The Legal Challenges of the Fourth Industrial Revolution

Rapid technological developments continue to transform the way creative works and other subject matters are created, produced, distributed and exploited. In consequence, novel practices, players, and business models, as well as new conflicts of interests have arisen. This has challenged the interpretation and application of copyright law in two particular respects: (i) the questioned legitimacy of new uses of protected works in the digital environment; and (ii) a different distribution of the value created along the value chain related to copyright, thus calling the need to rethink the function(s) of copyright as a tool to create markets for protected works and to (fairly) direct revenues towards the production stage of original content. After discussing the impact of the fourth industrial revolution on copyright law, this chapter proceeds to frame the modernisation of copyright law within the EU Digital Market Strategy, by focusing on selected aspects of the Directive 2019/790 (CDSMD). This instrument is largely driven by the aim to foster an efficient flow of content within the digital single market, by also allowing a fair distribution of the value generated by digital uses. In particular, there are three main legal responses given by the CDSMD to certain pressing challenges of the fourth industrial revolution: (a) text and data mining exceptions and limitations; (b) the press publishers related right for online uses of press publications; and (c) the new Liability Regime for Online Content-Sharing Services Providers. While discussing the strengths and weaknesses of such solutions, this chapter concludes with an overview of a number of further legal challenges, which may require further legislative or interpretative reforms in order to ensure internal and external consistency of EU copyright and the related rights system within the digital single market.

With a view to assessing the significance of the so-called Digital Services Act package and its implications for the evolution of EU law on the liability of intermediary service providers, this contribution focuses on several issues. First, the consequences of the change in instrument and the incorporation of the rules in a Regulation are addressed, including the comparison between the territorial scope of application of the new instrument and the current situation under Directive 2000/31/EC. Second, the amendments and additions made in the proposed Regulation to Articles 12 to 15 of the Directive are discussed. Third, the implications in the evolving landscape of service providers of the traditional reliance of EU law on the neutral position of the intermediary as a requirement to be eligible to benefit from the liability exemptions, are considered. Finally, an overview of the new due diligence obligations laid down in the Proposal is provided, in order to determine their potential relevance in the application of the horizontal liability exemptions to private claims against intermediaries, apart from the new envisaged public enforcement measures.

The impact of the activity of Transportation Network Companies in the context of the increasingly present Sharing Economy has been disruptive to the legal framework of several countries. A fundamental decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2017 forced several Member States to update their domestic law. This update has not failed to create fresh problems, essentially derived from the negotiating scheme enforced by the presence of a new party: the operator of the electronic platform.

Online platforms have become a key infrastructure for creating and sharing content, thus representing a paramount context for the individual/collective exercise of fundamental rights (e.g., freedom of expression, association) and the realisation of social values (citizens’ information, education, democratic dialogue). At the same time, platforms offer new opportunities for unfair or harmful behaviours, such as the unauthorised distribution of copyrighted content, privacy violation, unlawful content distribution (e.g., hate speech, child pornography), and fake news. To prevent or at least mitigate the spread of such content, online platforms have been encouraged to resort to content moderation. This activity uses automated systems to govern content flows to ensure lawful and productive user interactions. These systems deploy state-of-the-art AI technologies (e.g., deep learning, NLP) to detect prohibited content and restrict its further dissemination. In this Chapter, we will address the use of automated systems in content moderation and the related regulatory aspects. Section 2 will provide a general overview of content moderation on online platforms, focusing mainly on automated filtering. Further, Sect. 3 will describe existing techniques for automatically filtering content. Section 4 will discuss some critical challenges in automated content moderation, namely vulnerability, failures in accuracy, subjectivity and discrimination. Furthermore, Sect. 5 will define some of the steps needed to regulate moderation. Finally, in Sect. 6, we will review existing legislation that addresses content moderation in online environments.

This chapter seeks to provide an overview of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). It focuses particularly on the objectives and the principles of the DMA, the platforms subject to regulation, the obligations and prohibitions under the DMA, the Act’s institutional framework (especially the role of the Commission as the exclusive European Digital Regulator and of EU Member State authorities and courts) and its relationship with competition policy. It concludes with a reflection on the future of Big Tech regulation.

As is well known, the European Union has long concerned itself with consumer protection. This is one reason why, principally since the nineteen eighties, the European Union has adopted consumer rights directives that have been transposed into the law of each EU Member State. As early as the closing years of the twentieth century, the European Union realised the importance of the digital market and also regulated matters relating to electronic commerce. Today, old challenges have been joined by new, and the EU is once again called upon to respond. In this chapter we look at some of the solutions the EU has adopted or is in the process of adopting.

With the progressive digitization of the economy, the difficulties and challenges in carrying out the taxation of income generated within the scope of essentially digital activities became clear. The case of online platforms is one of the most notorious. Throughout this work, we deal with some of the most relevant proposals to resolve this tax problem that have been presented, in recent years, within the scope of initiatives of the G20, the OECD and the EU. We will focus our attention on the BEPS Project, on the EU Directive Proposals regarding significative digital presence and digital service tax, and also on the BEPS 2.0 Project, currently in course.

The purpose of this chapter is to articulate the importance of digital advertising for the new online economy, to demonstrate the role of new pro-competitive regime for digital markets in shaping the new regulatory approach to the phenomenon of digital advertising, to elaborate the contours of the necessary communication and cooperation modalities of various digital regulators both horizontally and vertically with their central governments as well as to demonstrate the inevitability of this process against the overarching background of the 4th Industrial Revolution.

The chapter analyses the 2020 European Union Strategy for Cybersecurity starting from the main differences with the 2013 Strategy and examining then its major contributions. The first one lies in the general framework which moves from the narrow field of security to the broader context of digitalisation. Secondly, from an axiological point of view, the 2020 Strategy introduces the concept of European technological sovereignty. Thirdly, from a functional perspective, in the new Strategy, cybersecurity is conceived as a horizontal or cross-cutting policy. Fourthly, as regards its content, the 2020 Strategy provides an improved balance between technical and non-technical issues as well as greater attention to certain basic technological questions. Finally, by its nature, this Strategy evolves from being an essentially declarative or descriptive policy to become a more operational or executive policy. There is a qualitative improvement compared to its predecessor that could even be considered a paradigm change.

Biometric data systems, including facial recognition applications or technologies, may be useful for verification, identification, and categorization purposes by private or public actors. Several advantages and disadvantages have been identified regarding the use of facial recognition systems, which need to be addressed. Considering the advantages and disadvantages of biometric data systems in general and facial recognition technologies, the draft EU Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act, unveiled by the Commission on 21 April 2021, has included new and important rules on the matter. While adopting a restrictive approach, the Commission’s Proposal represents a major step forward for regulating the use in the European Union of biometric data systems in general and facial recognition technologies also for law enforcement purposes. The Proposal is aligned with other European legal frameworks and requirements and may be seen as a source of inspiration for other countries and jurisdictions to enact comprehensive legislation on the matter which would allow the use (albeit in a restrictive way) of automated facial recognition technologies by law enforcement authorities and its inclusion in the criminal justice system.

According to recent official reports, cyber threats rank among the top risks facing the world. Cyber operations against the European Union are increasing in number, sophistication and severity, while the legal framework to combat these operations is not up to the challenge. The European Union is left with a very lengthy legislative process and a huge and complex legislative patchwork, difficult to understand and to apply, even for the most experienced expert. This fragmented and intricated approach causes entropies and inefficiencies in an environment where agility and efficiency are decisive. Moreover, most of the legislative responses are still to be approved and implemented. The lengthy and incomplete legislative responses contrast with the dizzying speed with which ICT developments keep succeeding and improving their functionalities. This mismatch can have devastating results. This chapter analyses some of the main strategies adopted in malicious cyber operations and confronts these strategies with the current European Union legal framework and legislative initiatives, pointing out possible paths to ensure that the European Union will rise as a cyber defence actor, preparing the ground for its leadership in the fourth industrial revolution.

The data protection litigation system is based on three main defence mechanisms: (i) lodging a complaint with a supervisory authority; (ii) bringing an administrative action, with petitioning or annulment purposes; or (iii) bringing a civil action, with express compensatory purposes. Some domestic laws complement this triad with the possibility of litigating before criminal courts. It is an eclectic solution that offers potentially injured parties a multifaceted set of solutions. In the present chapter we will analyse the general features of the GDPR litigation system, in particular Articles 77, 78, 79 and 82 of the GDPR. We will also dedicate a section to class actions, as provided for in Article 80 of the GDPR. We will take a practical approach, based on the following questions: (i) who can bring actions under each provision; (ii) against whom; (iii) to whom; and (iv) in what situations?

This chapter intends to describe the state of the art regarding the right to disconnect from the international and EU labour law perspectives, emphasizing the 2020 Agreement on Digitalisation and the 2021 EU Parliament Directive Proposal, as well as examining recent examples of domestic legislation and initiatives at the company level. We underline the several difficulties related to implementing the right to disconnect and for extending it to all employee’s, highlighting challenges and alerting to certain issues. We discuss the demand for global legal protection ensuring and encompassing, not only the right, but also the duty to disconnect, and we propose solutions, aiming to provide a set of ideas for further and more detailed legal analysis and development.

The topic of this chapter is the discussion whether a European Union catalogue of fundamental digital rights is needed or not. Departing from a brief overview on the impact of artificial intelligence on fundamental/human rights, the article follows by a succinct explanation of how the fundamental/human rights have emerged and what is the current state-of-art. The chapter pursues presenting some new legal issues derived from the use of the new technologies and questioning which rights could be enclosed in a new catalogue of fundamental digital rights. Finally, it addresses the advantages and disadvantages that such a catalogue may bring to the overall system.

This chapter explores the freedom of expression risks entailed in recent EU regulatory initiatives aimed at countering terrorism propaganda online, through the Regulation on addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online (‘TERREG’) and the Digital Services Act (‘DSA’). After analysis of the complementary nature of these instruments, the rule of law risks under lex specialis, namely TERREG, are exposed. As argued, these risks result from, inter alia, hosting service providers’ likely use of automated tools and the lack of judicial oversight, which is further exacerbated by the cross-border nature of removal orders and the lack of definitional clarity surrounding what constitutes ‘terrorist content’. By contextualizing these risks and mapping out the regulatory initiatives that preceded these Regulations in the field of terrorism propaganda online, important improvements in relation to privatised enforcement risks are highlighted.

This chapter, having sketched four conversations in which the people of Europe engage with new technologies (such as AI and machine learning), then identifies three key talking points. First, what should we make of the conspicuous European concern that applications of AI should be ‘human-centric’? The interpretation of this concept is considered as is the status of a human interest in such applications. Secondly, what do we understand by ‘catastrophic’ applications of AI and how do we guard against them? Connecting catastrophe to the compromising of the generic conditions for human existence and agency, the importance of protecting and maintaining the global commons is emphasized. Thirdly, how does the Rule of Law fit into the governance of, and by, AI? It is proposed that the scope of the Rule of Law should be extended in two ways, one by applying it beyond governance by rules to governance by technologies and technical measures, and the other by treating it as applicable to both public and private governance.