Let us talk about E-Contracts (I): Electronic agents and conclusion of online contracts

The advancements in the internet as means of facilitating contract formation does not, at first read, present a situation different from that applicable to a facsimile or telex. An e-contract can be created either via the exchange of e-mails or by the completion of a document as a website which is submitted to another party electronically. While it is true that to the great extent that e-contracts are modernised methods of contract formation but they don’t require any particular changes to the law. Still, there are some particular issues arising from their electronic form. This post will discuss the international instruments that provide legal recognition to e-contracts and very advanced facets of it.

A contract is concluded if the parties intend to be legally bound, and they reach a sufficient agreement. Conclusion of contract with offer and acceptance. A contract can be concluded by the acceptance of an offer.

There are various ways to conclude e-contracts. The significant and interesting ones are as follows:

Forming contracts via electronic communications (such as e-mails)

The simplest e-contract is concluded by the exchange of text documents via electronic communications, such as e-mail. Offers and acceptances can be exchanged totally by e-mails, or can be combined with paper documents, faxes, telephonic discussions, etc.

Acceptance of orders placed on online marketplaces

The vendor/ supplier can offer goods or services (such as air tickets, software, etc.) through his website. The vendee, in such cases, places an order by completing and transmitting the order form provided on the website. The merchandise may be physically delivered later (e.g., in case of outfits, CDS, books, etc) or be immediately delivered electronically (e.g., in case of e-tickets, software, etc).

Online agreements

In some cases, users are required to accept an online agreement in order to be able to avail the services e.g. clicking on ‘I agree’ while installing software or clicking on ‘I agree’ while signing up for an e-mail account.

The electronic data interchange (EDI)

It is the inter-process of communication of business information in a standardised electronic form. That is, they are contracts used in trade transactions which enable the transfer of data from one computer to another in such a way that each transaction in the trading cycle (for example, commencing from the receipt of an order from an overseas buyer, through the preparation and lodgment of export and other official documents, leading eventually to the shipment of the goods) can be processed with virtually no paperwork. In this case, the data is formatted by means of standard protocols, so that it can be implemented directly by the receiving computer. EDI is, frequently, used to transmit standard purchase orders, acceptances, invoices, and other records, and thus, reduces paperwork and the potential for human errors. In this type of contracts, in contrast to the above methods, there is an exchange of information and completion of contracts between two computers and not an individual and a computer.

Through electronic agents/ bots

It is possible for computer users to instruct the computer to carry out transactions robotically. For instance, in today’s supermarket, the computer updates its inventory as items are scanned for sale. When the stock of an item falls to a predetermined level, the computer is programmed, without human involvement, to contact the computer of the supplier and place an order for replacement stock. The supplier’s computer, exclusive of human intervention, accepts the order and the next morning automatically prints out worksheets and delivery sheets for the supply and transport staff.

These electronic agents are programmed by and with the authority of the purchaser and supplier. The legal status of electronic agents has not been clarified by the courts, but the most common view is that like any other piece of equipment under the control of the owner, the owner accepts responsibility. A computer is a tool programmed by or with a person’s authority to put into operation their intention to make or accept contractual offers.

According to Russell and Norving, ‘An agent is anything that can be viewed as perceiving its environment through sensors and acting upon that environment through effectors. A human agent has eyes, ears, and other organs for sensors, and hands, legs, mouth, and other body parts for effectors. A robotic agent substitutes cameras and infrared range finders for the sensors and various motors for the effectors. A software agent has encoded bit strings as its percepts and actions.’

Such electronic agents and devices have features which facilitate humans in their normal interaction and functions, such as, intelligence, autonomy and pro-activeness. The idea of having intelligent systems—to assist human beings with routine tasks, to shift through an enormous amount of information available to a user and select only that which is relevant—is not novel and a lot of work and results have already been achieved in the field of artificial intelligence (‘AI’).

Legal recognition of electronic agents

The E-COMMERCE DIRECTIVE 2000/31/EC of The European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 does not take in hand the issue of automated transaction made through electronic agents. The explanatory notes of the proposal of the Ecommerce Directive state that the Member States should refrain from preventing the use of certain electronic systems such as intelligent electronic agents for making a contract. But, the final version makes no reference to electronic agents in the main text or in the recital. The deletion of the proposed text furnishes a sign of the EU’s failure to respond to the tremendous growth of e-commerce. It is also not in consonance with the preamble to the Directive, which states that the purpose of the Directive is to stimulate economic growth, competitiveness and investment by removing many legal obstacles to the internal market in online provision of electronic commerce services. However, the exclusion of the provision giving legal recognition to electronic agents is a step backwards and a failure to recognise the role of electronic agents in fostering the development of e-commerce such as lower transaction costs, facilitate technology and adherence to international conventions.

The United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘UNCUECIC’) contains provisions dealing with issues such as determining a party’s location in an electronic environment; the time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic communications and the use of automated message systems for contract formation. Art.12 of the UNCUECIC, which deals with the use of automated message systems for contract formation, states, ‘A contract formed by the interaction of an automated message system and a natural person, or by the interaction of automated message systems, shall not be denied validity or enforceability on the sole ground that no natural person reviewed or intervened in each of the individual actions carried out by the automated message systems or the resulting contract.’ The objective behind the adoption of the uniform rules was to remove obstacles to the use of electronic communications in international contracts, including obstacles that might result from the operation of existing international trade law instruments, and to enhance legal certainty and commercial predictability for international contracts and help States gain access to modern trade routes.

In the USA, the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, 1999 (UETA) expressly recognises that an electronic agent may operate autonomously, and contemplates contracts formed through the interaction of electronic agents and those formed by the interaction of electronic agents and individuals.

