Documents Journal of Law, Market & Innovation 3 results

"The case study exam shows that the civil use of drones also concerns production contexts, so talking about drones necessarily implies a reflection on the impact of technology on workers' rights and freedoms. In fact, it is now recognised that the right to privacy is a principle on which identity and psycho-physical integrity, and therefore individual and collective health and safety, are based. Firstly, the main national, international and EU regulations that have intervened over time to regulate the matter and that constitute the state of the art will be examined, namely the Chicago Convention of 7 December 1944 on International Civil Aviation, the special provisions made by the Navigation Code, Regulation (EU) No. 1139/2018 unifying the subject matter and the subsequent implementing Regulations No. 945 and 947 of 2019, in an attempt to systematise and understand whether the set of rules currently in force, starting with strict liability, adequately responds to the needs of the commercial development of the sector and to an effective protection of workers. Market requirements, moreover, require that certain technical standards be met before the product is put into circulation. Drones, although they have very high levels of automation and can be identified by artificial intelligence systems, according to Art 2 para 2 and Art 6 para 1, are, however, only partially affected by the recent Regulation establishing harmonised standards on artificial intelligence. They are classified as high-risk systems and the Regulation only reserves to them the application of certain provisions concerning product conformity requirements for placing on the market or their use, the first of which is the principle of human oversight. Furthermore, the prerogative of regulatory experimentation spaces (the so-called Sandbox) is provided for in article 57 of the AI Act. Has an opportunity for the protection of fundamental rights been missed or are the instruments of legal protection, mainly of the psycho-physical integrity of the worker, also linked to the protection of personal data, still guaranteed by Regulation (EU) No. 679/2016 of 27 April 2016? With this contribution, we intend to demonstrate that the legal institutions contained in the GDPR such as the principle of accountability and in particular privacy by design, DPIA, the tools of negotiation and consultation in the company such as codes of conduct and negotiation with the social partners remain the most protective and effective for the purposes of implementing the principle of transparency and mitigation of the risks underlying operations that employ pervasive technologies such as drones. In particular, the unifying Regulation (EU) No. 1139/2018, which shares with the GDPR the legal institution of privacy by design, will be examined. Having said this, it will be appropriate to examine possible regulatory developments regarding the methods of assessing risk situations to be carried out, if possible, in a shared and preventive manner, right from the development of the software, in order to prepare suitable measures to avert dangerous situations and harmful consequences. Studying an unprecedented technology such as drones in the context of work is, moreover, both an opportunity and a pretext to reflect on the legal strategies and instruments made available by the legislator to limit and control the exercise of employers' powers. Mitigating the objective aspects of liability and allocating it in a different way and not only on the operator is another possible development of the legislation. To the extent that UAVs will be deployed in production contexts, in fact, unprecedented scenarios will open up, which may configure profiles of liability on the part of the employer for the protection of privacy, but will also favour the emergence of unprecedented forms of union bargaining and new organisational models, aimed at strengthening the consent and information of workers as well as improving living and working conditions."
This work is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

"The rise of digital labour platforms has significantly altered traditional employment dynamics, creating diverse working conditions and employment relationships. Platforms create an ecosystem in which they prescribe standard contract rules, allowing more actors to efficiently find and connect with each other. In order for both consumers and platform workers to use the platform and connect, they need to accept the pre-dictated contractual terms by accepting the terms and conditions. Even though these standard contracts contribute to efficiency and reduce bargaining costs, these potential advantages can be hollowed out if there is a complete lack of actual bargaining power, which may result in unfair contract terms. This article examines the power imbalances and unfair terms that can often be perceived in platform work contracts, particularly focusing on how these imbalances manifest in platform's terms and conditions. This article highlights the contractual vulnerabilities of platform workers by analysing the terms of five major platforms, namely Deliveroo, Uber, Upwork, Clickworker, and Amazon Mechanical Turk. It further scrutinises the effectiveness of existing legal frameworks in addressing these imbalances from a platform worker point of view, focusing on the Unfair Contract Terms Directive (UCTD) and the Platform-to-Business (P2B) Regulation while briefly touching on the new Platform Work Directive. The UCTD provides protection against unfair terms that have not been individually negotiated, though limits this protection to consumers captured in business-to-consumer relationships. This limitation renders the UCTD inapplicable to most platform workers, as the majority are self-employed and therefore fall outside the consumer protection realm. In the P2B Regulation, requirements for the clarity, content and modification of the terms are imposed. The question is, however, how effective this instrument is for remedying the contractual power balance and what impact this Regulation has specifically on labour platforms. While the European Commission clearly intended all online platforms to fall within the Regulation's scope, it is not entirely clear if and to what extent the Regulation applies to labour platforms. This article therefore analyses whether platform workers can be considered “business users” and whether labour platforms can be considered “online intermediation service providers”. In this analysis, significant gaps are revealed that consequently leave platform workers inadequately protected. Furthermore, an apparent discrepancy in conception between the Commission and the Court of Justice is discovered, since the former seems to believe the Regulation applies to Uber and other transportation platforms while the latter has ruled in its Elite Spain judgment that Uber is to be excluded from the information society service definition. A (potentially unintended) consequence of this judgment is the fact that Uber has now been seemingly precluded from the Regulation's scope, meaning that Uber drivers cannot benefit from its protective provisions. Further, the analysis of the terms and conditions showcases which of the five platforms are in compliance with the P2B Regulation and highlights substantial non-compliance, even multiple years post-implementation. The conclusion emphasises the need for a holistic legislative approach to protect all platform actors and ensure fairness and transparency in platform relationships. It advocates for a unified framework that promotes compliance through effective public enforcement mechanisms."

"After their advent, digital platforms were hailed as innovative institutional solutions capable of reducing transaction costs for a wide group of stakeholders by removing traditional intermediaries and facilitating the match of demand and supply through digital means. However, a group of big investor-owned platforms from Silicon Valley soon imposed themselves as monopolistic actors within digital markets, leveraging their strong bargaining position to abuse their authority and extract undue rents. Different legal strategies have been assessed in the last few years to limit this unilateral rule-setting power, particularly at the EU level. Nevertheless, little consideration has been given to alternative forms of platform organising, aimed at including the relevant stakeholders in the governance of platforms to redress power abuses. This article presents the case of platform cooperatives, which are platforms owned and governed by their workers and users. Moreover, the article considers the institutional complementarities that could help platform co-ops overcome challenges and compete with capitalist platforms on fair legal and political bases."