TechLaw Chat Transistor (https://transistor.fm) https://feeds.transistor.fm/techlaw-chat A series of short podcasts exploring emerging and topical issues in technology law. (c) 2020, Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro 27dbd609-47a0-5399-8cc9-40e299bd6a62 no en Wed, 23 Jul 2025 15:36:55 +0100 Tue, 02 Dec 2025 21:41:05 +0000 https://techlaw.chat https://img.transistor.fm/wdVzncBApbFVJOK_Njb45AlO6sA4yx8-0nOlQFxRmvs/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS9zaG93/LzE0MTcxLzE2MDIw/NzM4NzQtYXJ0d29y/ay5qcGc.jpg TechLaw Chat https://techlaw.chat episodic Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro A series of short podcasts exploring emerging and topical issues in technology law. A series of short podcasts exploring emerging and topical issues in technology law.. technology, law, techlaw, AI Matthew Lavy No No Surveillance tech and nosey neighbours 14 14 Surveillance tech and nosey neighbours full 8b8c4964-8cda-4f56-a657-1f58e7fe4766 https://share.transistor.fm/s/976d3ee6 As increasingly sophisticated video and audio recording devices become available to householders at only moderate cost, deployment of such surveillance tech by householders is becoming ubiquitous. However, those deploying these devices do not always consider the impact of their surveillance tech on neighbouring properties or the legal ramifications of that impact. This episode explores this theme, and considers the causes of action and practical steps available to a neighbour adversely affected by overly intrusive surveillance tech. 

References:

]]> As increasingly sophisticated video and audio recording devices become available to householders at only moderate cost, deployment of such surveillance tech by householders is becoming ubiquitous. However, those deploying these devices do not always consider the impact of their surveillance tech on neighbouring properties or the legal ramifications of that impact. This episode explores this theme, and considers the causes of action and practical steps available to a neighbour adversely affected by overly intrusive surveillance tech. 

References:

]]> Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:48:07 +0000 Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro 532 Exploration of neighbours' rights when householders deploy surveillance tech. Exploration of neighbours' rights when householders deploy surveillance tech. technology, law, techlaw, AI No Child safety on a video-sharing platform 13 13 Child safety on a video-sharing platform full 9f49a9be-bcf5-4fb2-8f69-365b8d86c645 https://share.transistor.fm/s/785a92d7 As of now, the UK has not enacted online harms legislation, and social media platforms in general are under no statutory duty to protect children from harmful content. However, providers of video-sharing platforms do have statutory obligations in that regard, set out in Part 4B of the Communications Act 2003 (added to the Act by amendment in 2020). Amongst other things, section 368Z1 of the Act requires providers of such platforms to make appropriate measures to protect under-18s from videos and audio-visual commercial communications containing "restricted material". Regardless of the statutory obligations (or lack thereof in the case of non-video social media platforms), many platforms expend considerable efforts seeking to protect children from harm.

In this episode, we consider how a video-sharing start-up might focus its resources in order to comply with its statutory obligations and to maximise the prospects that it offers a safe environment for children. We are joined in this endeavour by Dr Elena Martellozzo, an Associate Professor in Criminology at the centre for Child Abuse and Trauma Studies (CATS) at Middlesex University. Elena has extensive experience of applied research within the Criminal Justice arena. Elena’s research includes exploring children and young people’s online behaviour, the analysis of sexual grooming and online harm and police practice in the area of child sexual abuse. Elena has emerged as a leading researcher and global voice in the field of child protection, victimology, policing and cybercrime. She is a prolific writer and has participated in highly sensitive research with the Police, the IWF, the NSPCC, the OCC, the Home Office and other government departments. Elena has also acted as an advisor on child online protection to governments and practitioners in Italy (since 2004) and Bahrain (2016) to develop a national child internet safety policy framework. 

Further reading:


]]> As of now, the UK has not enacted online harms legislation, and social media platforms in general are under no statutory duty to protect children from harmful content. However, providers of video-sharing platforms do have statutory obligations in that regard, set out in Part 4B of the Communications Act 2003 (added to the Act by amendment in 2020). Amongst other things, section 368Z1 of the Act requires providers of such platforms to make appropriate measures to protect under-18s from videos and audio-visual commercial communications containing "restricted material". Regardless of the statutory obligations (or lack thereof in the case of non-video social media platforms), many platforms expend considerable efforts seeking to protect children from harm.

In this episode, we consider how a video-sharing start-up might focus its resources in order to comply with its statutory obligations and to maximise the prospects that it offers a safe environment for children. We are joined in this endeavour by Dr Elena Martellozzo, an Associate Professor in Criminology at the centre for Child Abuse and Trauma Studies (CATS) at Middlesex University. Elena has extensive experience of applied research within the Criminal Justice arena. Elena’s research includes exploring children and young people’s online behaviour, the analysis of sexual grooming and online harm and police practice in the area of child sexual abuse. Elena has emerged as a leading researcher and global voice in the field of child protection, victimology, policing and cybercrime. She is a prolific writer and has participated in highly sensitive research with the Police, the IWF, the NSPCC, the OCC, the Home Office and other government departments. Elena has also acted as an advisor on child online protection to governments and practitioners in Italy (since 2004) and Bahrain (2016) to develop a national child internet safety policy framework. 

Further reading:


]]> Tue, 11 Jan 2022 11:31:14 +0000 Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro 532 Protecting children from harmful video-streaming content Protecting children from harmful video-streaming content technology, law, techlaw, AI No Kris Proposes Drone Delivery 12 12 Kris Proposes Drone Delivery full 527eef8b-3d29-4049-9574-79bd4aabc361 https://share.transistor.fm/s/921b6571 This end-of-year episode explores the viability of delivery of Christmas gifts by drone in UK airspace. Someone has ambitious plans involving the precision drop of parcels down chimneys. We discuss the legal risks that arise and the hurdles that will have to be jumped if the Civil Aviation Authority is to authorise that plan.

Further reading:

  • The primary guidance document for those wishing to operate unmanned aircraft systems within the UK is CAP722.  It sets out the relevant law and provides substantial amounts of operational material and guidance.
  • The Civil Aviation Authority’s ‘Drone and Model Aircraft Code’ can be found here.
  • The two legislative sources referred to in the podcast are the Air Navigation Order 2016 and the Civil Aviation Act 1982.

 

]]> This end-of-year episode explores the viability of delivery of Christmas gifts by drone in UK airspace. Someone has ambitious plans involving the precision drop of parcels down chimneys. We discuss the legal risks that arise and the hurdles that will have to be jumped if the Civil Aviation Authority is to authorise that plan.

Further reading:

  • The primary guidance document for those wishing to operate unmanned aircraft systems within the UK is CAP722.  It sets out the relevant law and provides substantial amounts of operational material and guidance.
  • The Civil Aviation Authority’s ‘Drone and Model Aircraft Code’ can be found here.
  • The two legislative sources referred to in the podcast are the Air Navigation Order 2016 and the Civil Aviation Act 1982.

 

]]> Tue, 21 Dec 2021 12:07:11 +0000 Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro 545 How UK drone legislation would affect modernisation of Santa's deliveries How UK drone legislation would affect modernisation of Santa's deliveries technology, law, techlaw, AI No Data protection representative actions: door slammed shut or door ajar? 11 11 Data protection representative actions: door slammed shut or door ajar? full 9b88ed8f-2bd4-4910-b258-48123a6eae30 https://share.transistor.fm/s/65982f18 The long-anticipated Supreme Court decision in Lloyd v Google [2021] UKSC 50 was handed down on 10 November 2021. Reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal and reinstating the first instance decision of Warby J, the Supreme Court held that Richard Lloyd could not pursue a damages claim as representative of the class of individuals affected by Google's alleged breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 in relation to the so-called "safari workaround". The reasoning is involved, and the Judgment bears reading in full. In essence, however, the court held that establishing a right to damages for breach of the Data Protection Act 1998, and quantifying those damages, involved a claimant-by-claimant analysis that, in each case, must identify the breach affecting that claimant, the loss suffered by that claimant, and the causal connection between breach and loss. The claims were accordingly unsuitable in principle for a representative action. The Judgment also addressed in some detail the nature of damages for breach of data protection legislation, and the nature and scope of representative actions under CPR 19.6.

In this episode we explore some of the ramifications of the decision through a scenario involving a data breach at an online marketplace.

The Judgment may be found here, and a press summary here.

]]> The long-anticipated Supreme Court decision in Lloyd v Google [2021] UKSC 50 was handed down on 10 November 2021. Reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal and reinstating the first instance decision of Warby J, the Supreme Court held that Richard Lloyd could not pursue a damages claim as representative of the class of individuals affected by Google's alleged breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 in relation to the so-called "safari workaround". The reasoning is involved, and the Judgment bears reading in full. In essence, however, the court held that establishing a right to damages for breach of the Data Protection Act 1998, and quantifying those damages, involved a claimant-by-claimant analysis that, in each case, must identify the breach affecting that claimant, the loss suffered by that claimant, and the causal connection between breach and loss. The claims were accordingly unsuitable in principle for a representative action. The Judgment also addressed in some detail the nature of damages for breach of data protection legislation, and the nature and scope of representative actions under CPR 19.6.

In this episode we explore some of the ramifications of the decision through a scenario involving a data breach at an online marketplace.

The Judgment may be found here, and a press summary here.

]]> Thu, 11 Nov 2021 17:19:28 +0000 Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro 506 Ramifications of the Supreme Court's decision in the Lloyd v Google litigation. Ramifications of the Supreme Court's decision in the Lloyd v Google litigation. technology, law, techlaw, AI No The Emperor's New Tokens? 10 10 The Emperor's New Tokens? full 51c5c67d-2198-4c70-bcec-81641ded959f https://share.transistor.fm/s/9ada6db9 Non-fungible tokens (or 'NFTs') are a blockchain-based mechanism for uniquely identifying digital assets, and verifying both authenticity and ownership. An increasingly popular use case for NFTs (albeit it is only one of several use cases) involves the creation and sale of digital art. Notwithstanding that the NFT marketplace for digital art is dynamic and growing (with some NFTs selling at auction for vast sums), the legal basis of NFTs and, critically, the nature of what a purchaser actually acquires when purchasing an NFT artwork, are not universally understood. We explore these issues in this episode, which concerns the purchase of an NFT image for commercial use.

Further reading:

]]> Non-fungible tokens (or 'NFTs') are a blockchain-based mechanism for uniquely identifying digital assets, and verifying both authenticity and ownership. An increasingly popular use case for NFTs (albeit it is only one of several use cases) involves the creation and sale of digital art. Notwithstanding that the NFT marketplace for digital art is dynamic and growing (with some NFTs selling at auction for vast sums), the legal basis of NFTs and, critically, the nature of what a purchaser actually acquires when purchasing an NFT artwork, are not universally understood. We explore these issues in this episode, which concerns the purchase of an NFT image for commercial use.

Further reading:

]]> Thu, 29 Jul 2021 15:50:27 +0100 Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro 487 An exploration of the legal nature of NFTs for digital art An exploration of the legal nature of NFTs for digital art technology, law, techlaw, AI No Keeping it ethical 9 9 Keeping it ethical full b3c5eb9d-0c7c-4e69-8727-c2a77e909302 https://share.transistor.fm/s/c8b278da AI companies need to engage with the ethical implications of their systems. That involves planning ahead: in this episode, we therefore look at the European Union’s proposed AI regulation, and – with the help of our guest, Patricia Shaw – discuss its application in an EdTech context. The proposed regulation is available here.

Patricia Shaw is CEO of Beyond Reach Consulting Ltd, providing AI/data ethics strategy, public policy engagement, bespoke AI/data ethics risk and governance advice, and advisory board services, across financial services, public sector (Health- and EdTech), and smart cities. 

 

Trish is passionate about Responsible AI and is an expert advisor to IEEE’s Ethical Certification Program for Autonomous Intelligent Systems and P7003 (algorithmic bias) standards programme, a Fellow of ForHumanity contributing to the Independent Audit of AI Systems. She contributed to The Institute for Ethical AI in Education’s Ethical Framework for AI in Education, and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts having been on the Advisory Board for the ‘Power over information’project concerning regulation of online harms.

 

A non-practising Solicitor, public speaker, and author, Trish is also Chair of the Trustee Board of the Society for Computers and Law, Member of the Board of iTechlaw as well as Vice Chair of their AI committee.  She is listed on 2021 - 100 Brilliant Women in AI Ethics™.

]]> AI companies need to engage with the ethical implications of their systems. That involves planning ahead: in this episode, we therefore look at the European Union’s proposed AI regulation, and – with the help of our guest, Patricia Shaw – discuss its application in an EdTech context. The proposed regulation is available here.

Patricia Shaw is CEO of Beyond Reach Consulting Ltd, providing AI/data ethics strategy, public policy engagement, bespoke AI/data ethics risk and governance advice, and advisory board services, across financial services, public sector (Health- and EdTech), and smart cities. 

 

Trish is passionate about Responsible AI and is an expert advisor to IEEE’s Ethical Certification Program for Autonomous Intelligent Systems and P7003 (algorithmic bias) standards programme, a Fellow of ForHumanity contributing to the Independent Audit of AI Systems. She contributed to The Institute for Ethical AI in Education’s Ethical Framework for AI in Education, and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts having been on the Advisory Board for the ‘Power over information’project concerning regulation of online harms.

 

A non-practising Solicitor, public speaker, and author, Trish is also Chair of the Trustee Board of the Society for Computers and Law, Member of the Board of iTechlaw as well as Vice Chair of their AI committee.  She is listed on 2021 - 100 Brilliant Women in AI Ethics™.

]]> Thu, 08 Jul 2021 16:15:44 +0100 Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro 595 Ethical AI and compliance with the draft EU AI Regulation in an EdTech context Ethical AI and compliance with the draft EU AI Regulation in an EdTech context technology, law, techlaw, AI No At the AI's discretion 8 8 At the AI's discretion full ef1f29a2-06a8-4cf8-8636-d50e346c7ed8 https://share.transistor.fm/s/a28085c7 Where a contract confers a discretion on one party that materially affects the rights of its counterparty,  the discretion must be exercised rationally. The Supreme Court held in Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd [2015] UKSC 17 that exercising a discretion rationally involves (i) taking the right things (and only the right things) into account, and (ii) avoiding a decision that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached. In this episode, we explore how those principles might operate in the context of a discretion exercised automatically by a machine learning algorithm. We do so in the context of a fraud detection algorithm and an online farmers' market somewhere in East Anglia.

Further reading:

]]> Where a contract confers a discretion on one party that materially affects the rights of its counterparty,  the discretion must be exercised rationally. The Supreme Court held in Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd [2015] UKSC 17 that exercising a discretion rationally involves (i) taking the right things (and only the right things) into account, and (ii) avoiding a decision that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached. In this episode, we explore how those principles might operate in the context of a discretion exercised automatically by a machine learning algorithm. We do so in the context of a fraud detection algorithm and an online farmers' market somewhere in East Anglia.

Further reading:

]]> Wed, 07 Apr 2021 10:37:11 +0100 Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro 504 Legal implications of AI exercising a contractual discretion to prevent sales Legal implications of AI exercising a contractual discretion to prevent sales technology, law, techlaw, AI No Computer says "Go!" 7 7 Computer says "Go!" full a339e87b-4dc0-469a-a3c0-6d9cb1276d8c https://share.transistor.fm/s/3c1c0d9f Fully autonomous vehicles may be a few years away, but cars offering so-called “eyes off/hands off”, or “Level 3” automation, whereby the car is sufficiently capable that the driver’s role is limited to taking over control when requested by the car to do so, is expected to be commercially available in the very near future. In this episode we flash forward to summer 2023 and an accident involving a Level 3 autonomous vehicle. We consider how existing legal frameworks cope with the liability issues that arise when AI takes control of the driving but where the driver remains in the safety chain as a fallback for when the automation cannot cope.

 

Further reading:

]]> Fully autonomous vehicles may be a few years away, but cars offering so-called “eyes off/hands off”, or “Level 3” automation, whereby the car is sufficiently capable that the driver’s role is limited to taking over control when requested by the car to do so, is expected to be commercially available in the very near future. In this episode we flash forward to summer 2023 and an accident involving a Level 3 autonomous vehicle. We consider how existing legal frameworks cope with the liability issues that arise when AI takes control of the driving but where the driver remains in the safety chain as a fallback for when the automation cannot cope.

 

Further reading:

]]> Thu, 18 Mar 2021 11:04:56 +0000 Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro 595 Driver liability when "eyes off/hands off" automation fails Driver liability when "eyes off/hands off" automation fails technology, law, techlaw, AI No The Black Box problem 6 6 The Black Box problem full 76320c6e-f11f-4c06-b8cc-86907186af5b https://share.transistor.fm/s/961facbc AI can improve how businesses make decisions. But how does a business explain the rationale behind AI decisions to its customers? In this episode, we explore this issue through the scenario of a bank that uses AI to evaluate loan applications and needs to be able to explain to customers why an application may have been rejected. We do so with the help of Andrew Burgess, founder of Greenhouse Intelligence (andrew@thegreenhouse.ai).

