News
Archive

Blockworks – ICLE Academic Affiliate Thibault Schrepel was quoted by Blockworks in a story about Article 30 of the EU Data Act. You can read full piece here.

Thibault Schrepel, an associate professor at the VU University Amsterdam, noted in a tweet that this new bill “endangers smart contracts to an extent that no one can predict.”

“Article 30 does not provide clarity as to who should be able to ‘terminate the continued execution of transactions,’” Schrepel tweeted. “Is it the creator of the smart contract? Public authorities? Courts?”

Cointelegraph – ICLE Academic Affiliate Thibault Schrepel was quoted by Cointelegraph in a story about the EU Data Act’s “kill switches” for smart contracts. You can read full piece here.

Professor Thibault Schrepel of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam said in a tweet that the act “endangers smart contracts to an extent that no one can predict,” and pointed out sources of legal uncertainty in the act. In particular, he found that it did not specify who could stop or interrupt a smart contract.

KITCO – ICLE Academic Affiliate Thibault Schrepel was quoted by KITCO in a story about the EU Data Act’s Article 30. You can read full piece here.

“The immutability of smart contracts is key to their survival (i.e., immutability is their main differentiating feature),” Thibault Schrepel, an Associate Professor at VU Amsterdam University, tweeted ahead of the vote. “Article 30, as currently drafted, goes a step too far in addressing the issues raised by immutability. Instead of enacting “practical immutability” (where immutability remains the principle and alterability the exception), it makes alterability the principle. In doing so, it endangers smart contracts to an extent that no one can predict.”

According to Schrepel, who is a specialist in blockchain legal issues, the legal text is unclear as to who would be responsible for triggering the kill switch on a smart contract, which interferes with the fundamental principle that the automated programs can’t be altered by anyone.

“As currently drafted, Article 30 does not provide clarity as to who should be able to ‘terminate the continued execution of transactions,’” Schrepel wrote. “Is it the creator of the smart contract? Public authorities? Courts? If the EP wishes to proceed with Article 30, future versions should at least make it clear that only the creator of a smart contract can terminate it.”

Ledger Insights – ICLE Academic Affiliate Thibault Schrepel was quoted by Ledger Insights in a story about how the EU Data Act affects smart contracts for data sharing. You can read full piece here.

Professor Thibault Schrepel, Co-Director of the Amsterdam Law & Technology Institute at VU Amsterdam, noted that the smart contract clause doesn’t define ‘smart contracts for data sharing’. If this is cleared up to apply for example to machine to machine (M2M) data sharing, then some of the other aspects of the clause might be less concerning.

He notes on Twitter that a key issue is who should have control over a smart contract kill switch. It could be the smart contract creator, some public authorities, or the courts. Our take is that, in practice, it makes sense to be the creator because the whole point is to be able to act in an emergency. This would have the side effect of making it hard to argue that the creator doesn’t control the smart contract, something protocol creators prefer not to have to argue they are decentralized. However, if the scope is M2M data sharing, control might not be as contentious. On the other hand, if it applied to DeFi, it could raise additional concerns.

Coindesk – ICLE Academic Affiliate Thibault Schrepel was quoted by Coindesk in a story about the EU Data Act’s “kill switches” for smart contracts. You can read full piece here.

Observador – ICLE Associate Director of Legal Research Ben Sperry was quoted by the Portuguese online newspaper Observador in a story about Section 230 and the Gonzalez v. Google case before the U.S. Supreme Court. You can read full piece (in Portuguese) here.

Foi a tentativa do Congresso de proteger os primeiros passos da internet. “Era dar o poder a estas primeiras plataformas da internet para, basicamente, tomarem as suas próprias decisões de moderação sem medo de que isso as tornasse responsáveis pelo discurso de terceiros nas suas plataformas”, resume Ben Sperry ao Observador, diretor associado da área de investigação legal do International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE). “Dá imunidade às empresas online de serem responsabilizadas, pelo menos na maioria das circunstâncias, pelo que terceiros publicam quando estão nos seus sites.” Com o tempo, a Secção 230 foi ganhando diferentes apelidos, desde tábua de salvação das tecnológicas até carta livre da prisão, como no jogo Monopólio.

