Upcoming Events
Leander Stähler (KU Leuven CiTiP – imec)
Common European Data Spaces under EU Law: State of Play and Future Perspectives
Abstract: In recent years, the European Union (EU) has invested a significant amount of effort and resources into the development of common European data spaces as the digital infrastructure through which different types of stakeholders can engage in practices of data sharing. This talk places common European data spaces in their legal context, outlines key regulatory compliance issues that data spaces aim to tackle as well as their approach to contractual relationships. Further, it highlights the role of legal questions that are unique to ‘data’ under recent EU legislation, as well as the position of data spaces thereunder. Looking forward, the talk hones in on unique aspects that data spaces raise for applicable law. Data spaces raise questions for legal frameworks including trade secrets law, competition law and copyright law, while also operationalising new aspects of data legislation. While challenging, this also opens up the possibility to foster greater coherence among regimes. Namely, this can be done by fostering legal approaches that focus on the role of data spaces as ‘infrastructure’. At the same time, the EU’s ambitions concerning competitiveness will be a lodestar. The talk therefore highlights how data spaces may assist in identifying legal frictions, pinpointing how data spaces can formulate supportive approaches. Bio: |
Carl Vander Maelen (European Commission)
A toolbox with many instruments: exploring due diligence tools in Articles 44-48 DSA
Abstract: The Digital Services Act (DSA) is the EU’s landmark legislation regarding platform policy. It obliges intermediary services to show responsible and diligent behaviour to ensure a safe, predictable and trustworthy online environment. While certain elements of the DSA are quite well-known (such as the obligation to have notice-and-action mechanisms in place; or the system of designating Very Large Online Platforms and Search Engines) its suite of other provisions concerning due diligence obligations found in Articles 44-48 DSA have been less explored in popular discourse. This talk will introduce standards, codes of conduct and crisis protocols to shed some light on their practical implementation and their place in the overall DSA ecosystem.
Bio: Carl Vander Maelen is a Legal Officer at the European Commission – Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (DG CONNECT) where he works on the Digital Services Act. He obtained his PhD in Law at Ghent University (Belgium) and published his academic work in a wide variety of scientific journals. He is the recipient of several awards, such as the ‘Emerging Scholar Award’ of the Pacific Telecommunications Council and the ‘BILETA Prize’ at the British and Irish Law, Education and Technology Association conference.
Chris Marsden (Monash University)
AI sovereignty and co-dependence: Legal Strategies from Europe to the UK and Australia
Abstract: I will investigate: European AI sovereignty policy compared to the ‘shared sovereignty’ approach of the UK and Australia towards US technological domination . Telecoms and Internet legal policy-making has always understood that national sovereignty is a key component of the regulation equation. The heightened national cybersecurity focus of 2025 created prospects for increased sovereign requirements. These range from the European Union ‘EuroStack’ and India ‘AI Stack’ concepts, to the US ‘AI Cold War’ sovereignty requirements instituted since 2020, to the UK and Australia’s position as regulatory takers in AI and digital technology more generally, itself a mirror of their AUKUS military-industrial collaboration and post-colonial industrial-financial-military linkages as founding Five Eyes partners. The combined impact of assertive national policies and global technological developments ensure that digital sovereignty issues and challenges are more important than ever. This calls for research into comparative policy making beyond the well explored domain of generic, horizontal AI legislation , with the often misused “Brussels effect”. AI sovereignty is a specific substantive policy area, that grows from a conception of ‘digital regulatory capitalism’ (DRG). I explain how AI sovereignty should, and will, develop in the medium term.
Bio: Chris Marsden is Professor of Artificial Intelligence, Technology and the Law, and Director of the Digital Law Group at Monash. He serves on the Australian Research Council College of Experts 2024-26. Chris researches regulation by code – whether legal, software or social code. He frequently advises governments and IGOs on digital human rights, telecoms and broadcast regulatory law, and AI law and policy. He has written 5 books and over 100 articles and chapters on these issues since 1996.
Past Events
Leander Stähler (KU Leuven CiTiP – imec)
Common European Data Spaces under EU Law: State of Play and Future Perspectives
Abstract: In recent years, the European Union (EU) has invested a significant amount of effort and resources into the development of common European data spaces as the digital infrastructure through which different types of stakeholders can engage in practices of data sharing. This talk places common European data spaces in their legal context, outlines key regulatory compliance issues that data spaces aim to tackle as well as their approach to contractual relationships. Further, it highlights the role of legal questions that are unique to ‘data’ under recent EU legislation, as well as the position of data spaces thereunder. Looking forward, the talk hones in on unique aspects that data spaces raise for applicable law. Data spaces raise questions for legal frameworks including trade secrets law, competition law and copyright law, while also operationalising new aspects of data legislation. While challenging, this also opens up the possibility to foster greater coherence among regimes. Namely, this can be done by fostering legal approaches that focus on the role of data spaces as ‘infrastructure’. At the same time, the EU’s ambitions concerning competitiveness will be a lodestar. The talk therefore highlights how data spaces may assist in identifying legal frictions, pinpointing how data spaces can formulate supportive approaches. |
Bernhard Haslhofer (Complexity Science Hub)
The Privatization of Money: A Decade of Crypto, from Cypherpunk Utopia to Stablecoin Reality
Abstract: When Bitcoin emerged in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, it carried three interlocking promises: anonymity, frictionless payment, and decentralization. A decade of empirical research into cryptoasset ecosystems now allows us to examine how these promises have held up against technical reality, user behavior, and market structure. This talk draws on ten years of work on blockchain analytics, cryptocurrency forensics, and the socio-economic networks that form around digital currencies (e.g., Bitcoin, Ethereum). We demonstrate that each of the original promises has been substantially eroded, though not always in ways that were anticipated by early critiques. Pseudonymity has proven tractable to address clustering and cross-chain analysis; these methods are now routinely employed by law enforcement agencies worldwide. Payment use remains marginal relative to speculative trading, and decentralization has given way to concentration at the infrastructure layer (e.g., mining pools), at the level of exchanges (e.g., Binance, Coinbase), and increasingly at the level of the assets themselves (e.g., stablecoins). The rise of stablecoins sharpens this picture considerably. What began as a movement to disintermediate central banks has produced a new class of privately issued, dollar-denominated instruments whose issuers hold sovereign debt, set redemption rules, and operate under jurisdictional arrangements of their choosing. The dominant outcome of the crypto decade is therefore not the decentralization of money but its privatization: the transfer of monetary functions from public institutions to private entities operating on public ledgers. We close with reflections on what this shift implies for regulation, financial surveillance, and the research agenda in complexity science and network analysis. Bio: I lead the Digital Currency Ecosystems research group at the Complexity Science Hub. My work focuses on developing computational methods to analyze cryptoasset ecosystems, combat cybercrime, and understand the socio-economic implications of decentralized finance. I co-founded Iknaio Cryptoasset Analytics and am a court-certified expert specializing in IT and cryptoasset forensics.
|
Oren Gazal-Ayal (University of Haifa)
Evaluating Large Language Models as Judical Decision-Makers
Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly shaping various domains, yet their ability to align with human judgment remains a critical challenge. This study explores the extent to which LLMs can serve as judicial decision-makers by comparing their sentencing decisions to those of 123 retired judges on two fictional cases involving rape and violence. We evaluate GPT, Gemini, and Claude using zero-shot, few-shot, and chain-of-thought prompts. LLMs showed greater consistency, producing significantly lower sentence disparity than judges. To assess accuracy, we treated the judges’ average sentence as a conservative benchmark—acknowledging that the “correct” sentence is unknown. If models outperform even this minimal standard, they are closer to any plausible ground truth. Remarkably, all LLMs deviated less from the judges’ mean than the judges themselves, suggesting that when properly prompted, LLMs can deliver more accurate sentencing decisions than human judges. Link to paper: Gazal Ayal, O., Elyoseph, Z., & Solomon, A. (2026). Evaluating Large Language Models as Judicial Decision-Makers. Justice Quarterly, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2026.2618254 Bio: Prof. Oren Gazal-Ayal is the Vice President and Dean for Research and Development at the University of Haifa. Previously, he served as the Dean of the Faculty of Law and the director of the Center for the Study of Crime, Law and Society. He is an expert in criminal law and procedure, sentencing law, and law and economics at the University of Haifa. He regularly publishes in leading journals, including Duke Law Journal, The Journal of Law & Economics, The Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Law & Social Inquiry, and all leading Israeli legal journals. His papers are frequently cited in Israeli Supreme Court decisions. |