 

About Andrew: He has worked as an advisor to C-level executives in Technology and Sourcing for the past 25 years. He is considered a thought-leader and practitioner in AI and Robotic Process Automation, and is regularly invited to speak at conferences on the subject. He is a strategic advisor to a number of ambitious companies in the field of disruptive technologies. Andrew has written two books - The Executive Guide to Artificial Intelligence (Palgrave MacMillan, 2018) and, with the London School of Economics, The Rise of Legal Services Outsourcing (Bloomsbury, 2014). He is Visiting Senior Fellow in AI and RPA at Loughborough University and Expert-In-Residence for AI at Imperial College’s Enterprise Lab. He is a prolific writer on the ‘future of work’ both in his popular weekly newsletter and in industry magazines and blogs. 

 

Further reading:

 

]]> AI can improve how businesses make decisions. But how does a business explain the rationale behind AI decisions to its customers? In this episode, we explore this issue through the scenario of a bank that uses AI to evaluate loan applications and needs to be able to explain to customers why an application may have been rejected. We do so with the help of Andrew Burgess, founder of Greenhouse Intelligence (andrew@thegreenhouse.ai).

 

About Andrew: He has worked as an advisor to C-level executives in Technology and Sourcing for the past 25 years. He is considered a thought-leader and practitioner in AI and Robotic Process Automation, and is regularly invited to speak at conferences on the subject. He is a strategic advisor to a number of ambitious companies in the field of disruptive technologies. Andrew has written two books - The Executive Guide to Artificial Intelligence (Palgrave MacMillan, 2018) and, with the London School of Economics, The Rise of Legal Services Outsourcing (Bloomsbury, 2014). He is Visiting Senior Fellow in AI and RPA at Loughborough University and Expert-In-Residence for AI at Imperial College’s Enterprise Lab. He is a prolific writer on the ‘future of work’ both in his popular weekly newsletter and in industry magazines and blogs. 

 

Further reading:

 

]]> Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:27:45 +0000 Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro 579 Explaining AI decisions Explaining AI decisions technology, law, techlaw, AI No Track it with a Smart Contract? 5 5 Track it with a Smart Contract? full 38ca988c-97a7-4e92-8f16-6d5a2ef09e48 https://share.transistor.fm/s/c4c217ba This podcast explores the benefits and limitations of Smart Contracts in the context of human-provided services by considering the practicalities of using Smart Contracts to regulate the contractual relationship between brands and social media influencers.

 

Further reading:

  • For a more detailed discussion of smart contracts, see the Legal Statement on cryptoassets and smart contracts, November 2019, published by the LawTech Delivery Panel UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (downloadable here).
  • If you’d like to see one of the starting points - N. Szabo, “Smart contracts: building blocks for digital markets.” (1996) EXTROPY: The Journal of Transhumanist Thought, (16), 18(2), available in revised draft here. 
  • For some insight into the vulnerabilities – see, e.g., Singh et al ‘Blockchain smart contracts formalization: Approaches and challenges to address vulnerabilities’, Computers & Security 88 (2020) 101654.
  • A promising application of Smart Contracts is in supply chains – discussed here in the Harvard Business Review. 
  • Our scenario was inspired by a CoinDesk article on 22 January 2015 (‘Ex-Rugby Star: Smart Contracts Could Prevent Legal Disputes in Sport’).
]]> This podcast explores the benefits and limitations of Smart Contracts in the context of human-provided services by considering the practicalities of using Smart Contracts to regulate the contractual relationship between brands and social media influencers.

 

Further reading:

  • For a more detailed discussion of smart contracts, see the Legal Statement on cryptoassets and smart contracts, November 2019, published by the LawTech Delivery Panel UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (downloadable here).
  • If you’d like to see one of the starting points - N. Szabo, “Smart contracts: building blocks for digital markets.” (1996) EXTROPY: The Journal of Transhumanist Thought, (16), 18(2), available in revised draft here. 
  • For some insight into the vulnerabilities – see, e.g., Singh et al ‘Blockchain smart contracts formalization: Approaches and challenges to address vulnerabilities’, Computers & Security 88 (2020) 101654.
  • A promising application of Smart Contracts is in supply chains – discussed here in the Harvard Business Review. 
  • Our scenario was inspired by a CoinDesk article on 22 January 2015 (‘Ex-Rugby Star: Smart Contracts Could Prevent Legal Disputes in Sport’).
]]> Tue, 22 Dec 2020 09:02:34 +0000 Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro 542 The promise and limitations of Smart Contracts for human-provided services. The promise and limitations of Smart Contracts for human-provided services. technology, law, techlaw, AI No You've been hacked. Now pay us £££! (Part 2) 4 4 You've been hacked. Now pay us £££! (Part 2) full 21634f90-df0c-4c8f-9956-f76ca14e282f https://share.transistor.fm/s/2ef9b494 This podcast, which continues the story started in Episode 3, considers the liability implications arising out the exfiltration of a client's confidential technical data following a cyber attack.

For further reading, we recommend:

]]> This podcast, which continues the story started in Episode 3, considers the liability implications arising out the exfiltration of a client's confidential technical data following a cyber attack.

For further reading, we recommend:

]]> Mon, 07 Dec 2020 14:18:02 +0000 Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro 505 Liability arising out of cyber attack involving highly confidential client data Liability arising out of cyber attack involving highly confidential client data technology, law, techlaw, AI No You've been hacked. Now pay us £££! (Part 1) 3 3 You've been hacked. Now pay us £££! (Part 1) full 7dc524be-5986-4bac-bb62-35346e6f4679 https://share.transistor.fm/s/8f2120a2 This podcast explores some immediate actions that might be needed where an apparent ransomware attack threatens the leak of highly confidential technical data. For this podcast, Matthew and Iain are joined by Michael Brown of Northwall Cyber.

For further reading, we recommend:

]]> This podcast explores some immediate actions that might be needed where an apparent ransomware attack threatens the leak of highly confidential technical data. For this podcast, Matthew and Iain are joined by Michael Brown of Northwall Cyber.

For further reading, we recommend:

]]> Wed, 04 Nov 2020 19:35:21 +0000 Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro 576 Response to a ransomware attack and threat to confidential data. Response to a ransomware attack and threat to confidential data. technology, law, techlaw, AI No Give me my Bitcoin back! 2 2 Give me my Bitcoin back! full 3fcc612d-9d41-4c9b-8db5-a0ba5f9f5663 https://share.transistor.fm/s/53fbf7c5 This podcast explores the legal remedies that are available when Bitcoin are misappropriated, and some of the practical challenges of enforcement. For a more detailed analysis of the treatment of cryptoassets as property, see the Legal Statement on cryptoassets and smart contracts, November 2019, published by the LawTech Delivery Panel UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (downloadable here).

The legal basis for recovery of fraudulently misappropriated Bitcoin and factors that are engaged on an interim application are addressed in AA v Persons Unkown, Re Bitcoin [2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm).

In relation to crypto-assets as property in other common law jurisdictions, see: 

  • Ruscoe v Cryptopia Ltd (In Liquidation) [2020] NZHC 728 (New Zealand).
  • B2C2 Ltd v Quoine Pte Lrd  [2019] SGHC(I) 03  (Singapore).

For a detailed explanation as to the technical workings of Bitcoin, see  Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, Nakomoto, 2008 (available here).

Note: in an earlier version of this podcast, the exchange was unable to transfer Alice's bitcoin back to her because it did not have access to the fraudster's private keys. In practice, however, the majority of mainstream exchanges do control account holders' private keys (allowing them to treat "deposited" bitcoin as fungible). Therefore we have altered the scenario to reflect the more common case (albeit at the expense of illustrating a conundrum we think rather interesting!).

]]> This podcast explores the legal remedies that are available when Bitcoin are misappropriated, and some of the practical challenges of enforcement. For a more detailed analysis of the treatment of cryptoassets as property, see the Legal Statement on cryptoassets and smart contracts, November 2019, published by the LawTech Delivery Panel UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (downloadable here).

The legal basis for recovery of fraudulently misappropriated Bitcoin and factors that are engaged on an interim application are addressed in AA v Persons Unkown, Re Bitcoin [2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm).

In relation to crypto-assets as property in other common law jurisdictions, see: 

  • Ruscoe v Cryptopia Ltd (In Liquidation) [2020] NZHC 728 (New Zealand).
  • B2C2 Ltd v Quoine Pte Lrd  [2019] SGHC(I) 03  (Singapore).