Section 14 of the UETA reads as follows:

In an automated transaction, the following rules apply:

(1) A contract may be formed by the interaction of electronic agents of the parties, even if no individual was aware of or reviewed the electronic agents’ actions or the resulting terms and agreements.

(2) A contract may be formed by the interaction of an electronic agent and an individual, acting on the individual’s own behalf or for another person, including by an interaction in which the individual performs actions that the individual is free to refuse to perform and which the individual knows or has reason to know will cause the electronic agent to complete the transaction or performance.

(3) The terms of the contract are determined by the substantive law applicable to it.

Section 14 of the UETA, which is based upon Article 11 of the UNICTRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce, deals with ‘automated transaction’. This Section states that contracts can be formed by machines functioning as ‘electronic agents’ for parties to a transaction. It wipes out any claim that lack of human intent, at the time of contract formation, prevents contract formation. When machines are involved, the requirement of intention flows from the programming and use of the machine. It is quite evident that the main purpose of this provision of the UETA is to remove barriers to electronic transactions while leaving the substantive law, e.g., law of mistake, law of contract formation, unaffected to the greatest extent possible. Also, the Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act (UCITA) also has provisions supporting the ability of electronic agents to make binding contracts.

Recommended Readings

  • Wooldridge & Jennings, ‘Intelligent Agents: Theory and Practice’, Knowledge Engineering Review, (June 1995) Vol. 10 No. 2, Cambridge University Press (1995).
  • Alan Davidson, The Law of Electronic Commerce, Cambridge University Press, (2009).
  • R K Singh, Law Relating To Electronic Contracts (2017)

Simplifying FinTech and FinTech Laws: Regulatory Initiatives taken by Government and Regulators in India for FinTech

No industry in the economy can boom unless it is supported by the Government in the country it wishes to further expand in. A fine line exists between regulation and obstacles for the industry to boom. In light of this, the Government of India has begun to take initiatives and steps toward the stronger building of fintech in the country, paving the path for this industry to a brighter future. This post will give you a brief overview of all the regulatory initiatives that the Government and Regulators have taken to promote the FinTech in India. This is the fourth post in the series of ‘Simplifying FinTech and FinTech Laws’.

Fintech in the past decade has expanded rapidly. What once emerged as merely as an intersection point of financial services and technology, has now become an important aspect of India’s economy. With the vision of the country towards a digitized and less dependent economy with ‘make in India’, fintech has gained a larger space to expand in and function smoothly. According to the NASSCOM Report ‘Fintech Landing- Unlocking Untapped Potential’, it is because of initiatives in India that have led India to emerge as a leader for the fintech industry worldwide. According to this research by NASSCOM, India alone harbours 2% of the largest start-up base for fintech in the world and also leads in the rate of adoption of fintech at 87% adoption rate.

Not only the initiatives by the Government adversely affect the success of the fintech industry in the country, but the allied regulators of financial institutions play a role as well. These include regulators such as SEBI, RBI, Insurance Sector, etc. Such an encouraging atmosphere for the development of fintech in the country has increased faith in fintech among the consumers in the country, for easier and grass-root adoption and acceptance of fintech.

Initiatives by the Central Government

Encouragement for the Start-Ups

With the policies such as that of make in India and to boost the Indian economy, the start-ups are increasingly supported by the Government. In 2015 itself, over 12,000 start-ups in the area of fintech emerged across the world. In India, the initiative to support the start-ups was launched by the Central Government in 2016, reserving USD 1.5 billion funds to support the start-ups. Under the increased support, he start-ups began to receive in the country, there are more than 600 startups in fintech at present in India. It is in light of such an initiative begun by the Government and supported by the allied stakeholders that India progresses towards the vision of a completely digitalised economy, promoted innovation and leading economy with sustainable growth.
In further aid of this initiative that the Government has now introduced tax reliefs such as 3-year exemption from paying tax for the start-ups along with other exemptions, credit guarantee, etc.

Digitization of the Economy

The current Government fiercely promotes the digitization of the economy. Whether intended or not, the unprecedented demonetization has acted nothing less than a catalyst in increasing the digital payments in the country. Having scaled the benefits of digital payments, it is now increasingly used by the country than retreating back to the physical currency. Such an environment is an ideal environment for the fintech ecosystem to thrive in.

Taxation Reliefs

Apart from the policies of the Government to support the fintech, taxing regime plays a major role in the growth of the fintech industry in the country. The 2016 Budget introduced tax rebates for those traders who transacted more than 50% of their bill digitally. The Ministry of Finance further proposed withdrawal of surcharge on digital payments of cards and online used to avail government services. The surcharges as of now stay relaxed.

Protection of Intellectual Property

The fintech start-ups are supported with ease in the procurement of intellectual property (IP) acquirement. The facilitation in the acquirement of trademarks, patents, designs, etc. has led to an increase in the start-ups under the fintech industry in the country. Moreover, under the start-ups initiative, the Government offers 80% rebates for the patent costs required for the start-ups.

Infrastructural Plans

The Government’s plans to accelerate the economy of the country with digital India and Smart Cities have led to an increase in reliance upon fintech in the country more than ever. Not only the local fintech industry is expected to benefit out of his but the outsourcing and foreign investment are also expected to be increased to further the advancement of the fintech industry in the country.

