The American Way — Until Machine Learning Algorithm Beats the Law? Algorithmic Consumer Credit Scoring in the EU and US

A. Gikay
{"title":"The American Way — Until Machine Learning Algorithm Beats the Law? Algorithmic Consumer Credit Scoring in the EU and US","authors":"A. Gikay","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3671488","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Algorithmic consumer credit scoring has caused anxiety among scholars and policy makers. After a significant legislative effort by the European Union, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) containing provisions tailored to automated decision-making (ADM) was implemented. When the EU Commission and the US Department of Commerce negotiated for US organizations to whom data from EU data controller is transferred to comply with the key principles of EU Data Protection Law under the EU-US Privacy Shield (PS) Framework, the Department of Commerce refused to incorporate the GDPR principles governing ADM in the PS Framework. The EU Commission accepted this refusal reasoning that where US companies make automated decisions with respect to EU data subjects, such as in consumer credit risk scoring, there are laws in the US that protect the consumer from adverse decisions. This view contradicts recommendations for implementing GDPR-Inspired law in the US to tackle the challenges of automated consumer credit scoring. \n \nThis article argues that despite the different approaches to the regulation of automated consumer credit scoring in the EU and the US, consumers are similarly protected in both jurisdictions. US consumer credit laws have the necessary flexibility to ensure that adverse automated decisions are tackled effectively. By analyzing statutes, cases, and empirical evidences, the article demonstrates that the seemingly comprehensive legal rules governing ADM in the GDPR do not make the EU consumers better off. In addition, the challenges presented by the increasing sophistication of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning(ML), consumers in both jurisdictions in a similarly vulnerable position as neither jurisdiction is equipped to tackle decisions made by autonomous, unpredictable and unexplainable algorithms. This is consistent with the EU Commission’s white paper on AI which acknowledges some of the flaws in the GDPR and envisions legislative reform. \n \nIn view of the limits of the existing legal rules in addressing ML decisions and the need to strike a balance between encouraging innovation and consumer protection, the article proposes risk-based approach to regulation and regulatory sandboxing as good starting points.","PeriodicalId":385192,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Other Consumer Credit Issues (Sub-Topic)","volume":"85 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Other Consumer Credit Issues (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3671488","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Algorithmic consumer credit scoring has caused anxiety among scholars and policy makers. After a significant legislative effort by the European Union, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) containing provisions tailored to automated decision-making (ADM) was implemented. When the EU Commission and the US Department of Commerce negotiated for US organizations to whom data from EU data controller is transferred to comply with the key principles of EU Data Protection Law under the EU-US Privacy Shield (PS) Framework, the Department of Commerce refused to incorporate the GDPR principles governing ADM in the PS Framework. The EU Commission accepted this refusal reasoning that where US companies make automated decisions with respect to EU data subjects, such as in consumer credit risk scoring, there are laws in the US that protect the consumer from adverse decisions. This view contradicts recommendations for implementing GDPR-Inspired law in the US to tackle the challenges of automated consumer credit scoring. This article argues that despite the different approaches to the regulation of automated consumer credit scoring in the EU and the US, consumers are similarly protected in both jurisdictions. US consumer credit laws have the necessary flexibility to ensure that adverse automated decisions are tackled effectively. By analyzing statutes, cases, and empirical evidences, the article demonstrates that the seemingly comprehensive legal rules governing ADM in the GDPR do not make the EU consumers better off. In addition, the challenges presented by the increasing sophistication of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning(ML), consumers in both jurisdictions in a similarly vulnerable position as neither jurisdiction is equipped to tackle decisions made by autonomous, unpredictable and unexplainable algorithms. This is consistent with the EU Commission’s white paper on AI which acknowledges some of the flaws in the GDPR and envisions legislative reform. In view of the limits of the existing legal rules in addressing ML decisions and the need to strike a balance between encouraging innovation and consumer protection, the article proposes risk-based approach to regulation and regulatory sandboxing as good starting points.
美国方式——直到机器学习算法打败法律?算法消费者信用评分在欧盟和美国
算法消费者信用评分引起了学者和政策制定者的焦虑。经过欧盟的重大立法努力,《通用数据保护条例》(GDPR)实施,其中包含针对自动决策(ADM)的条款。当欧盟委员会和美国商务部就欧盟数据控制者的数据转移给美国组织以遵守欧盟数据保护法在欧盟-美国隐私盾(PS)框架下的关键原则进行谈判时,美国商务部拒绝将管理ADM的GDPR原则纳入PS框架。欧盟委员会接受了这一拒绝的理由,即当美国公司对欧盟数据主体做出自动决策时,比如在消费者信用风险评分方面,美国有法律保护消费者免受不利决策的影响。这种观点与在美国实施受gdp启发的法律以应对自动消费者信用评分挑战的建议相矛盾。本文认为,尽管欧盟和美国对自动消费者信用评分的监管方法不同,但消费者在这两个司法管辖区都受到类似的保护。美国消费者信贷法具有必要的灵活性,可确保自动做出的不利决定得到有效处理。通过分析成文法、案例和经验证据,本文证明了GDPR中管理ADM的看似全面的法律规则并没有使欧盟消费者受益。此外,人工智能(AI)和机器学习(ML)日益复杂所带来的挑战,使两个司法管辖区的消费者处于类似的弱势地位,因为两个司法管辖区都没有能力应对由自主、不可预测和无法解释的算法做出的决策。这与欧盟委员会关于人工智能的白皮书是一致的,该白皮书承认了GDPR中的一些缺陷,并设想了立法改革。鉴于现有法律规则在解决机器学习决策方面的局限性,以及在鼓励创新和保护消费者之间取得平衡的必要性,本文提出了基于风险的监管方法和监管沙盒作为良好的起点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信