view that the Draft OSB is a work in progress at best, and poses significant risks to content, but also expression rights. We also retain concerns as to the choice of regulatory body, and the likely enforceability requirements that will be needed. PLEASE CITE AS Kim Barker, Guido Noto La Diega, Ruth Flaherty, and Aysem Diker Vanberg, ‘Draft Online Safety Bill. Written evidence submitted by the British and Irish Law, Education and Technology Association (BILETA) (OSB0073)’ (UK Parliament, 28 September 2021

Draft Online Safety Bill. Written evidence submitted by the British and Irish Law, Education and Technology Association (BILETA) (OSB0073)

The British and Irish Law Education Technology Association (BILETA) was formed in April 1986 to promote, develop and communicate high-quality research and knowledge on technology law and policy to organisations, governments, professionals, students and the public. BILETA also promotes the use of and research into technology at all stages of education. The present inquiry raises significant questions relating to the proposed Online Safety Regime, the intended regulatory body, and the scope of content within the measures proposed by the Bill. The present call for evidence raises technological and legal challenges that our membership explores in their research. As such, we believe that our contribution will add significant value to the scrutiny of the Draft Online Safety Bill. Summary (i) We agree that there is a need to address the regulation of online speech, and online content. We also accept, and are supportive of the need to enhance protection of vulnerable users online. (ii) That said, we have some serious concerns over the proposed Draft Online Safety Bill (OSB), both in terms of its substantive aim, but also it's likely practical implications. (iii) The policy intention is clear, but it is not similarly clear as to how it is intended that this legislation will operate in practice. (iv) The Draft OSB lacks clarity in relation to how it will operate in relation to some elements of free speech, especially in the areas of democratic and journalistic content. (v) It is our view that the Draft OSB is a work in progress at best, and poses significant risks to content, but also expression rights. We also retain concerns as to the choice of regulatory body, and the likely enforceability requirements that will be needed. PLEASE CITE AS Kim Barker, Guido Noto La Diega, Ruth Flaherty, and Aysem Diker Vanberg, ‘Draft Online Safety Bill. Written evidence submitted by the British and Irish Law, Education and Technology Association (BILETA) (OSB0073)’ (UK Parliament, 28 September 2021