National Payments Council of India

It is the umbrella organisation for all retail payments in India, under the guidance of RBI and Indian Banks Association. With the increase of multiple usages of mobiles in India and increased acceptance of Unified Payment Interface (UPI), there was a paved way for the National Payments Council in India (NPCI). The expected userbase of smartphones is by 2020 is 500 million. Thus, the digital footprint is expected to rise as well. Initiatives by the NPCI such as that of Rupay Cards have led to fintech adopting such technologies, penetrating further into the traditional banking system in the country.

India Stack

India Stack is a set of Application Program Interfaces that allow entities such as businesses, start-ups, governments and developers to engage in the utilisation of the digital infrastructure. This unique feature of India Stack helps to solve problems in ground level in India and promote the paperless, cashless and presence-less delivery system in India. India Stack mirrors the support system offered to the telecom industry back in the 1990s for the fintech industry in the country. This has enabled the manifold increase in fintech in the country and has facilitated easy adoption of fintech by the innovators, entrepreneurs, other industries and companies. However, after the Aadhaar judgment, the India Stack programme has stopped.

Initiatives by Financial Market Regulators

The financial market regulators (FMRs) role has gravely impacted the fate of the fintech industry in the country. Some of the primary FMRs are discussed herein:

Reserve Bank of India (RBI)

One of the most recent initiative by RBI for the adoption of fintech in the financial market is allowance to set up the regulatory sandbox. This refers to the controlled environment in which live testing of digitally innovative techniques may be conducted in the arenas of e-KYC, retail payments, management of wealth, etc. RBI has also acknowledged the possibility of fintech disruptions in the financial market, in light of which certain regulatory norms have been introduced. However, it is to be noted that these are purely regulatory in nature in benefit of the consumers and fintech industries, without creating a hurdle for the boom of the fintech industry. Moreover, to better understand the nitty-gritty of fintech in influencing the traditional financial market, RBI set up an inter regulatory working group to come up with an appropriate framework for fintech without disrupting its functions. RBI in 2017 released a ‘Report on Working Group on Fintech and Digital Banking’ acknowledging fintech to be a point of attention in today’s era and uncertain regulatory regime to stunt its growth. Thus, RBI persuades other sectors to be better apprised with fintech to come up with better and definable regulatory regime so as to not cause unprecedented or unforeseen loss to this industry and continue with its growth.

However, with no uniform set of guidelines and no particular authority to govern fintech, fintech at present faces loss in this area. The aforementioned market regulators have their own policies for fintech which often overlap and defeat the purpose of facilitating policies to obstacles fintech needs to overpower to ensure its smooth functioning. The grey areas of fintech require to be urgently addressed so that the booming growth does not reduce to stunted growth of the industry India expected to lead in future. It is expected with RBI’s report and acknowledged lacuna in the current fintech ecosystem, changes are soon to begun to take place across all sectors in the financial market to ease the functioning of fintech for greater benefits.

The RBI has also introduced several small fintech spaces in order to invite comments from general stakeholders before issuing any regulation governing new technologically innovative financial products. The RBI has released a ‘Draft enabling Framework for Regulatory Sandboxes’ which proposes guidelines on governing regulatory sandboxes to be established by RBI to check on the R&D of new fintech products and services.
The RBI, as well, has recognized the need for confidentiality and data protection. The RBI’s “Master Circular on Mobile Banking Transactions in India” states that “technology used for mobile banking must be secure and should ensure confidentiality”.

Below is the table that represents how well are such fin-tech regulatory sandboxes faring. This is an independent research initiative by the author.