Behrang Kianzad (Malmö University), Fabrizio Esposito (NOVA School of Law)
What is the Meaning of Fairness? A Law and Economics Perspective on DMA AI Act and Digital Fairness Act
Abstract: Recent years have seen the concept of fairness being elevated to in the European law and policy development, not least by way of recent regulations on digital markets and AI, where the term fair / unfair has been used increasingly, nevertheless without a proper definition for the purpose of harmonious enforcement. As law and economics disciplines but also disciplines such as competition law and consumer protection law, approach the concept of “fairness” in various, at times opposing manners, there is manifest risk for confusion and under-enforcement. The first part of the talk will situate the concept of fairness in law and economics normatively, from both legal-economic, legal-philosophic and legal-historic perspectives. The second part of the talk will focus more narrowly on Digital Fairness Act and its associated conceptualisation of fairness. Bio: Dr. Behrang Kianzad holds an LLM (2015) in Law from Lund University and a PhD (2022) in Intellectual Property Law, Competition Law, and Economics from the University of Copenhagen. He has completed two postdoctoral appointments: one at the University of Copenhagen and another at the Department of Business Law, School of Economics, Lund University, funded by the Johan and Jakob Söderberg Foundation. Since September 2025, he has served as Senior Researcher and Lecturer at the Institute of Global Political Studies, Malmö University, supported by a three-year grant from the Swedish Competition Authority. He is the founder of the European Researcher Network on Fairness in Digital Markets and Artificial Intelligence (FIDMA), a reviewer for the European Journal of Law and Economics, and a contributing author to the Encyclopaedia of Law and Economics and Concurrences Global Dictionary. |
Silvio Waisbord (George Washington University)
Is journalism relevant in the post-truth society?
Abstract: In this presentation, I discuss whether journalism remains relevant in the post-truth society, which is characterized by persistent epistemological rifts. Three simultaneous processes deepen this situation: platformed communication, challenges to social expertise, and illiberalism. Altogether, these trends challenge journalism’s ability to gain public attention, trust, and influence. Despite constant efforts by news organizations to respond and adapt to these conditions, journalism’s relevance is seemingly dwindling. Yet, several indicators suggest that journalism is still relevant, in more targeted yet significant ways than in the past. Research directions are suggested for better understanding how journalism stays relevant. Bio: Silvio Waisbord is Professor at the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University. He is Past President and current Fellow of the International Communication Association. He is the Editor of the International Journal of Communication. He is the author and editor of twenty books, as well as articles on journalism and politics, communication studies, media policy, and communication for social change. His most recent book is Introduction to Journalism: Thinking Globally (Polity). He served as Director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University (2020-2023). Also, he is the former Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Communication and the International Journal of Press/Politics. Waisbord received a Licenciatura in Sociology from the Universidad de Buenos Aires and a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of California, San Diego. |
Sara Migliorini (University of Macau)
Who Pays When AI Fails? AI Risk Bonds as a Market-based Mechanism for Governing AI Liability
Abstract: The rapid proliferation of AI systems has outpaced regulatory and insurance frameworks, leaving risks from unpredictable, rogue AI behaviors unaddressed. This paper proposes AI Risk Bonds, a market-driven instruments inspired by catastrophe bonds. These bonds securitize AI-related liabilities, using investor scrutiny to price risks based on a system’s expected impact and behavioral predictability. AI Risk Bonds’ yields are dynamically adjusted: higher risks escalate capital costs for developers, incentivizing proactive risk mitigation. By securitizing AI liabilities in this way, these bonds transparently price risk and harness investor scrutiny, motivating AI developers to prioritize safety and disclosure. This approach diffuses financial risk through capital markets rather than relying solely on insurers or taxpayers and it also ensures that victims of AI incidents receive compensation in a timely manner. As such, AI Risk Bonds offer policymakers a novel market-based solution, for the unpredictable and often uninsurable risks posed by today’s AI systems, complementing regulatory instruments, such as the EU AI Act, and targeting governance gaps that traditional regulation and insurance currently leave unaddressed. Bios: Dr. Sara Migliorini is an Assistant Professor of Global Legal Studies at the University of Macau. Her research focuses on technology law and regulation. Before joining the University of Macau, she held research and teaching positions at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) and the universities in Paris, London, Lausanne, and Florence. Sara holds a Ph.D. in Law from the EUI and a Master’s degree (summa cum laude) from Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne. |
