Digital Fairness for Consumers

The authors hope to initiate a broader discussion on what digital fairness might mean andhow digital fairness can be anchored in the EU consumer law. Limiting digital fairness to threepieces of EU legislation is certainly not a promising avenue. The EU Digital Policy Legislationcuts across the consumer law acquis as a whole and would require to evaluate each and everypiece of the consumer law acquis. The question to be studied is whether the European con -sumer law acquis, which was developed under a political agenda which dates back to thefamous Kennedy Declaration 1962 and a different industrial economy, can handle the risksand problems consumers might face in the exponentially developing digital economy, whichreaches beyond the linear thinking of human mankind. In that sense, the findings should beunderstood as the first building block in an ongoing process to find appropriate answers notonly for consumer protection but for society at large.The authors propose to discuss the possible implications of the findings with a view to devel-oping a ‘Digital Fairness Act

Digital Fairness for Consumers

The authors hope to initiate a broader discussion on what digital fairness might mean andhow digital fairness can be anchored in the EU consumer law. Limiting digital fairness to threepieces of EU legislation is certainly not a promising avenue. The EU Digital Policy Legislationcuts across the consumer law acquis as a whole and would require to evaluate each and everypiece of the consumer law acquis. The question to be studied is whether the European con -sumer law acquis, which was developed under a political agenda which dates back to thefamous Kennedy Declaration 1962 and a different industrial economy, can handle the risksand problems consumers might face in the exponentially developing digital economy, whichreaches beyond the linear thinking of human mankind. In that sense, the findings should beunderstood as the first building block in an ongoing process to find appropriate answers notonly for consumer protection but for society at large.The authors propose to discuss the possible implications of the findings with a view to devel-oping a ‘Digital Fairness Act

Big data: Finders keepers, losers weepers?

This article argues that big data’s entrepreneurial potential is based not only on new technological developments that allow for the extraction of non-trivial, new insights out of existing data, but also on an ethical judgment that often remains implicit: namely the ethical judgment that those companies that generate these new insights can legitimately appropriate (the fruits of) these insights. As a result, the business model of big data companies is essentially founded on a libertarian-inspired ‘finders, keepers’ ethic. The article argues, next, that this presupposed ‘finder, keepers’ ethic is far from unproblematic and relies itself on multiple unconvincing assumptions. This leads to the conclusion that the conduct of companies working with big data might lack ethical justification

Conditions for technological solutions in a COVID-19 exit strategy, with particular focus on the legal and societal conditions

Which legal, ethical and societal conditions need to be fulfilled for the use of digital solutions in managing the COVID-19 exit-strategy? This was the central question of this research. Digital technologies can be part of solutions to societal challenges, for example to manage the pandemic and lead the Netherlands out of the COVID-19 crisis. One set of technologies that figured particularly prominently in that debate was the use of contact tracing apps like the CoronaMelder, as well as digital vaccination passports (CoronaCheck app). In the Netherlands, Europe and worldwide, the introduction of apps such as the CoronaMelder or the CoronaCheck app was met by criticism from experts, politicians, civil society and academics. Concerns range from the lack of evidence for the effectiveness of such apps, uncertainty about the conditions that need to be fulfilled to reach their goal, our growing dependency on technology companies up to worries about the fundamental rights and adverse effects for vulnerable groups, such as elderly or users without a smart phone. The overall goal of the research was to monitor the societal, ethical and legal implications of implementing apps like the CoronaMelder, and from that draw lessons for the future use of ‘technology-assisted governance solutions’. One important conclusion from the report is that ‘there are no easy technological fixes, and in order for a technological solution to work, it needs to be part of a broader vision on what such a solution needs to function in society, achieve its intended goals and respect the fundamental rights of users as well as non-users.’ The report also offers critical reflections on the need for democratic legitimisation and accountability, the role of big tech and insights on the societal impact of the CoronaMelder and other technological solutions

Conditions for technological solutions in a COVID-19 exit strategy, with particular focus on the legal and societal conditions

Which legal, ethical and societal conditions need to be fulfilled for the use of digital solutions in managing the COVID-19 exit-strategy? This was the central question of this research. Digital technologies can be part of solutions to societal challenges, for example to manage the pandemic and lead the Netherlands out of the COVID-19 crisis. One set of technologies that figured particularly prominently in that debate was the use of contact tracing apps like the CoronaMelder, as well as digital vaccination passports (CoronaCheck app). In the Netherlands, Europe and worldwide, the introduction of apps such as the CoronaMelder or the CoronaCheck app was met by criticism from experts, politicians, civil society and academics. Concerns range from the lack of evidence for the effectiveness of such apps, uncertainty about the conditions that need to be fulfilled to reach their goal, our growing dependency on technology companies up to worries about the fundamental rights and adverse effects for vulnerable groups, such as elderly or users without a smart phone. The overall goal of the research was to monitor the societal, ethical and legal implications of implementing apps like the CoronaMelder, and from that draw lessons for the future use of ‘technology-assisted governance solutions’. One important conclusion from the report is that ‘there are no easy technological fixes, and in order for a technological solution to work, it needs to be part of a broader vision on what such a solution needs to function in society, achieve its intended goals and respect the fundamental rights of users as well as non-users.’ The report also offers critical reflections on the need for democratic legitimisation and accountability, the role of big tech and insights on the societal impact of the CoronaMelder and other technological solutions