For a detailed explanation as to the technical workings of Bitcoin, see  Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, Nakomoto, 2008 (available here).

Note: in an earlier version of this podcast, the exchange was unable to transfer Alice's bitcoin back to her because it did not have access to the fraudster's private keys. In practice, however, the majority of mainstream exchanges do control account holders' private keys (allowing them to treat "deposited" bitcoin as fungible). Therefore we have altered the scenario to reflect the more common case (albeit at the expense of illustrating a conundrum we think rather interesting!).

]]> Wed, 21 Oct 2020 12:26:27 +0100 Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro 756 The legal nature of Bitcoin and the practicalities of recovering cryptoassets taken by fraud. The legal nature of Bitcoin and the practicalities of recovering cryptoassets taken by fraud. technology, law, techlaw, bitcoin No Is your bot talking $£!? about me again? 1 1 Is your bot talking $£!? about me again? full a0737524-aa6a-47fe-ae48-d4c8a4c08710 https://share.transistor.fm/s/69dfc892 This podcast is intended as an introduction to issues that arise when an AI bot creates defamatory content. For detailed commentary on this specialist area of law, see: Gatley on Libel and Slander (12th Ed, 2017) and Duncan and Neill on Defamation (4th Ed, 2015 – with new addition forthcoming). For an overview, see our chapter on ‘Liability for Economic Harm’ in The Law of Artificial Intelligence (2020, forthcoming).


Cases relevant to auto-generated content include: 

  • Bunt v Tilly [2006] EWHC 407 (QB)
  • Metropolitan International Schools Ltd (trading as Skillstrain and/or Train2Game) v Designtechnica Corpn (trading as Digital Trends) and others [2009] EWHC 1765 (QB)
  • Tamiz v Google Inc. [2013] EWCA Civ 68 CA

For other jurisdictions, see e.g. Defteros v Google LLC [2020] VSC 219 at [40], in which Richards J summarised the Australian position as follows: “The Google search engine … is not a passive tool. It is designed by humans who work for Google to operate in the way that it does, and in such a way that identified objectionable content can be removed, by human intervention, from the search results that Google displays to a user.”  For Hong Kong, see e.g. Yeung v Google Inc. [2014] HKCFI 1404; Oriental Press Group Ltd v Fevaworks Solutions Ltd [2013] HKFCA 47 (especially [76] for a test endorsed by the authors of Gatley).

On the contradictory positions taken by search engines worldwide, see, e.g., Sookman, “Is Google a publisher according to Google? The Google v Equustek and Duffy cases”, C.T.L.R. 2018, 24(1).

]]> This podcast is intended as an introduction to issues that arise when an AI bot creates defamatory content. For detailed commentary on this specialist area of law, see: Gatley on Libel and Slander (12th Ed, 2017) and Duncan and Neill on Defamation (4th Ed, 2015 – with new addition forthcoming). For an overview, see our chapter on ‘Liability for Economic Harm’ in The Law of Artificial Intelligence (2020, forthcoming).


Cases relevant to auto-generated content include: 

  • Bunt v Tilly [2006] EWHC 407 (QB)
  • Metropolitan International Schools Ltd (trading as Skillstrain and/or Train2Game) v Designtechnica Corpn (trading as Digital Trends) and others [2009] EWHC 1765 (QB)
  • Tamiz v Google Inc. [2013] EWCA Civ 68 CA

For other jurisdictions, see e.g. Defteros v Google LLC [2020] VSC 219 at [40], in which Richards J summarised the Australian position as follows: “The Google search engine … is not a passive tool. It is designed by humans who work for Google to operate in the way that it does, and in such a way that identified objectionable content can be removed, by human intervention, from the search results that Google displays to a user.”  For Hong Kong, see e.g. Yeung v Google Inc. [2014] HKCFI 1404; Oriental Press Group Ltd v Fevaworks Solutions Ltd [2013] HKFCA 47 (especially [76] for a test endorsed by the authors of Gatley).

On the contradictory positions taken by search engines worldwide, see, e.g., Sookman, “Is Google a publisher according to Google? The Google v Equustek and Duffy cases”, C.T.L.R. 2018, 24(1).

]]> Wed, 07 Oct 2020 14:39:55 +0100 Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro Matthew Lavy & Iain Munro 487 Defamation by AI: who is liable and what defences are available? Defamation by AI: who is liable and what defences are available? technology, law, techlaw, AI No