My AI, my code, my secret – Trade secrecy, informational transparency and meaningful litigant participation under the European Union's AI Liability Directive Proposal
{"title":"My AI, my code, my secret – Trade secrecy, informational transparency and meaningful litigant participation under the European Union's AI Liability Directive Proposal","authors":"Ljupcho Grozdanovski","doi":"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In European Union (EU) law, the AI Liability Directive (AILD) proposal included a right for victims of harm caused by high-risk AI systems to request the disclosure of relevant evidence. That right is, however, limited by the protection of trade secrets. During legal proceedings, business confidentiality can indeed restrict the victims’ access to evidence, potentially precluding them from fully understanding the disputed facts and effectively making their views known before a court. This article examines whether the AILD provided sufficient procedural mechanisms to ensure that litigants can effectively participate in judicial proceedings, even when critical evidence is withheld from them, due to legitimate trade secret protections. Our analysis draws on the evidentiary challenges highlighted in emerging global AI liability cases and selected CJEU case law, which provide guidance on how a balance can be struck between legitimate confidentiality and a workable level of informational transparency, necessary for an informed and fair resolution of future AI liability disputes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51516,"journal":{"name":"Computer Law & Security Review","volume":"56 ","pages":"Article 106117"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computer Law & Security Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364925000123","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In European Union (EU) law, the AI Liability Directive (AILD) proposal included a right for victims of harm caused by high-risk AI systems to request the disclosure of relevant evidence. That right is, however, limited by the protection of trade secrets. During legal proceedings, business confidentiality can indeed restrict the victims’ access to evidence, potentially precluding them from fully understanding the disputed facts and effectively making their views known before a court. This article examines whether the AILD provided sufficient procedural mechanisms to ensure that litigants can effectively participate in judicial proceedings, even when critical evidence is withheld from them, due to legitimate trade secret protections. Our analysis draws on the evidentiary challenges highlighted in emerging global AI liability cases and selected CJEU case law, which provide guidance on how a balance can be struck between legitimate confidentiality and a workable level of informational transparency, necessary for an informed and fair resolution of future AI liability disputes.
期刊介绍:
CLSR publishes refereed academic and practitioner papers on topics such as Web 2.0, IT security, Identity management, ID cards, RFID, interference with privacy, Internet law, telecoms regulation, online broadcasting, intellectual property, software law, e-commerce, outsourcing, data protection, EU policy, freedom of information, computer security and many other topics. In addition it provides a regular update on European Union developments, national news from more than 20 jurisdictions in both Europe and the Pacific Rim. It is looking for papers within the subject area that display good quality legal analysis and new lines of legal thought or policy development that go beyond mere description of the subject area, however accurate that may be.