Country Name of the Regulator Date of Starting Sandbox Name/ Project Name Number of Participants Remarks
The United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Launched in October 2014- First cohort of applications opened on May 2016 The regulatory sandbox is a part of the project called Innovate by FCA Nearly 375 Applications (Since 2016); Nearly 131 Applications have been accepted. Sources: FCA publication on’Regulatory Sandbox lesson learnt’ https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/research-and-data/regulatory-sandbox-lessons-learned-report.pdf. Also See, Official Webpage of the FCA Regulatory Sandbox, https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/regulatory-sandbox/cohort-1 Following sources have been referred to understand the framework of ‘Regulatory Sandboxes’ in the UK: 1) FCA publication on Regulatory Sandbox https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/research/regulatory-sandbox.pdf; 2) FCA publication on’Regulatory Sandbox lesson learnt’ https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/research-and-data/regulatory-sandbox-lessons-learned-report.pdf; 3) Guide to Financial and Regulatory Innovation https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/701847/UK_finanical___regulatory_innovation.pdf
Singapore Monetary Authority of Singapore Launched in November 2016 There are two kinds of Sandboxes that have been proposed under the MAS supervision: ‘Sandbox’ and ‘Sandbox Xpress’ Nearly 50 Formal Applications have been considered; Half were withdrawn; 1/3rd proceeded without the need of Sandbox; remaining being approved or under review. (till 2019) Source: NUS CBFL working paper 19/04 https://law.nus.edu.sg/cbfl/pdfs/working_papers/CBFL-WPS-1904.pdf The low figures of participation is because MAS is very specifically selective about the applicants and MAS’ view of Sandbox as a last resort to facilitate innovation,
with the primary tool being instituting facilitative regulations in the first place. Further readings are important: https://law.nus.edu.sg/cbfl/pdfs/working_papers/CBFL-WPS-1904.pdf; MAS gidelines on Sandbox https://www.mas.gov.sg/-/media/MAS/Smart-Financial-Centre/Sandbox/FinTech-Regulatory-Sandbox-Guidelines-19Feb2018.pdf?la=en&hash=B1D36C055AA641F580058339 09448CC19A014F7; The MAS Act https://www.mas.gov.sg/regulation/acts/mas-act
Australia Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) Launched in December, 2016 Fintech Regulatory Sandbox is a part of Project Innovation Hub by the ASIC As set out in ASIC’s Innovation Hub Progress Report as of October 2018, 314 entities requested and received informal assistance, and 67 new AFSLs/ACLs were granted. In 2018–19, the Innovation Hub provided informal assistance to over 190 businesses (fintech and regtech), helping them consider regulatory issues early and where relevant prepare licence or relief applications. Source:ASIC Cooperation Report 2017-18 https://download.asic.gov.au/media/4922434/annual-report-2017-18-published-31-october-2018-section5.pdf & ASIC Cooperation Report 2018-19 https://download.asic.gov.au/media/5314426/asic-annual-report-2018-19-section-5.pdf. The Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 2) Bill 2019 (Bill) could provide an example of ideal specific legislative framework related to Fintech Sandboxes given the number of benefits it proposes. The Bill aims to enhance the existing regime by enabling more businesses to test a wider range of financial products and services, for a longer period of time. The Federal Government anticipates that this will help drive competition in the financial services industry, incentivising financial providers to be more responsive to the needs of consumers. While the Bill broadens the types of credit products and services which are eligible for the regime, it simultaneously imposes stricter requirements on credit services which are already subject to the regime. Sources referred: ASIC expands Sandbox Regime https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=825aafdb-0cf4-4dfd-b6b0-be411bb5f957;
Malaysia Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) through its cross-functional group the Financial Technology Enabler Group (FTEG) Launched in October 2016 Regulatory Sandbox Till October 2019, 80 applications have been submitted under the Financial Technology Regulatory Sandbox. Source: Assistant Governor Keynote Address at the Takaful Rendezvous 2019 – “Leading in a Disruptive World – Revolutionising Takaful” at https://www.bnm.gov.my/index.php?ch=en_speech&pg=en_speech&ac=841. In 2017, there have been four confirmed participants and while in 2018 , there have been six confirmed participants (in which 1 exited later). Source: The State of Regulatory Sandboxes in Developing Countries, Digital Financial Services Observatory, Columbia Institute for Teleinformation, Columbia University, New York, https://dfsobservatory.com/sites/default/files/DFSO%20-%20The%20State%20of%20Regulatory%20Sandboxes%20in%20Developing%20Countries%20-%20PUBLIC.pdf Sources to refer: 1) BNM has provided a regulatory framework for the ‘Fintech Regulatory Sandbox Framework”. http://www.bnm.gov.my/index.php?ch=57&pg=137&ac=533&bb=file; 2) Infographics explain it all, https://www.myfteg.com/?page_id=1129; 3) The State of Regulatory Sandboxes in Developing Countries, Digital Financial Services Observatory, Columbia Institute for Teleinformation, Columbia University, New York, https://dfsobservatory.com/sites/default/files/DFSO%20-%20The%20State%20of%20Regulatory%20Sandboxes%20in%20Developing%20Countries%20-%20PUBLIC.pdf; 4) FAQs related to Sandbox, https://www.myfteg.com/?page_id=1133.
Hong Kong Hong Kong Monetary Authority Launched in November, 2016 Fintech Supervisory Sandbox (FSS) Nearly 170 Tested Participants [By the end of 2017, 28 fintech products tested (HKMA Annual Report 2017, Pg109, https://www.hkma.gov.hk/media/eng/publication-and-research/annual-report/2017/AR2017E.pdf), then by 2018, 42 products have been tested (HKMA Annual Report 2018, Pg.7, https://www.hkma.gov.hk/media/eng/publication-and-research/annual-report/2018/AR2018E.pdf) and till October 2019, around 92 new technology projects have been tested (Usage of the FSS until the end of October 2019, https://www.hkma.gov.hk/eng/key-functions/international-financial-centre/fintech/fintech-supervisory-sandbox-fss/)%5D. Nearly 84 products have been rolled out in the Market successfully (14 in 2017, 28 in 2018 and 42 till October 2019) Following sources are required to be referred to: HKMA-FSS framework of guidelines, https://www.hkma.gov.hk/media/eng/doc/key-information/guidelines-and-circular/2016/20160906e1.pdf; HKMA Annual Report 2017, Pg109, https://www.hkma.gov.hk/media/eng/publication-and-research/annual-report/2017/AR2017E.pdf.
Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) September, 2017 SFC Regulatory Sandboxes In 2018, there have been 2 firms that have been tested. (Source: https://bfsi.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/regtech/global-sandbox-by-gfin-to-boost-cross-border-innovation-in-financial-services-fintech-association-of-hong-kong/69376356) Checked all the official reports but they have not provided any explicit number. I have scheduled a call with Syed Musari, Chairman of the HK Fintech Assn. [On call also he said there are 2 only such firms that have been confirmed till now) Following Sources: ‘Circular to announce SFC Regulatory Sandbox’, https://www.sfc.hk/edistributionWeb/gateway/EN/circular/openFile?refNo=17EC63
Insurance Authority (“IA”) Launched in September, 2017 IA Insur-tech Sandbox Since the launch of Insurtech Sandbox until end February 2019, IA received eight sandbox applications and two were completed and rolled out to the market. Source: Discussion Paper, Legislative Council Panel on Financial Affairs, LC Paper No. CB(1) 70/18-19(04), Pg.6, https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr18-19/english/panels/fa/papers/fa20190401cb1-760-4-e.pdf Following sources can be referred to: 1) https://www.ia.org.hk/en/aboutus/insurtech_corner.html#1 ; 2) Discussion Paper, Legislative Council Panel on Financial Affairs, LC Paper No. CB(1) 70/18-19(04), Pg.6, https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr18-19/english/panels/fa/papers/fa20190401cb1-760-4-e.pdf
Bahrain Central Bank of Bahrain’s FinTech and Innovation Unit Launched in May 2017 The Regulatory Sandbox Since its launch in 2017, 35 Fintech participants have been included in the Sandbox. (As provided on the official website in the section of ‘Regulatory Sandbox Register’ at https://www.cbb.gov.bh/fintech/). Although, till 2018 CBB received 48 applications. (Source: CBB Annual Report, https://www.cbb.gov.bh/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/CBB-Annual-Report-2018-English-1.pdf) Following sources: 1) ‘Regulatory Sandbox Register’ at https://www.cbb.gov.bh/fintech/ ; 2) CBB Annual Report, https://www.cbb.gov.bh/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/CBB-Annual-Report-2018-English-1.pdf; 3) The Circular https://cbb.complinet.com/net_file_store/new_rulebooks/c/o/Cover_letter-Regulatory_Sandbox-Amended28Aug2017.pdf
Netherlands De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) Aand Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) as per their MoC (Memorandum of Cooperation) Launched in January 2017 Regulatory Sandbox’ under the Innovation Hub There is no specifc register or data that is available for the number of entities that are strictly part of the Regulatory Sandbox (Even in their guiding paper released in December 2016, they specifically stated in Section 4, at Pg.5, that “such requests are confidential and will be treated as such”.) Although, the regulators have shared that total 650 queries has been received by the Innovation Hub and Sandbox together till 28th August 2019 (Source: Report DNB-AFM, Continuing Dialogue, InnHub and RegSandbox: lessons learned after three years, https://www.dnb.nl/en/binaries/Continuing%20dialogue_tcm47-385301.pdf) Following Sources can be referred to: 1) De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, https://www.debrauw.com/alert/dnb-afm-create-regulatory-sandbox/; 2) Guiding paper/Framework related to Regulatory Sandbox, https://www.dnb.nl/en/binaries/More-room-for-innovation-in-the-financial%20sector_tcm47-361364.pdf?2020011512; 3) Report DNB-AFM, Continuing Dialogue, InnHub and RegSandbox: lessons learned after three years, https://www.dnb.nl/en/binaries/Continuing%20dialogue_tcm47-385301.pd; 4) European Banking Authority, Report, FinTech: Regulatory sandboxes and innovation hubs, https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/jc_2018_74_joint_report_on_regulatory_sandboxes_and_innovation_hubs.pdf.)
UAE Financial Services Regulatory Authority Launched in August 2016. Although, the first cohort started in May 2017 FinTech Regulatory Laboratory (RegLab) Until October 2019, 185 Applicants, 74 Participated – [First Cohort: 11 Applicants, 5 Selected (Official Press Release, https://www.adgm.com/media/announcements/abu-dhabi-global-market-admits-first-5-regional-and-international-reglab-applicants); Second Cohort: 22 Applicants, 11 Selected (Official Press Release, https://www.adgm.com/media/announcements/abu-dhabi-global-market-admits-2nd-reglab-cohort-with-11-more-local–global-fintech-firms); Third Cohort: 69 Applicants, 26 Selected (Official Press Release, https://www.adgm.com/media/announcements/abu-dhabi-global-market-admits-3rd-reglab-cohort-with-more-uae-fintech-firms); Fourth Cohort:83 Applicants, 32 Selected (Official Press Release, https://www.adgm.com/media/announcements/adgm-admits-4th-reglab-cohort)%5D. Following sources: 1) The official Guidance, The guidance paper, http://adgm.complinet.com/net_file_store/new_rulebooks/f/i/FinTech_RegLab_Guidance_VER01_31082016.pdf; 2) Entire legal framework and associated papers can be found here http://adgm.complinet.com/en/display/display_main.html?rbid=4503&element_id=13995.

Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI)

The presence of SEBI has largely affected the financial market for over two and a half decades now. The interface of technology in the financial market has only led to a rise in the financial sector. It has led to efficiency in the system of trading, reduced costs of transactions and an increase in consumer base. Not only this, technology has played a significant role in democratising the financial market. While these remain the immediate effect felt of technology as it entered the financial market, more recent are the machine-based and algorithmic trading. SEBI has warmly welcomed technology in the market with screen-based trading, dematerialisation of shares and using it as a platform to offer nationwide trading. The capital market in India with such innovations backed by SEBI has witnessed the transformation in recent years.

Insurance Sector

The innovation in the insurance sector has always been thought about twice, such that its adoption has remained the slowest in this sector in the financial market. However, the past decade with the rise of fintech has seen the regime of insurance sector change, especially with the digital channels and process automation. Technology has further led to the addition of personal touch and customised services for consumers. The fintech had led to increasing common conscience of the society to repose faith in the insurance sector due to customised services and cost-effective functions. Fintech has ensured that the start-ups in the insurance sector do not act as a tool of disruption in the insurance sector and spread a sense of insecurity amongst the existing companies but act as a collaborator, collate the efforts of all and direct services for the benefit of the consumers.

Recommended Readings:

Solve India’s problems’: Modi launches Rs 100 billion fund, generous tax breaks for Indian start-ups, First Post, 17 January 2016, http://www.firstpost.com/business/pm-modis-grandinitiative-for-indian-start-ups-a-rs-10000-cr-fund-3-year-tax-rebate-2587272.html accessed on 25 May 2016.
Budget 2016: Start-ups get 100 per cent tax exemption for 3 years on profits, 29 February 2016, DNA India, http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report-budget-2016-start-ups-get-100-taxexemption-for-3-years-on-profits-2183981(last accessed on 25 May 2019).

Manisha Shroff, Nikita Nehriya, Ankit Chavan and Praneetha Vasan, Data Privacy: Have Banking Laws in India kept pace with Technology, Indian Law News Vol 9 Issue 2, at https://www.khaitanco.com/PublicationsDocs/IndiaLawNews-KCOcoverageManishaShroff-Copy%20(2).pdf

A Step Ahead: Analysing Indian Arbitration Law in the Context of International Technology Disputes

[This article was first published on the Mapping ADR Blog as authored by Aryan Babele,  you can read this article at http://mappingadr.in/a-step-ahead-analysing-indian-arbitration-law-in-the-context-of-international-technology-disputes/]

Technology-based enterprises are becoming the leaders of the global market in its every aspect. No industry has experienced such explosive growth as has been experienced by the industry of technology-based enterprises; especially in the context of globalization of the economy and the complementary expansion in international trade in recent years. The technology industry is indeed an international sphere due to its components, viz international supplying and distributing networks that have enabled manufacturers to provide their technology products/services to consumers at a global scale. For instance, Biotechnology is high in demand at global scale due to its influence in multiple spheres- medical, environmental, industrial etc., which are facilitated by processes like manufacturing, licensing and distributing. The global economy has given a significant boost to the demands on flexible dispute resolution, including international arbitration, as a means for resolving technology business disputes. This characteristic of technology business has become one of the main driving forces to the fact that the technology industry is progressively adopting arbitration as a dispute resolution method for international transactions where the base of its customers, suppliers and resources is established across multiple jurisdictions. As the competition to become a leader for the proper seat of technology-arbitration is becoming stiffer among nations, it is interesting to note that why arbitration is better than litigation for technology disputes. Further, considering India’s huge Information Technology industry, it is important to analyse the preparedness of the arbitration law of India to handle the international technology arbitrations.

In the technology industry, the contracts between two parties are most often based on the objective to provide services such as to acquire, sell or finance a high-tech business or project; manufacture, distribute and/or deliver; license patents or other intellectual property rights (IPRs); and purchase insurance policies covering risks associated with the production or operation of high-tech assets.[1] Therefore, difficulty with litigation in technology disputes, that arises out of a contract is that it involves multi-faceted issues related to different rights- acquisition, patent, know-how, trade secrets, etc. Fulfilment of liabilities established by such rights needs certain assurances from the national law regarding neutrality, speedy and flexible procedures, fulfilment of intentions and needs of the parties, confidentiality protection, experts’ decision etc.

DISADVANTAGES OF LITIGATION IN INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY DISPUTES

In litigation, the major disadvantage to the parties in a technology dispute is the decision by an inexpert who is not able to appreciate the technicalities of a scientific testimony with little or no knowledge of relevant legislation and regulations. Players in fast-paced technology markets cannot afford to have progress stalled for lengthy and expensive litigation due to unexpected adjournments and options of appeal to higher courts.[2] Public nature of judicial proceedings makes the preservation of confidentiality a problematic task in litigation, which is extremely significant for technology-based enterprises. In litigation there arises a situation where legal actions for a dispute are submitted across multiple jurisdictions simultaneously, leading to uncertain and risky results. In such a scenario, even the litigators find it very uncomfortable to litigate abroad surrounded by unfamiliar foreign laws, regulations, customs, or language. Therefore, given the risks, it is not reasonable for technology-based enterprises to always opt for litigation in order to get resolve the international business disputes.

ARBITRATION: A SUITABLE DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM

As litigation is not always the best resolution method for the disputes which involve technology-based enterprises, there is a need to explore an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. In an international dispute, the greatest concern for both the parties is the favourability of the substantive and procedural laws of a particular jurisdiction to one or the other party. International arbitration provides the autonomy to the parties to decide the law and the forum which will govern the procedural and substantive aspects of the dispute resolution. As the pace of settling a dispute is given major consideration in commercial disputes, especially for technology business, the inherent characteristic of arbitration proceedings being a cheaper and a quicker process makes it an attractive approach to resolve disputes. As there is no appeal on the merits in arbitration, it is another reason for it being a swifter process than litigation.[3] Even if such an appeal to the Courts for the enforcement of the final award, that is too a streamlined process with time limits on the decision.[4] Arbitration, in contrast to the litigation, assures the confidentiality privilege pursuant to the agreement as it is a private procedure. Further, the availability of uniform rules for international commercial arbitration better meets the requirement of parties in the context of international technology disputes. For example, the success of the New York Convention, 1958, that has been ratified by 145 nations, boosts the confidence in the parties to afford the international arbitration as a mechanism for dispute resolution. Therefore, it is amply clear that all the usual advantages of arbitration in commercial disputes are applicable to the technology disputes making it a more efficient and effective dispute resolution alternative to litigation.