Shira Gur-Arieh (Harvard Law School)
LLMs and the Collapse of Legal Indeterminacy
Abstract: LLMs have emerged as a new form of interpretive infrastructure. Hiring managers use them to identify “qualified” candidates. Content platforms deploy them to determine what constitutes “hate speech”. Judges have begun using models to assist in interpreting legal texts. Across these settings, LLMs confront ambiguous, open-textured terms – positioning themselves as arbiters of meaning, fixing definitions of concepts that admit multiple legitimate interpretations. This paper asks how LLMs handle, and mishandle, ambiguity in interpretive legal tasks. The paper draws on analytic jurisprudence in which ambiguity is a structural feature of law. On these accounts, legal texts are open-textured so statutes written today can absorb tomorrow’s technologies, crises, and moral disputes without constant revision. Ambiguity underwrites adversarial practice by allowing litigants to contest meaning and requiring courts to justify their resolutions; it also sustains institutional balance, as legislatures articulate broad principles, agencies implement them, and courts step in when principles conflict or rules run out. What happens when technology encounters law’s ambiguous character? Earlier forms of “codedriven law” – from smart contracts and “rules-as-code” projects to automated welfare systems – exposed a fundamental incompatibility between legal language and code. Unlike language, code cannot tolerate ambiguity: every term must be operationalized, every threshold specified, every interpretive choice fixed at design time. Translating legal norms into code therefore requires ex-ante resolution of ambiguity. This, in turn, makes legal norms more rigid, limiting their capacity to adapt and shifts interpretive authority from legislatures and courts to system designers. At first glance, LLMs appear to offer an escape from this rigidity. LLMs are trained on natural language, learning from the pluralism and richness of human discourse. Unlike rule-based systems that must fix criteria ex-ante at design time, LLMs generate answers at inference, enabling contextsensitive, case-by-case judgments. And because they output text – the medium through which law expresses meaning – they appear better suited to preserve nuance, sustain competing interpretations, and acknowledge uncertainty. Yet this paper argues that LLMs fail to realize this promise. Although LLMs represent a genuine technical advance, and although they push the frontier of legal automation forward in certain respects, they clash with legal language’s indeterminacy in ways that are more subtle, and potentially more insidious, than the clash produced by rule-based systems. The paper develops this argument through four mismatches between probabilistic LLMs and indeterminate legal language, each operating at a different layer of the system: at the output level, at the process level, at the deployment level, and at the evaluation level. Bio: Shira Gur-Arieh is a doctoral candidate (S.J.D.) at Harvard Law School working at the intersection of AI and law, with particular attention to questions of legitimacy – when, and under what conditions, AI-mediated decisions can plausibly claim authority and deserve support and compliance from those subject to them. Her dissertation examines how contemporary AI tools interact with core features through which law preserves legitimacy in a pluralistic society, including ambiguity, individualized judgment, and institutional pluralism. Shira received her LL.M. from Harvard Law School and her LL.B., magna cum laude, from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. She is also an affiliate of the Berkman-Klein center for Internet and Society, the Computational Policy Lab, and the Machine Intelligence & Normative Philosophy Lab. Before beginning her doctoral studies, she clerked for Chief Justice Esther Hayut at the Supreme Court of Israel. |
Georg Rilinger (MIT Sloan)
When less testing is more: The Political Power of Experimentation in Data Driven Organizations
Abstract: Data-driven decision making is often treated as a neutral method for guiding product development. Managers are expected to resolve disagreements and foster cooperation by appealing to “what the data shows.” Yet in practice, data is rarely neutral and coalition building often requires strategic ambiguity rather than clarity. This raises a puzzle: how do managers forge coalitions with appeals to data when data is always contestable? Drawing on a year-long ethnography of Project MATCH, an initiative to redesign the matching system of the digital platform iLabor, we show that managers relied not on arguments about specific data, but on rhetorical appeals to the ideology of experimentation: the belief that structured testing would ultimately yield objective insight. We distinguish between rhetorical appeals to experimental authority, a strategy of deferral