The Law Applicable to Damages Resulting from Discriminatory Algorithms
DOI:
Abstract
The growing use of algorithmic and artificial intelligence systems in decision-making process have produced new forms of discrimination that cross borders and which traditional legal means are insufficient to address. This study aims to explore the problem that complicated in case of harm caused by discriminatory algorithms especially from the private international law angle: which law should apply to damages arising therefrom? Applying a doctrinal and comparative legal approach, the study investigates European Union (EU) private international law, certain national legal orders and international soft law instruments in the field of algorithmic discrimination and Artificial Intelligence. The research shows that old connecting factors such as lex loci damni tend to become less applicable in algorithmic harm cases, because they were not written for a globally diffused phenomenon with no humanly perceptible terrestrial extension as is the case of the online sphere. Recent regulatory initiatives (especially in data protection and AI governance) are reinforcing the substantive guarantees against discrimination, but do not respond explicitly to applicable law queries: They concentrate on appropriate measures that should accompany technical AI development. The article suggests that existing conflict-of-laws regimes should be updated to foster more effective victim protection and legal predictability. It proposes the use of victim-oriented connecting factors, the application of fundamental rights as an ius cogens, and explicit conflict-of-law clauses in specific AI regulation. These changes are necessary for closing the accountability gap and providing for meaningful redress of harm from discriminatory algorithms in cross-border situations.
Downloads
Views : 12
Downloads : 11
References
S. Barocas and A. D. Selbst, Big data’s disparate impact,” California Law Review, vol. 104, no. 3, pp. 671–732, 2016.
F. Z. Borgesius, “Discrimination, artificial intelligence, and algorithmic decision-making,”arXiv preprint, arXiv:2510.13465, 2025.
J. He and Z. Zhang, “Algorithm Power and Legal Boundaries: Rights Conflicts and Governance Responses in the Era of Artificial Intelligence,” Laws, vol. 14, no. 4, p. 54, Jul. 2025.
M. Veale and F. Z. Borgesius, “Demystifying the draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act, Computer Law Review International,” vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 97–112, 2021.
B. D. Mittelstadt, P. Allo, M. Taddeo, S. Wachter, and L. Floridi, “The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate,” Big Data & Society, vol. 3, no. 2, 2016.
S. Wachter, B. Mittelstadt, and L. Floridi, “Why a right to explanation of automated decision-making does not exist in the GDPR,” International Data Privacy Law, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 76–99, 2017.
D. Watkins, “Research Methods in Law,” 2nd ed. London, U.K.: Routledge, 2017.
M. Van Hoecke, Ed., “Methodologies of Legal Research: Which Kind of Method for What Kind of Discipline?” Oxford, U.K.: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2011.
M. Siems, Comparative Law. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022.
P. Hacker, “Teaching fairness to artificial intelligence: Existing and novel strategies against algorithmic discrimination,” Common Market Law Review, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 1143–1186, 2018.
C. Wendehorst and B. Zöchling-Jud, “Liability for artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things,” Journal of European Tort Law, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 85–120, 2020.
S. Gour, “Victim-Centric Justice in Criminal Law: A Critical Analysis of Victim Protection, Compensation and Restorative Mechanisms,” Int. J. Adv. Res. Multidiscip. Trends (IJARMT), vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1-17, 2026
W. G. Abdulqader, “Law Applicable To Damages Caused By Artificial Intelligence (Robots As A Model) (An Analytical Study),” J. Posit. Sch. Psychol., vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 1176-1189, Jun. 2022.
A. A. Hassan, “Legal issues arising from smart contracts under the Iraqi law,” J. Univ. Hum. Dev., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 42-47, 2018.
J. Valadez, Deliberative Democracy, Political Legitimacy, and Self-Determination in Multi-Cultural Societies. Routledge, 2018..
G. P. Fletcher, Tort Liability for Human Rights Abuses. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2008
J. C. Goldberg and B. C. Zipursky, “Tort Law and moral luck,” Cornell L. Rev., vol. 92, p. 1123, 2006
D. Devetzis, “The New EU Product Liability Directive. Interaction with Parallel EU Initiatives: Proposed AI Liability Directive, Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act,” European Review of Private Law, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 1107-1134, 2023.
R. Banu, “Conflicting Justice in Conflict of Laws,” Vand. J. Transnat'l L., vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 461-512, Mar. 2020.
A. Beckers and G. Teubner, “Responsibility for Algorithmic Misconduct: Unity or Fragmentation of Liability Regimes?” Yale JL & Tech., vol. 25, p. 76, 2023.
V. M. A. Smith, “Be(a)ware of the dog: the symbolic-disciplinary functions of drug detection dogs in English music festivals,” Policing Soc., pp. 1–18, 2026.
B. Bradford and I. Loader, “Police, crime and order: the case of stop and search,” in SAGE Handbook of Global Policing, B. Bradford, B. Jauregui, I. Loader, and J. Steinberg, Eds. London, U.K.: SAGE, 2016.
M. Chawki, “Legal foundations and future directions of AI-enabled cybersecurity: a cross-jurisdictional analysis,” Cogent Soc. Sci., vol. 12, no. 1, 2026.
D. Varona and J. L. Suárez, “Discrimination, Bias, Fairness, and Trustworthy AI,” Appl. Sci., vol. 12, no. 12, p. 5826, Jun. 2022.
M. Nyarkoa, “A Systematic Review of Bias, Discrimination, and Mitigation Strategies in AI Decision-Making Process,” Mar. 2025.
S. M. Maurer, Self-Governance in Science: Community-Based Strategies for Managing Dangerous Knowledge. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017.
A. Ferrari Zumbini, P. Monaco, and S. Venier, Eds., The Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI: Comparative, EU, International, and Sectoral Perspectives, special issue of Ital. J. Public Law, vol. 17, no. 4, 2025.
E. Kirley, “Reputational Privacy and the Internet: A Matter for Law?” EUI Working Papers, no. 2015/01, 2015.
E. Mugamba, “Algorithmic Malpractice? Legal Accountability and Clinical Negligence in AI-Driven NHS Care,” Jun. 2025.
S. Wachter, “Normative Challenges of Identification in the Age of AI,” Ethics Inf. Technol., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 67–81, 2021.
K. Yeung, “A study of the implications of advanced digital technologies (including AI systems) for the concept of responsibility within a human rights framework,” Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France, Sep. 2020.
