© Automatic Eyes / Flickr.
I have just read T Schrepel’s ‘Law + technology’, which main premise is that the ‘classical approach to “law & technology” focuses on harms created by technology … [whereas] another approach dubbed “law + technology” can better increase the common good … [because it can] consider both the issues and positive contributions technology brings to society’, with ultimately the ‘goal … to address the negative ramifications of technology while leveraging its positive regulatory power’ (at 1). This leads to the claim that ‘“law + technology” can further increase the common good than a classical “law & technology” approach because it better preserves technology that regulates society in ways legal rules and standards cannot’ (at 3).
This is a weird paper and another exercise in creative labelling (or click bait) by the author (see other notable examples, such as ‘Antitrust without Romance’). The creative labelling starts with the term ‘classical “law & technology”’ itself, as the author notes: ‘Not all scholars that use the label “law & technology” recognize themselves in the meaning I attribute to the label in this article. I, nonetheless, assign a specific meaning to the label “law & technology” to highlight the differences between the dominant legal approach to technology and the one … propose[d] in this article’ (fn 2). The creative labelling exercise is completed by the artificial use of “law + technology” as a distinguishing label. I wonder how one could appreciate the (non-visual) differences if the argument was made without written support (unless one is given the clue that it should be read as 'law plus technology’, see fn 87) …
More importantly, the distinction (and the paper in general) is both artificial and far overshoots the mark of making the much simpler points that the regulation of technology needs to be underpinned by proper impact assessments (at 15-16), allow for iteration or incrementalism in particular in relation to immature technologies (at 17), and follow a certain element of proportionality to constrain e.g. the application of the precautionary principle, where too stringent legal rules could deprive society from beneficial technological advances without materially impinging on superior socio-legal values—which is what I think the author actually says on substance in the paper.
The paper thus does not really deviate from the criticised ‘classical “law & technology”’ approach, as it also recognises the two main issues: that certain socio-legal values (should) weigh more than technological innovation, and that such weighing needs to pay attention to the different (positive and negative) impacts.
In fact, the clear superiority of legally-protected values or interests is seemingly acknowledged in the paper, as it submits that ‘When law and technology present irreconcilable interests, the law must prevail in a rule of law system’ (fn 13)—even if this is then muddied in the promotion of a ‘Darwinian take on regulating technology’ that should seek not to eliminate a technology’s distinguishing features even if they breach such higher level socio-legal values (such as eg the fundamental right to an effective remedy) (at 7), or the statement that ‘When legal rules reduce technology’s chances of survival, policymakers and regulators deny one of “law + technology” two pillars. The “law + technology” approach thus requires considering different methods’ (at 17-18). Therefore, the extent to which the paper either really upholds the superiority of certain socio-legal values or, conversely, takes a more technology-centric approach is ultimately unclear (but that lack of clarity is in itself evidence of the limited deviation from the criticised approach, if any).
Similarly, the main focus on (obscurely) advocating for a regulatory approach that ceteris paribus (and only ceteris paribus) allows for a higher level of socio-technological benefits is also tucked away, but present, in the statement that ‘Under a “law & technology” approach, regulators are not comparing the effect of different intervention methods on the positive ramification of technology. They are not in a position to balance the effectiveness of the rule and its effect on the technology. Regulators may choose a regulation with comparable efficiency to others but a more negative impact on the technology’ (fn 14). Here the paper seems to simply insist on a comprehensive impact assessment, which should capture any losses derived from restrictions or prohibitions concerning the use of a given technology. This is, however, obscured by the proposal of an ‘EM ratio’ as some sort of mathematical formalisation (see fn 81) of what is simply a proportionality assessment that will almost never be susceptible to quantitative reductionism), which obscures or glosses over the impossibility of directly comparing some of the potential positive and negative impacts as they affect different socio-legal values, some of them with specific (constitutional) protection.
Overall, creative labelling aside, the paper seems to make two relatively uncontroversial statements that are also not new. Technology can facilitate legal compliance, and law and regulation should not disproportionately stifle technological innovation. So far, so good.
The labelling is still highly problematic, though, especially as it carries the risk (or intent?) of sullying ‘law and technology’ scholarship as partial or unnecessarily biased in a pro-interventionist manner. So the labelling deserves some further scrutiny.
From where I stand, it is almost impossible to assign specific meaning to “law and technology” as a field, as the interaction between law and technology can be and is being assessed from a wide-ranging and diverse set of perspectives (see e.g. the very interesting political economy approach by Julie E. Cohen, Between Truth and Power: The Legal Constructions of Informational Capitalism (OUP, 2019); or the explicit consideration of blockchain as a regulatory technology by Michèle Finck, Blockchain Regulation and Governance in Europe (CUP, 2018)). More importantly, the main hypothesis or postulate of the paper, i.e. that ‘technology and law can better increase the common good together than in a silo’ (at 4) ignores the fact that the mutual interdependence and interaction between technology and law is very much at the core of the political economy analysis of what the paper would term ‘classic “law and technology”’, as lucidly articulated by Cohen (above, 1-2).
It is also difficult to support a statement attributing to such (deemed) ‘classical’ approach to “law & technology” a one-way consideration of potential negative impacts of technologies only—unless one ignores all work on e.g. SupTech, or automated compliance; or one is blind to the fact that the balance of interests and potential impingement of rights that triggers regulatory and legislative intervention cannot result from a mere cost-benefit analysis that allows trade-offs that imply e.g. violations of fundamental rights or essential protections in consumer, labour or data privacy as key elements of the legal system. The author seems reluctantly aware of this, although the paper quickly discounts it in stressing that: ‘To be sure, the positive ramifications of technology are sometimes mentioned under “law & technology,” but they are excluded from the analytical scope when tackling the negative ramifications. In short, “law & technology” expresses at best an “on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand-ism,” but it fails to connect both positive and negative aspects’ (at 2-3).
Simply, then, the premises of the paper are highly questionable and generate a caricature of 'law and technology’ scholarship that is simply too far removed from reality.
Moreover, the use of unnecessarily flashy terms (e.g. Darwinian take on regulation, based on complexity theory, when what the author means is very close to systems thinking; or the formulation of an ‘EM ratio’ to refer to what is simply a proportionality assessment) is pervasive in the paper and cannot really mask the limited originality of thought underpinning the arguments.
Overall, I think this is not a helpful contribution to the debate and I hope not much time will be lost on labelling a field where the key regulatory challenges are otherwise well understood (if difficult to tackle).