that postpones conflicts by suggesting that evidence still needs to be collected, and strategies of promise that suggest problems will be resolved through a process of experimental perfection. However, these rhetorical strategies succeeded only when experimental practice remained insulated from scrutiny. When experiments addressed core decisions and produced ambiguous results, scrutiny intensified, and violations to the experimental ideal became visible, undermining the credibility of the ideology. We call this the epistemic fragility of experimentation – the ideology of experimentation is most powerful when experimental practice remains peripheral to the conflicts it is meant to resolve. Joint work with Gretta Corporaal, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University. Bio: Georg Rilinger is an Assistant Professor of Economic and Organizational Sociology at MIT Sloan School of Management, where he holds the Fred Kayne (1960) Career Development Professorship. His research examines organizational, cultural, and political reasons why technocratic expertise — from Nobel Prize-winning market designers to financial regulators — so often fails to prevent market failures, drawing on archival research, interviews, and ethnographic methods. He is the author of Failure by Design (University of Chicago Press, 2024), winner of the Viviana Zelizer Prize for Best Book in Economic |
Santiago Andrés Azcoitia (Universidad Politécnica de Madrid) and Tervel Bobev (KU Leuven CiTiP - imec)
Neutrality and Competitiveness of Data Intermediaries under the DGA: Reality Strikes Back
Abstract: In this talk, we examine whether the Data Governance Act (DGA) regime on data intermediation services is adequate to achieve its intended purpose of fostering trust, neutrality, and sustainability in data sharing. We review the state of the art in data intermediation technologies in both industry and academia and discuss its interplay with the regulation. We identify friction points with existing data markets and anticipate challenges in emerging contexts, such as intermediaries delivering machine learning models or using confidential computing techniques. Finally, we explore potential amendments to, or interpretations of, the DGA required to promote a data intermediation model that is both economically viable and neutral. Bios: Santiago is an assistant professor and researcher in the field of data economics at the ICT Group of Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, and Regulatory & Strategy Consultant. Previous experience as Researcher at IMDEA Networks, as Principal at Axon Consulting, as Senior Manager at Deloitte, as Project Manager at Telefónica I+D. Tervel Bobev is a PhD researcher at the KU Leuven Centre for IT & IP Law – imec. His work focuses on legal automation, regulatory technology, and data sharing arrangements in cutting edge contexts, such as Industry 4.0 and common European data spaces. Tervel has previously been engaged with several Horizon Europe and Flemish national research projects focused on developing regulatory frameworks for novel digital environments. Prior to his work at KU Leuven CiTiP – imec, Tervel researched personal data protection in online web advertising at the University of Oslo’s NRCCL. |
Joe N. Ploog (IE University)
Cultivating Match Quality in Platform Ecosystems: Balancing Openness and Curation
Abstract: The value of interactions between users in platform ecosystems is an important but largely overlooked concept in the literature, which has primarily focused on growth. Yet, at a time when many platforms are free to join and users can easily switch between platforms, match quality, or how well interactions between end users and complement(or)s align with end users’ preferences and needs, has become a key concern for platform operators. We begin by identifying a trade-off between platform openness, which is a well-established mechanism for generating growth, and the platform’s manual and algorithmic curation of complements. We then develop a typology of platform ideal types at the intersection of platform openness and complement type—whether complements can remain on the platform virtually indefinitely (stock complements) or disappear after some time (flow complements). Our typology provides novel insights into challenges platform operators face for maintaining high-value interactions. Finally, we develop theory predicting how platforms can govern their ecosystems to maintain high-value interactions as they grow. We contribute by identifying match quality as a key concept in platform strategy and how it interfaces with growth. We also offer implications for managers on how to govern their ecosystems by balancing platform openness and curation.
Bio: Joe N. Ploog is Assistant Professor in the Strategy Department at IE University. His research focuses on heterogeneous network effects and intra-platform competition. His work has been published in journals such as the Academy of Management Journal, Strategic Management Journal, and Academy of Management Discoveries. Joe obtained his PhD in Strategy from the UCL School of Management in London. His dissertation, “Three Essays on Heterogeneous Network Effects: Implications for Firms and Users” has been nominated as a finalist for the Outstanding Dissertation Award of the TIM Division of the Academy of Management and won the Outstanding Dissertation Award of the STR Division.
