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
Big Tech Braces for Potential Changes Under a Second Trump Presidency
Nov 6, 2024 by
CPI
Trump’s Potential Shift in US Antitrust Policy Raises Questions for Big Tech and Mergers
Nov 6, 2024 by
CPI
EU Set to Fine Apple in First Major Enforcement of Digital Markets Act
Nov 5, 2024 by
CPI
Six Indicted in Federal Bid-Rigging Schemes Involving Government IT Contracts
Nov 5, 2024 by
CPI
Ireland Secures First €3 Billion Apple Tax Payment, Boosting Exchequer Funds
Nov 5, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Remedies Revisited
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
Fixing the Fix: Updating Policy on Merger Remedies
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
Methodology Matters: The 2017 FTC Remedies Study
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
U.S. v. AT&T: Five Lessons for Vertical Merger Enforcement
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
The Search for Antitrust Remedies in Tech Leads Beyond Antitrust
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI