My AI, my code, my secret – Trade secrecy, informational transparency and meaningful litigant participation under the European Union's AI Liability Directive Proposal

IF 3.3 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Ljupcho Grozdanovski
{"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.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
10.30%
发文量
81
审稿时长
67 days
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.
×
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