|
Fabian Stephany (Oxford Internet Institute)
AI Skills Improve Job Prospects: Causal Evidence from a Hiring Experiment
Abstract: The growing adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has heightened interest in the labour market value of AI-related skills, yet causal evidence on their role in hiring decisions remains scarce. This study examines whether AI skills serve as a positive hiring signal and whether they can offset conventional disadvantages such as older age or lower formal education. We conduct an experimental survey with 1,700 recruiters from the United Kingdom and the United States. Using a paired conjoint design, recruiters evaluated hypothetical candidates represented by synthetically designed resumes. Across three occupations – graphic designer, office assistant, and software engineer – AI skills significantly increase interview invitation probabilities by approximately 8 to 15 percentage points. AI skills also partially or fully offset disadvantages related to age and lower education, with effects strongest for office assistants, where formal AI certification plays an additional compensatory role. Effects are weaker for graphic designers, consistent with more skeptical recruiter attitudes toward AI in creative work. Finally, recruiters’ own background and AI usage significantly moderate these effects. Overall, the findings demonstrate that AI skills function as a powerful hiring signal and can mitigate traditional labour market disadvantages, with implications for workers’ skill acquisition strategies and firms’ recruitment practices. Bio: Fabian Stephany is a Departmental Research Lecturer in AI & Work at the Oxford Internet Institute (OII), University of Oxford and a Senior Research Fellow with the Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School. He is also a Future of Work Fellow at Bruegel, an inaugural fellow at Microsoft’s AI Economy Institute, and a research affiliate at the Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society in Berlin. Additionally, he serves as a member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Future Council for Human Capital Development. At the OII, Fabian leads the SkillScale project, examining how skills shape labour market transitions and how AI skills are becoming increasingly pivotal for workers and employers alike. His research has been published in leading academic journals, such as Research Policy and Scientific Reports, and has received media coverage in outlets around the world, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Telegraph, Nikkei Asia, Handelsblatt, and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. |
Friso Bostoen (Tilburg University)
Competition (Policy) in the Era of AI Agents
Abstract: AI agents may be the most consequential emerging technology of our times. They are the next step in the evolution of AI assistants (such as ChatGPT), distinguished by their greater autonomy, proactivity and capability. By taking over ever more tasks from consumers, from search to shopping, they have the potential to change the nature of competition—and to disrupt existing gatekeepers in the process. To remain effective in this new era, competition law will have to adapt, while pro-competitive regulation must race to keep up. This talk addresses how they may do so, drawing on joint work with Jan Krämer. Bio: Friso Bostoen is an assistant professor of competition law and digital regulation at Tilburg University. Previously, he was a Max Weber Fellow at the European University Institute. He holds degrees from KU Leuven (PhD, LLM) and Harvard University (LLM). Friso’s research focuses on competition policy for digital markets. His work has resulted in numerous international publications, presentations, and awards (including the AdC Competition Policy Award 2019 and the Concurrences PhD Award 2022). |
Avijit Ghosh (Hugging Face)
What if AI systems weren’t chatbots?
Abstract: The rapid convergence of artificial intelligence (AI) toward conversational chatbot interfaces marks a critical moment for the industry. This paper argues that the chatbot paradigm is not a neutral interface choice, but a dominant sociotechnical configuration whose widespread adoption reshapes social, economic, legal, and environmental systems. We examine how treating AI primarily as conversational assistants has extensive structural downsides. We show how chatbot-based systems often fail to adequately meet user needs, particularly in complex or high-stakes contexts, while projecting confidence and authority. We further analyze how the normalization of chatbot-mediated interaction alters patterns of work, learning, and decision-making, contributing to deskilling, homogenization of knowledge, and shifting expectations of expertise. Finally, we examine broader societal effects, including labor displacement, concentration of economic power, and increased environmental costs driven by sustained investment in large-scale chatbot infrastructures. While acknowledging legitimate benefits, we argue that the current trajectory of AI development reflects specific value choices that prioritize conversational generality over domain specificity, accountability, and long-term social sustainability. We conclude by outlining alternative directions for AI development and governance that move beyond one-size-fits-all chatbots, emphasizing pluralistic system design, task-specific tools, and institutional safeguards to mitigate social and economic harm. Bio: Dr. Avijit Ghosh is a Technical AI Policy Researcher at Hugging Face and a Research Affiliate at the the University of Connecticut. He sits at a critical junction between AI research and policy responses to ongoing legislative and regulatory movements. His research examines critical challenges in AI safety: from algorithmic bias to agent autonomy to standardization efforts in AI Evaluation and Vulnerability Disclosure. His work has been covered in the press, including articles in The New York Times, Forbes, The Guardian, Propublica, Wired, and the MIT Tech Review. His research has influenced AI regulation, established best practices for AI Documentation, and advanced the democratization of machine learning technology while ensuring it serves human wellbeing. Dr. Ghosh has been an invited speaker as a Responsible AI expert at various high-impact events such as SXSW, MIT Sloan AI Conference, and the Summit on State AI Legislation. He has also organized academic workshops as a member of QueerInAI and engaged with policymakers at various levels in the United States, United Kingdom, and Singapore. His work has led to real-world impact, including helping shape regulation in New York City and causing Facebook to remove their biased ad targeting algorithm. |
Andreas Haupt (Stanford)
Social Choice and Collective Alignment of Generative AI
Abstract: People disagree on what others should see online and in chatbot responses, leading to algorithmic social choice problems. I first make a case for current practice in handling this challenge. Traversing research in Computer Science and Economics, I highlight the close connection of a common alignment algorithm, Direct Preference Optimization, and the Borda Count, and highlight Borda Count’s normative desirability. I then show how “bridging” collective alignment balances aggregation across different prompts. Bio: Andreas Haupt is a Human-Centered AI Postdoctoral Fellow at Stanford’s Economics and Computer Science Departments. He studies the elicitation and aggregation of human preferences in machine learning systems, including questions of privacy, competition, and consumer protection. He earned a Ph.D. from MIT, completed two master’s degrees at the University of Bonn—in Mathematics and Economics. He has worked on competition enforcement for the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, and taught high school mathematics and computer science in Germany before his Ph.D. He remains committed to education and scholarship, most recently as a co-author of an upcoming textbook on Machine Learning from Human Preferences. |
Julia Krämer (Erasmus School of Law)
Balancing privacy and platform power in the mobile ecosystem: The case of Apple’s App Tracking Transparency
Abstract: In 2021, Apple shook up the AdTech industry by introducing the iOS 14.5 update, which not only changed the default access to an app’s advertising identifier but also restructured the process of user consent within mobile apps through the App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework. Given that Apple dominates one of the main mobile operating systems (iOS), and one of the major mobile app store (Apple App Store) in the European Union (EU), the question arises too what extent such a powerful private party is able to govern privacy standards at this scale. While the introduction of the ATT has already raised competition concerns, its impact on privacy and data protection within the EU legal order remains largely unexplored. Therefore, this article investigates how the ATT affects EU privacy and data protection compliance and explores the extent of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in restricting the privacy regulator role of app stores and mobile operating systems. While the ATT limits certain privacy risks by limiting disclosures to third-parties, Apple is redefining core privacy concepts such as tracking. This may lead to the emergence of “walled gardens”, closed ecosystems which are managed and curated by their owners, which may alter the structure of the mobile ecosystem in general. The paper contributes to the overall discussion about the impact of private sector-led initiatives and powerful private actors in setting privacy standards. Bio: Julia Krämer is a PhD researcher in Data Protection Law and Empirical Legal Studies at Erasmus School of Law in Rotterdam. She recently defended her PhD, which examines how app stores and operating system providers influence the GDPR compliance of mobile apps. |
Raz Agranat (Reichman University) & Michal Gal (University of Haifa)
Hub Power and Hub(uses): Power Dynamics in Platform Ecosystems
Abstract: Research on the market power of platforms and its uses has predominantly focused on the platforms themselves. This article directs attention to an additional yet often-overlooked source of power that profoundly shapes platform dynamics: highly connected hubs operating within these platforms. By expanding the discourse on platform governance and exploring the intricate power dynamics within platforms, this article equips regulators and courts with sharper analytical tools to foster competition in digital ecosystems. Drawing on network science and microeconomics, we develop a novel analytical framework that identifies four key determinants of hub power: hub attractiveness, platform dependence, switching feasibility, and countervailing power dynamics. This framework reveals how hubs can exert disproportionate control over interactions and value creation within platform ecosystems. We then identify three distinct manifestations of conduct that abuses hub power and harms social welfare: unilateral conduct, coordinated action, and unilateral conduct that harnesses aggregate power. Through detailed case studies—spanning e-books, chess, the air travel industry, and social media and streaming platforms—we demonstrate how hub power can fundamentally reshape platform dynamics and their resulting outcomes. The antitrust implications of our analysis are wide-ranging, offering a systematic framework for rethinking key aspects of contemporary law. As we show, hub power both complements and challenges core assumptions ingrained in existing law. Our case studies demonstrate how the implications of hub power analysis extend across the entire legal process—from identifying efficient intervention points to setting