Legal Issues in the Digital Age

On the Transparency of Artificial Intelligence Algorithms from a Legal Perspective

Elvira V. Talapina — Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0300

In the modern era of active practical development of artificial intelligence (AI), lawyers are facing the question — how to resolve the ‘black box’ problem, i.e. the incomprehensibility and unpredictability of decisions that artificial intelligence makes. Developing rules that maintain the transparency and comprehensibility of AI algorithms enables artificial intelligence to be incorporated into conventional legal frameworks, thereby eliminating the threat to the concept of legal liability. In private law, protecting consumers from major online platforms makes algorithm transparency a key issue, changing the obligation to provide information to consumers, which can now be described by the formula ‘to know + to understand’. Similarly, states are unable to adequately protect citizens from the harm caused by their dependence on algorithmic applications when public services are provided. The only way to counter this is through knowledge and understanding of how algorithms work. Fundamentally new regulations are required to bring the use of AI within a legal framework, which should include requirements for algorithm transparency. Experts are actively discussing the development of a regulatory framework to establish a system for observing, monitoring and provisionally authorising the use of AI technologies. Measures are being developed for an ‘algorithmic accountability policy’ and a ‘transparency through design’ framework, which address issues throughout AI development, with an emphasis on ongoing stakeholder engagement and organisational openness, as well as the implementation of explainable AI systems. Overall, the proposed approaches to regulating AI and ensuring transparency are quite similar ones, as are the predictions regarding the mitigating role of transparent AI algorithms in building trust in AI. Of interest is the concept of ‘algorithmic sovereignty,’ that refers to a democratic state’s ability to govern the development, deployment and impact of AI systems in accordance with its own legal, cultural and ethical norms. This model is designed to promote the harmonious coexistence of different states, which in turn leads to the harmonious coexistence of humanity and AI. Overall, although the use of AI differs ideologically in the private and public spheres, transparency of algorithms is equally important and ultimately increases the likelihood of regulation.

AI Algorithms and Trade Secrets: a Legal Exploration of Intellectual Property Rights

Jamshid Kazimi — Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0300

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence has drawn significant attention to the protection of AI algorithms through intellectual property rights (IPR). Of the various forms of IPR, trade secrets have emerged as a key means of protecting proprietary artificial intelligence technologies. This study examines the legal framework for protecting artificial intelligence algorithms as trade secrets, exploring the associated complexities and challenges. Employing a qualitative research design, the paper conducts a comparative legal analysis of case studies and content analysis of relevant legal documents. Key issues identified by the researcher include the tension between trade secret protection and the need for transparency in artificial intelligence, the challenges of enforcing protection due to the technical complexity of its algorithms, and the potential ethical conflicts that arise from prioritising secrecy over public accountability. Additionally, author of the study compares trade secret protection with other forms of IPR, such as patents and copyrights, to evaluate their effectiveness in the artificial intelligence domain. The findings suggest that, while trade secrets offer significant advantages in protecting artificial intelligence algorithms, they also present challenges in ensuring transparency, ethical artificial intelligence development, and innovation. The study concludes with policy recommendations aimed at improving the legal frameworks for trade secret protection while balancing the need for public interest and innovation. The research contributes to the ongoing discourse at the intersection of artificial intelligence, law, and ethics, providing valuable insights for policymakers, legal professionals, and artificial intelligence developers.

Platform Economy: the Essence and Relationship with Allied Categories

Natalia E. Savenko — Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0300

The article based on etymological and legal analysis in light of the established doctrinal stance, explores the platform economy as a category to reveal its essence in comparison with other related categories (digital economy, electronic (online) trade, platform law, platform employment). The originality of the study is that it was conducted in connection with the recently passed Federal Law of 31 July 2025 “On Specific Aspects of Platform Economy Regulation in Russia”. The article purports to demonstrate a multitude of theoretical and legislative interpretations revealing the specifics of digital and/or platform-based economic operations. The research included analysis of the acting law and specific legal drafts; formulation of proposals to improve the legislation, with formal logic, linguistic technical, formal legal, and systemic methods being used. The research demonstrates that legal instruments do not uniformly regulate various digital/platform relationships between a wide range of economic agents concluding on the need to harmonize the digital and platform economy-related concepts in individual regulations of varying scope in terms of parties and other categories. In view of this problem, proposals were made to improve the law from the perspective of legal form.

