Search results

Among the greatest emerging challenges to global efforts to promote and protect human rights is the role of private sector entities in their actualization, since international human rights rules were designed to apply primarily, and in many cases solely, to the actions of governments. This paradigm is particularly evident in the expressive space, where private sector platforms play an enormously influential role in determining the boundaries of acceptable speech online, with none of the traditional guardrails governing how and when speech should be restricted. Many governments now view platform-imposed rules as a neat way of sidestepping legal limits on their own exercise of power, pressuring private sector entities to crack down on content which they would be constitutionally precluded from targeting directly. For their part, the platforms have grown increasingly uncomfortable with the level of responsibility they now wield, and in recent years have sought to modernize and improve their moderation frameworks in line with the growing global pressure they face. At the heart of these discussions are debates around how traditional human rights concepts like freedom of expression might be adapted to the context of "platform law." This Article presents a preliminary framework for applying foundational freedom of expression standards to the context of private sector platforms, and models how the three-part test, which lies at the core of understandings of freedom of expression as a human right, could be applied to platforms' moderation functions.

While many have asked whether the law can keep up with new technologies, we may need to ask bigger questions, lest in 'updating' we redraw the circuits of inequitable power relations. The fundamental ideas of autonomy and sovereignty that sit at the heart of the circuitry of platform and technological regulation must be reconsidered. How can we rewire this system? Examining the ways that relational thinking has been employed normatively, particularly in areas of communications law, this article suggests that we can draw on relational thinking, understood through critical theories that deal with historical structural relations, for guidance on how to rewire our legal operating system. Critical theories can infuse a relational approach to understanding communication law, which can be drawn on to rewire our legal operating system.

Abstract: This article discusses the approaches towards regulation and liability of digital platforms, focusing on the European Union perspective. It demonstrates that the current regulatory and scholarly perception of platform liability in the European Union has been framed by the EU Electronic Commerce Directive 2000/31 provisions on liability of information society service providers. Subsequently, in light of scholarly writings and regulatory developments, two main approaches towards platform liability are identified and discussed: On the one hand, the idea of general provisions on platform liability, exemplified by the Discussion Draft on Digital Platforms. On the other hand, sector-specific provisions that densely regulate business models based on digital platforms, exemplified by the new EU Package Travel Directive 2015/2302. Both approaches are evaluated as far as their potential for inspiring legislative activity is concerned.

Abstract: This article uses the example of one of the best-known global payment systems provided by an online platform, PayPal, to analyse the role of private legal orders in creating new markets beyond jurisdictional borders. It shows that a relatively uniform legal order reduces risks involved in cross-border transactions and in this way enables transnational markets. While transnational law is more easily created by private entities rather than states, it remains embedded in state laws. The continuous role of state law in shaping transnational private legal orders is guaranteed because the latter operate with the endorsement and support of states. In this way states facilitate globalization. At the same time, the impact of state laws is fragmentary and disintegrates the applicable global private legal framework. Finally, the scattered influence of state laws undermines the protection offered to consumers. This is particularly important, because mutual rights and obligations between transnational private rule-makers, like the online platform PayPal, and their 'users' tend to be strongly biased in favour of the former. Résumé: Cet article se sert de l'exemple de l'un des systèmes mondiaux de paiement les plus connus fourni par une plateforme en ligne, PayPal, pour analyser le rôle de systèmes juridiques privés dans la création de nouveaux marchés au-delà des frontières juridictionnelles. Il montre qu'un système légal relativement uniforme réduit les risques impliqués dans des transactions transfrontalières et favorise de cette manière des marchés transnationaux. Alors qu'une règle transnationale est plus facilement créée par des entités privées que par des états, elle reste incorporée dans les lois étatiques. Le rôle constant du droit étatique dans la formation de systèmes juridiques privés transnationaux est assuré parce que ces derniers opèrent avec l'approbation et le support d'états. De cette manière, les états facilitent la globalisation. En même temps, la portée de lois étatiques est fragmentaire et désintègre le cadre juridique privé mondial applicable. Finalement, l'influence éparse de lois étatiques fragilise la protection offerte aux consommateurs. Ceci est particulièrement important dans la mesure où les droits et obligations réciproques entre les décideurs privés transnationaux tels que la plateforme en ligne PayPal, et leurs 'utilisateurs' tendent à être fortement déséquilibrés en faveur des premiers.

"This book looks at two technological advancements in the area of e-commerce, which dramatically seem to change the way consumers shop online. In particular, they automate certain crucial tasks inherent in the 'shopping' activity, thereby relieving ..."--Provided by publisher

The main aim of this article is to investigate some encounters between the Norwegian system of economic risk-pooling for labour engaging individuals, and the emerging digital platform economy. The author argues that Norwegian labour and employment law, as well as social insurance law, may fall short in alleviating the economic strains of the typical digital platform worker in cases of loss of income. This is partly due to legal classification: Where Norwegian labour and employment law operates with two categories of labour engaging individuals: employees and non-employees, Norwegian social insurance law includes three categories: employees, freelancers, and self-employed persons. Employees are entitled to the most comprehensive and high-level coverage of income losses. The legal status of digital platform workers is basically unclear, and they may belong to each of the three categories, depending on contract terms. It is also argued that the Covid 19-pandemic has reinforced the differences between salaried, full-time, employees, and atypical workers such as digital platform workers. The compensation measures issued by the Norwegian state to cover income losses in relation to the pandemic did not meet the needs of the typical –freelance –digital platform worker to the same extent as those of undertakings and 'traditional' employees. The article suggests some measures to clarify the legal position and to give a better coverage for digital platform workers in cases of loss of income.