ANALYSING THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY DISPUTES

After a lot of serious bureaucratic deliberations and political-intellectual debates, comprehensive overhauling of the Arbitration Act of 1940 resulted in the enactment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. With recent amendments in 2015, considering judgements of the Apex Court of India in cases of Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading[5]and BALCO v. Kaiser[6]it consolidated the domestic as well as international law of arbitration to make it suitable to the international commercial disputes in a better way than ever before. It further reflects the standards of the UNCITRAL model law on international commercial arbitration to promote the neutral and independent arbitral proceedings in India. Almost every provision of the Act 1996 takes into consideration the intent of the parties in one form or another. It also stresses the significance of arbitration agreement providing the instrument for parties to choose the expert decision makers and their powers as arbitrator in the arbitral proceedings.[7]

Privacy is a major concern for the technology disputes and constant interference of the national courts in arbitral proceedings subject it to broader public scrutiny, due to which not only confidentiality but also flexibility, procedural predictability, and informality of arbitral proceeding gets fragmented. The Act of 1996 provides a very limited number of circumstances in which national courts can intervene in arbitral proceedings, allowing arbitrations to take place according to its natural flow. The Act considers the principle of ‘party autonomy’ as the essence of the arbitration. It provides for an arbitral tribunal with power to rule on its own jurisdiction and determine the rules of proceedings[8], in order to ensure proper and expeditious conduct of the arbitration between parties, preserving the party autonomy. It further excludes the intervention from national courts by allowing the continuation of arbitral proceedings and making of final awards, thereby eliminating prospects for the delay.[9] To keep parties responsible towards the arbitral proceedings, the tribunal has powers to further delineate procedural duties on each party that comes with certain obligations such as security for costs and dismissal of the claim, in order to avoid any inordinate delay.[10]

In technology disputes, one of the most sought-after reliefs is interim reliefs as most of the international technology disputes arise from the contracts/license agreements. In such disputes, at the time of any deadlock, it is the aim of the licensor to pause the exploitation of technology and trade secrets. The Act has given the power to the tribunal to order such relief on a provisional basis but that is highly subjected to the scrutiny of national courts.[11] Also, it provides power to the tribunal to make an interim arbitral award at any time of the proceedings.[12] For technology arbitrations, there is a requirement of more specific and clearer provisions. The Act is supposed to confer such power on the arbitral tribunal with more substantiated provisions elaborating on the situations and conditions in which the tribunal can grant such injunctive reliefs.

Further, the Act is also required to make broader provisions regarding the protection of privacy and confidentiality of the details of parties and subject of the arbitral proceedings. It is certainly a big requirement for technology disputes that there be a provision related to blanket cover for issues of protecting the confidentiality. Therefore, particularly in relation to international technology disputes, the Act 1996 is needed to provide greater assurance and discretion to parties in terms of choice of arbitration institution, choice of an expert for arbitration (especially expertise in Telecommunication, Media and Technology laws), and IP infringement disputes.[13]

CONCLUSION

Technology-based enterprises drive the major transformations of the world by providing solutions to some of the greatest conventional anomalies. As there will be more and more research and development of technologies, they would result in more commercial contracts. Trodding the same path, there would soon be a separate pile-up of technology disputes in national courts. Hence, it is the need of the hour for parties to consider other dispute resolution mechanisms that are more expeditious and flexible.

Technology companies are themselves starting to anticipate this and increasingly choosing arbitration to resolve the international disputes, as stated by SVAMC as well.[14] Western nations and developed nations from Pacific Rim t have also understood the significance of resolving the technology disputes in a more speedy manner and have already taken specific actions for rectifying the concerns.

For India, there is a stiff competition ahead to stand as a centre for the arbitration in international technology disputes. There is no doubt that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides an attractive framework for the resolution of international commercial disputes; but for technology disputes, there is a need to take a step ahead and to incorporate in the Act broader provisions relevant to interim reliefs, more flexible confidentiality clauses, e-case management, efficient e-disclosure review etc. Given India’s established law of arbitration in place and booming IT industry, there is a great opportunity for India to play a leader’s role in resolving international technology disputes.

 

 

[1] Raymond G. Bender, Arbitration- An Ideal Way to Resolve High-Tech Industry Disputes, Dispute Resolution Journal Vol. 65 (4), https://svamc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Arbitration-An-Ideal-Way-to-Resolve-High-Tech-Industry-Disputes.pdf.

[2] Sandra J. Franklin, “Arbitrating Technology Cases—Why Arbitration May Be More Effective than Litigation When Dealing with Technology Issues,” Mich. Bar J. 31, 32 (July 2001).

[3]Supra note 1.

[4]§34, The Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Act no. 26 of 1996, Acts of Parliament. (India). https://indiankanoon.org/doc/536284/

[5] (2002) 4 SCC 105. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110552/

[6] (2012) 9 SCC 552.https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173015163/

[7]§§ 7, 11, Supra note 5.

[8] §§ 16, 19, id.

[9] § 16(5), id.

[10] §§ 9(ii)(b), 4(b), id.

[11] §17, id.

[12] § 31(6), id.

[13] Norton Rose Fulbright, Arbitration in technology disputes, International Law Office, (Nov. 9, 2017), https://www.internationallawoffice.com/Newsletters/Arbitration-ADR/International/Norton-Rose-Fulbright-US-LLP/Arbitration-in-technology-disputes

[14] Gary L. Benton, Technology Dispute Resolution Survey Highlights US and International Arbitration Perceptions, Misperceptions and Opportunities, Kluwer-Arbitration Blog, http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2017/10/28/technology-dispute-resolution-survey-highlights-us-international-arbitration-perceptions-misperceptions-opportunities/

The Road to GDPR: Historical Context behind the European Data-Protection Laws

Since the last few months, internet users are receiving hundreds of emails or pop-ups from different websites regarding the frequent updates in their privacy policies. It is a formal process that most of the Europe based firms and service providers are completing, in order to become compliant with the most-debated General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). It was on 25th May 2018, that the European Union’s GDPR came into force, providing significant upgrades to the E.U. data protection regulatory framework. It is a regulatory policy enhancement over the EU Directives 95/46/EC on Data Protection, adopted 20 years ago, which was centered on the protection of personal data of individuals in the era of early users of Internet that were engaged in processing and free movement of such data situated in various cyber-cafes. The directives later became the in-hand limitations that directed the internet service providers with a procedure that is to be adopted before handling data-processing of personal information of users. After 20 years, the Internet is ubiquitous in our lives as its application is prevalent around us everywhere. Therefore, recent GDPR requirements are going to massively impact the data-usage practices of both the consumers and the companies.