[Transl.] It was Congress’ attempt to protect the internet as it took its first steps. “It was about empowering those original internet platforms, basically, to make their own moderation decisions without having to worry that this would make them responsible for the speech of third parties on their platforms,” Ben Sperry, associate director of legal research for ??the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE), summarized for the Observer. “It gives online companies immunity from liability–at least, in most cases–for what third parties post on their sites.” Over time, however, Section 230 has changed from a lifeline for a new technology to a “get out of jail free” card, as in the game Monopoly.

…Também Ben Sperry, diretor associado da área de investigação legal do International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE), reconhece que os juízes do Supremo não mostraram estar “com apetite” para “alterar significativamente a forma como funciona o artigo 230”. “Pareciam céticos aos argumentos trazidos pelos advogados dos Gonzalez, por isso parece-me provável que não vão decidir a favor da família”, acrescenta.

[Transl.]…Ben Sperry, associate director of the legal research for ??the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE), also said that the Supreme Court justices did not appear to “have an appetite” to “significantly change the way Section 230 works.” “They seemed skeptical of the arguments made by Gonzalez’s lawyers, so it seems likely to me that they will not decide in favor of the family,” he added.

…A liberdade de expressão online também poderá ficar em causa. Nesse caso, Ben Sperry, da ICLE, considera que a resposta das redes sociais poderá passar por “restringir o conteúdo do utilizador para evitar responsabilidades”.

[Transl]…Online freedom of expression may also be at stake. Ben Sperry of ICLE believes that social networks could respond to this case by “restricting user content to avoid liability.”

…Ben Sperry, da ICLE, nota que uma decisão favorável aos Gonzalez que implique os algoritmos “não só terá impacto no YouTube e na Google, como também na vasta filosofia da economia da internet”. “Se não tivéssemos o algoritmo e as recomendações, teríamos de saber exatamente o que procuramos e como o encontrar. As redes sociais sabem aquilo que procurámos no passado [o histórico] e o contexto do que procuramos. Se se remover o algoritmo de recomendações da equação, isso tornará os produtos realmente menos úteis.”

[Transl.] …Ben Sperry of ICLE notes that a ruling for the Gonzalezes that faults the algorithms “will impact not only YouTube and Google, but the entire basis of the Internet economy.” “If we didn’t have algorithms and recommendations, we would have to know exactly what we’re looking for and how to find it. Social networks know what we have looked for in the past and the context of what we are looking for. If you remove the recommendations algorithm from the equation, it actually makes the products less useful.”

The Dispatch – ICLE President Geoffrey Manne was quoted by The Dispatch in an item about reports of staff dissatisfaction at the Federal Trade Commission. You can read full piece here.

These are unprecedented levels of dissatisfaction for the agency. “Those numbers are nothing like what we’ve seen at the FTC before,” Geoffrey Manne, president of the International Center for Law and Economics, told The Dispatch. “The dissatisfaction seems to be not just with some kind of general political allegiance, but with how the agency is being run since the new administration has been there.”

Law360 – An International Center for Law & Economics report was cited by Law360 in a story about pole-attachment rules in West Virginia. You can read full piece here.

In August 2022, the International Center for Law and Economics, a legal think tank, advised that broadband infrastructure deployment obstacles persist because of the high costs of upgrading utility poles.

According to the Oregon-based research group, costs should be allocated based on the depreciated value of the pole being replaced, the incremental costs and benefits of the new poles, and early replacement costs.

Axios – ICLE Associate Director of Legal Research Ben Sperry was quoted by Axios in a story about the Supreme Court’s pending decision in the Section 230 case Google v. Gonzalez. You can read full piece here.