liability standards and crafting remedial measures. Bio (Agranat): Raz Agranat is an Assistant Professor of Law at the Harry Radzyner Law School, Reichman University. His research draws on insights from network science to refine the legal frameworks governing platform ecosystems, with significant implications for antitrust law and related fields. His other research interests include the economic analysis of law, law and technology, business regulation, and criminal law. He is a member of the International Association of Competition Law Scholars (ASCOLA) and the Dynamic Competition Initiative (DCI). Prior to joining Reichman University, Raz earned his LLB (magna cum laude) from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 2015, his LLM from the University of Chicago Law School in 2020, and his JSD from the University of Chicago in 2024, where he studied under Professors Omri Ben-Shahar, Eric A. Posner, and William H. J. Hubbard. Raz also practiced as an associate at one of Israel’s leading antitrust law firms. Bio (Gal): Michal Gal (LL.B., LL.M., S.J.D., Hon. Dr.) is Professor and Director of the Center for Law and Technology at the Faculty of Law, University of Haifa, Israel, and was, until recently, the President of the International Academic Society for Competition Law Scholars (ASCOLA), comprising of more than 600 competition researchers worldwide. She was a visiting professor at the University of Chicago, NYU, Columbia, Georgetown, Melbourne, National University of Singapore, and Bocconi. Prof. Gal is the author of several books, including Competition Policy for Small Market Economies (Harvard University Press, 2003). She also published numerous scholarly articles in leading journals, and has won numerous prizes for her research and for her teaching. Inter alia, her paper, “Patent Challenge Clauses: A New Antitrust Offense?” (with Alan Miller) won the Jerry S. Cohen Medal, given by the American Antitrust Institute, for best antitrust paper published in 2017. In 2019 she won the highest award given by the University of Haifa, for Best Senior Researcher. In October 2022 she was chosen by Global Competition Review as one of 25 most influential competition academics (law or economics) in the world. In April 2024 she received a Honorary Doctorate (Doctor Honoris Causa) from the University of Zurich, Switzerland.Michal Gal (LL.B., LL.M., S.J.D., Hon. Dr.) is Professor and Director of the Center for Law and Technology at the Faculty of Law, University of Haifa, Israel, and was, until recently, the President of the International Academic Society for Competition Law Scholars (ASCOLA), comprising of more than 600 competition researchers worldwide. She was a visiting professor at the University of Chicago, NYU, Columbia, Georgetown, Melbourne, National University of Singapore, and Bocconi. Prof. Gal is the author of several books, including Competition Policy for Small Market Economies (Harvard University Press). She also published numerous scholarly articles in leading journals, and has won numerous prizes for her research and for her teaching. Inter alia, her paper, “Patent Challenge Clauses: A New Antitrust Offense?” (with Alan Miller) won the Jerry S. Cohen Medal, given by the American Antitrust Institute, for best antitrust paper published in 2017. In 2019 she won the highest award given by the University of Haifa, for Best Senior Researcher. In October 2022 she was chosen by Global Competition Review as one of 25 most influential competition academics (law or economics) in the world. In April 2024 she received a Honorary Doctorate (Doctor Honoris Causa) from the University of Zurich, Switzerland. |
Jasper van den Boom (Leiden University)
Regulating Competition in the Digital Network Industry
Abstract: This book proposes a wholly new view on digital competition. Digital firms compete to capture parts of the digital network industry. Once they control access points for competition, they get to decide who gets to compete and how. With their superior access to information and users, incumbents become the de facto regulators of their part of the digital network. Regulation that focuses on markets cannot capture these dimensions of power and competition. The system of Progressive Ecosystem Regulation proposed in this book explains how ecosystem competition can be stimulated to create meaningful competitive pressures, open up the network, and introduce real choice for users. Bio: Jasper van den Boom specializes in EU competition law and the economic regulation of network industries, with a focus on digital and energy markets. As an assistant professor at Leiden University, he teaches courses on EU law, competition law, and digital regulation while conducting research on digital markets and energy storage. He is also an external affiliate with the ‘Shaping Competition in the Digital Age’ (SCiDA) project at Heinrich Heine University and the University of Exeter, where he was previously a postdoctoral researcher (2024-25) and is co-authoring a book on best practices for digital market regulation. He has published extensively on digital regulation and competition law, and co-authored policy-relevant reports including the TILEC study on abuse of dominance in the Netherlands during his PhD research (2019-23) and postdoc (2023-24) at Tilburg University, recommendations for search remedies with the Knight-Georgetown Institute, and on effective remedies for EU and US law in collaboration with Yale School of Management. His current research examines ecosystem competition, the Digital Markets Act, and private enforcement mechanisms in digital regulation, as well as markets for energy storage and incentive-based regulation. His book Regulating Competition in the Digital Network Industry was published with Cambridge University Press in December 2024. Starting 2026, Jasper takes up the role of Editor-in-Chief for the European Competition Journal (ECJ). |