Criminal Negligence and Acceptable Risk in the EU’s AI Act: Casting Light, Leaving Shadows
By: Leonardo Romano (DCU Law & Tech Blog)
Regulators and policymakers in Europe are currently navigating a ‘post-modernity shock,’ characterized by the complex task of balancing competing goals and interests linked to the wide-ranging and varied technologies grouped under the ambiguous term Artificial Intelligence (AI). The urgent need to ensure Europe benefits economically and socially from AI stands in tension with the necessity to establish criminal liability when self-learning algorithms, behaving unpredictably, cause harm to individuals or society.
In determining who should bear liability for production activities, the relevant legal framework typically revolves around negligence offences. In the context of AI, this raises a broader question: how much risk from (potentially dangerous but socially beneficial) intelligent products is European society prepared to accept? To address this, the conceptual tool that comes into play is the ‘area of permitted or acceptable risk’ (erlaubtes Risiko). This legal concept, which has been a subject of long-standing debate in criminal law doctrine and is gaining renewed relevance in discussions on AI technologies, introduces a ‘margin of tolerance.’ Within this margin, operators cannot be held criminally liable based on generic negligence for harmful events that occur despite adhering to established precautionary norms.
The challenge here lies in balancing social utility with the protection of legal interests threatened by AI, raising critical questions about the scope of this acceptable risk area and the identification of objective diligence standards with specific regard to the responsibilities of AI providers. Defining the boundaries of this risk and determining what constitutes acceptable behavior for AI systems are crucial to fostering the development of AI technologies that benefit society while ensuring legal clarity and safeguarding against potential harms…
Featured News
CVS Health Explores Potential Breakup Amid Investor Pressure: Report
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
DirecTV Acquires Dish TV, Creating 20 Million-Subscriber Powerhouse
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea Fines Kakao Mobility $54.8 Million for Anti-Competitive Practices
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Google Offers Settlement in India’s Antitrust Case Regarding Smart TVs
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Attorney Challenges NCAA’s $2.78 Billion Settlement in Landmark Antitrust Cases
Oct 3, 2024 by
nhoch@pymnts.com
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh