Data privacy and the regulation of ridesharing platforms

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q3 BUSINESS
Abbey Stemler, Justin W. Evans, Carrie Shu Shang
{"title":"Data privacy and the regulation of ridesharing platforms","authors":"Abbey Stemler,&nbsp;Justin W. Evans,&nbsp;Carrie Shu Shang","doi":"10.1111/ablj.12259","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Notwithstanding its many agreeable benefits, the sharing economy has presented numerous negative externalities and policy challenges. Foremost among these is the abuse of users' privacy, which is enabled by the capture of vast troves of data by sharing economy platforms. As humankind confronts the frontier of generative artificial intelligence, examining how privacy harms have been articulated and addressed in the context of ridesharing is a beneficial exercise and one that can be enhanced by looking beyond U.S. borders. This Article, therefore, uses a functionalist comparative law methodology to examine the regulation of ridesharing platforms concerning user data in the United States and China, and to reveal actionable insights for policymakers. Following a primer on comparative law methodology, the Article integrates Chinese- and English-language primary and secondary sources to compare the ridesharing data regulations of China and the United States along their institutional and substantive dimensions. We argue that China has effectively utilized the benefits of its federalist structure by promulgating a floor of data privacy regulations at the national level that enables local regulators to address local realities while also preserving the incentives to innovate that are so important for technology firms. We suggest that a national regulatory floor would also promote consistency and innovation in the United States and would similarly enable regulators to speedily and efficiently respond to market failures in fast-paced technology sectors. We also argue that the utilization of technology to enhance the regulatory oversight of technology firms would behoove the United States, though perhaps with the addition of certain guardrails that do not exist in the Chinese legal environment.</p>","PeriodicalId":54186,"journal":{"name":"American Business Law Journal","volume":"62 2","pages":"117-139"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Business Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ablj.12259","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Notwithstanding its many agreeable benefits, the sharing economy has presented numerous negative externalities and policy challenges. Foremost among these is the abuse of users' privacy, which is enabled by the capture of vast troves of data by sharing economy platforms. As humankind confronts the frontier of generative artificial intelligence, examining how privacy harms have been articulated and addressed in the context of ridesharing is a beneficial exercise and one that can be enhanced by looking beyond U.S. borders. This Article, therefore, uses a functionalist comparative law methodology to examine the regulation of ridesharing platforms concerning user data in the United States and China, and to reveal actionable insights for policymakers. Following a primer on comparative law methodology, the Article integrates Chinese- and English-language primary and secondary sources to compare the ridesharing data regulations of China and the United States along their institutional and substantive dimensions. We argue that China has effectively utilized the benefits of its federalist structure by promulgating a floor of data privacy regulations at the national level that enables local regulators to address local realities while also preserving the incentives to innovate that are so important for technology firms. We suggest that a national regulatory floor would also promote consistency and innovation in the United States and would similarly enable regulators to speedily and efficiently respond to market failures in fast-paced technology sectors. We also argue that the utilization of technology to enhance the regulatory oversight of technology firms would behoove the United States, though perhaps with the addition of certain guardrails that do not exist in the Chinese legal environment.

数据隐私与专车平台监管
尽管共享经济有许多令人愉快的好处,但它也带来了许多负面外部性和政策挑战。其中最重要的是滥用用户隐私,这是由于共享经济平台获取了大量数据而造成的。随着人类面临生成式人工智能的前沿,在拼车的背景下,研究隐私危害是如何被阐明和解决的,这是一项有益的工作,而且可以通过将目光放在美国以外的地方来加强。因此,本文使用功能主义的比较法方法来研究美国和中国关于用户数据的拼车平台监管,并为政策制定者揭示可操作的见解。在介绍比较法方法的基础上,本文整合了中文和英文的一手和第二手资料,从制度和实质性方面比较了中国和美国的拼车数据法规。我们认为,中国有效地利用了联邦制结构的好处,在国家层面颁布了一系列数据隐私法规,使地方监管机构能够解决当地的现实问题,同时也保留了对科技公司非常重要的创新激励。我们建议,国家监管下限也将促进美国的一致性和创新,同样也将使监管机构能够快速有效地应对快节奏技术领域的市场失灵。我们还认为,利用技术来加强对科技公司的监管是美国应该做的,尽管可能需要增加一些在中国法律环境中不存在的护栏。
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
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The ABLJ is a faculty-edited, double blind peer reviewed journal, continuously published since 1963. Our mission is to publish only top quality law review articles that make a scholarly contribution to all areas of law that impact business theory and practice. We search for those articles that articulate a novel research question and make a meaningful contribution directly relevant to scholars and practitioners of business law. The blind peer review process means legal scholars well-versed in the relevant specialty area have determined selected articles are original, thorough, important, and timely. Faculty editors assure the authors’ contribution to scholarship is evident. We aim to elevate legal scholarship and inform responsible business decisions.
×
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