Comparative Study of Approaches to Legal Regulating of Digital Platform Employment in Russia and China

Denis A. Novikov — Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0300

The article provides a comparative legal analysis of the emerging approaches to regulating platform employment in Russia and China, a dynamically developing segment of labour relations. The author notes the rapid growth in the number of platform workers in both countries and identifies similar economic sectors where this form of employment is most common. The primary focus is on legal initiatives aimed at regulating the status of this category of workers. The Russian legislator’s approach, embodied in Federal Law No. 289-FZ, is critically assessed. This law creates a quasi-civil law model that systematically excludes the application of labour law norms, leaving partner-performers without key social and labour guarantees. The CIS Model Law project is presented as a more progressive alternative, offering a functional approach and the possibility of recognizing employment relationships based on an analysis of the worker’s actual economic dependence. The Chinese model is characterized as a gradual adaptation of labour guarantees to the digital environment using “soft law” instruments. The introduction of differentiated statuses, including “incomplete labour relations”, and the enhanced role of trade unions and state control, including through platform tax reporting, are highlighted. The conclusion states that, despite the differences, neither country has resolved the fundamental problem of algorithmic management, which creates an extra-legal technological order. The study highlights the global challenge of adapting traditional legal frameworks to the disruptive nature of the digital economy, advocating a paradigm shift in regulatory thinking to effectively protect workers’ rights. As a prospective solution, a transition to a state digital platform is proposed, one that integrates legal norms into algorithmic systems to ensure automated compliance with labour legislation.

Virtual and Augmented Reality in Jurisprudence and Justice: Issues, Prospects and Import

Anna V. Belyakova — Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0300

The current stage of social development in Russia is characterized by the emergence of long-term reference points, with regulation playing a crucial role in the process. It delimits and guides the use of high-technology products and services in the socio-economic sphere, governmental and judiciary system. This has brought about the perception of benefits and underlying risks of digital technologies, a problem equally vital for individuals, business community and public law institutions. The article is focused on the aspects of integrating specialized software into the national system of law and order for creating virtual (VR) and augmented (AR) reality. It provides evidence for the author’ view that the said software is able to improve technological culture in Russia through visualization of real world objects while providing new opportunities to optimize different sectors such as justice system, public services and education. Based on analysis of the acting law and author’s own findings, the article contains proposals to develop field-specific software and to improve level of legal system in general. A special focus is made on consolidating governance and coordination mechanisms for the judiciary system and society as a requirement for seamless implementation of promising digital technologies.

Modelling in the Digital Age: Foreign Countries Experience

Sergey V. Vinogradov — Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0300

The author analyzes modelling as a method of research inadequately developed in domestic legal studies yet widespread in the United Kingdom and the United States for that purpose. It proves a considerable heuristic potential of modelling for legal science in the context of digital change, with legal regulation based on predicting and assessing the implications and risks of rule-making as a substitute for reactive approach. It is pointed out a legal system analysis can be well-served not only by realistic models based on empirical data, but also by abstract semantic models employing the idealization method and deliberate distortion of simulated system’s qualities. The article identifies core methodological issues to be addressed for an adequate choice of models relevant to the specific research objective. It analyzes the typology of scientific models proposed by R. Frigg and S. Hartmann based on the target object’s representation type and justifies its applicability to legal studies for analysis of constraints of specific legal system models and their construction principles. The essential types of scientific models and their conceptual features are showcased by key papers of modern British and American legal science, with a focus on those widespread in analytical jurisprudence for building comprehensive theory of law and order. These include analogical models (H. Hart, R. Dworkin) designed to analyze the essential qualities of the legal system; idealized models (J. Austin, H. Kelsen) disregarding exogenous social factors that obstruct an analysis of law, and toy models (J. Bentham, L. Fuller) which use deliberately false system assumptions and exaggerate its specific qualities to analyze theoretic foundations. It is noted that modelling is crucial for analytical philosophy to identify essential qualities of law and reveal the internal logic of normative systems. While for each model type under study the article identifies methodological constraints inherent in interpretation of findings, it is concluded that such constraints should be treated with care and that methodological design is crucial for theoretic studies of law.

Key Issues in the Intellectual Property Court’s Presidium Rulings

Maria A. Kolzdorf, Natalia I. Kapyrina, Yana A. Aristova — Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0300

The comment reviews key positions in the rulings of the Presidium of the Russian Intellectual Property Court (IPC) issued in the period from November, 2024 to June, 2025. The Chamber hears cassation appeals against the decisions of the IPC first instance and deals primarily, but not only, with matters of registration and validity of industrial property rights. Therefore, the regular review covers predominantly substantive requirements for patent and trademark protection, as well as procedural issues both in the administrative adjudicating mechanism at the Patent Office (Rospatent) and at the IPC itself. The current review encompasses a variety of questions related to trademark law, patent law and various procedural matters.