2016-01-30_GDPR_history

GDPR is a very much talked about topic these days as there is a lot of confusion surrounding that what is covered by GDPR and what not. The debate on the acceptance of GDPR became more heated as a string of Small and Medium Enterprises withdrawn from the EU market or shut down operations entirely in order to avoid the hefty costs of compliance. Such events itself tells that the GDPR is a strict law. GDPR is a far-reaching and multifaceted regulation, requiring the companies to provide significant control to consumers over their personal-data including establishing new rights for the individual (right of data portability, right to be forgotten, data localisation etc.). Another stringent check on companies is the debated-introduction of fines up to €20 million or 4 percent of the company’s turnover in case of breach of data-privacy by the company. Unarguably this makes EU a regulatory superpower, leading the pack of stricter regulations, on data-protection. Why EU is so adamant to afford such stricter regulations that can break up the global internet into regional or national chunks? The seriousness of the penalties reflects a European approach to privacy that can be traced back, in large part, to the history of its members’ experiences with personal data being used for certainly wrong purposes. To have a clear focus on GDPR and European approach to data protection, it is important to explore the dark past related to data protection in Europe.

The causes for adopting a very strict approach can be traced back to the Europe of World War II era, during which the Nazis in Germany consistently abused private data and personal information in order to create profiles of citizens and identify Jews and other minority groups. During the Nazi regime, the state’s control of market brought with it control of information technology as well. The access to such information-data also provided a door to the census information that indicated residents’ nationalities, native languages, religion, and profession. The punch cards that were used to feed in this information are the early data processors known as Hollerith machines, allegedly manufactured by IBM’s German subsidiary at the time Deutsche Hollerith Maschinen GmbH (Dehomag), as also mentioned in the book titled IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America’s most powerful Corporation. The use of census data to create a database of personal profiles according to which a broad level of discriminatory policies can be imposed- is a disturbing fact related to dark past of free movement of data.

Exploitation of private data didn’t end in Germany with the WWII coming to the end, but it was continued in the East German state as to keep in track the pro-Nazi agenda and later, in cold war era, spies of West German states. This was the first kind of mass surveillance by any state in the history through screening of private communications, periodical searching of houses, etc. The state kept the details of each and every personal data in their database from people’s friends to their sexual habits. Stasi, East German secret police force became most famous due to carrying out of such practices. As the Stasi started cross-border surveillance, in response, in 1970 West Germany approved what’s considered the country’s first modern data privacy legal framework concerning public sector data in the West German state of Hesse. This was followed by a 1977 Federal Data Protection Act designed to protect resident “against abuse in their storage, transmission, modification, and deletion.” West Europe’s push on privacy-related matters rendered the right to privacy a legal imperative in the Data Protection Convention (Treaty 108), as adopted by the Council of Europe.

Such concerns related to the exploitation of census data led to a landmark German Federal Constitutional Court’s judgment that the right of “self-determination over personal data” is a fundamental right. Later, this became the cornerstone of the EU’s view today. With the wave of European countries debating on the issue of the importance of personal information-data of citizens, the first data protection legislation was introduced into the Irish domestic law was the Data Protection Act of 1988, along with many commonwealth countries adopting such comprehensive legislation into their domestic law. The end of Cold War coincided with the rise in data transfers throughout Europe in the ‘90s. This is how migrating market throughout the European continent became a threat to the personal data of citizens of individual European states. Therefore, in order to establish a single market EU also included a 1995 E.U. data protection regulation, and cautious attitudes about privacy became a European norm. The European Data Protection Directive is created, reflecting technological advances and introducing new terms including processing, sensitive personal data, and consent, among others.

The 1995 Directive was implemented as EU further adopted the Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications in 2002. In 2006, the EU Directive on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks is adopted. Although it was declared invalid by a Court of Justice ruling in 2014 for violating fundamental rights. By 2009, the EU Electronic Communications Regulations in response to email addresses and mobile numbers evolved as becoming prime currency in conducting marketing and sales campaigns. Perhaps most famously, in 2014 Europe’s top court, the Court of Justice of the European Union, affirmed the so-called right to be forgotten and ruled that Google has to abide by user requests to take down “data that appear to be inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant” — and since then, Google has received 655,000 requests to remove about 2.5 million links, and complied with 43.3% of those requests. (Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (es), Mario Costeja González, ECLI:EU:C:2014:317)

Given such a complex historical backdrop, the European data-protection legislations are intuitively more appealing and less subject to resistance. Europe has been always the most active regime in terms of enactments related to protections on privacy that tend to apply all sectors of the economy. To this legacy, GDPR is just a significant upgrade to that 1995 law. In the light of Cambridge Analytica’s Facebook data breach and the Equifax hack, such upgrade is being considered as a step that will reinforce consumer confidence with an assurance of protection of their personal data. Other regulations will require an update in alignment with GDPR, such as the ePrivacy Directive and Regulation 45/2001, which applies to the EU institutions when they process personal data. Member states are entitled to provide specific rules or derogations to the GDPR, where freedom of expression and information is concerned, or in the context of employment law or the preservation of scientific or historical research.

Balancing the Regulation and the Innovation: GDPR and AI

Artificial Intelligence (AI) sector is promising an altogether new generation of technological advancement being highly disruptive and productive for the Industry 4.0. AI is a constellation of technologies performing different cognitive functions- data analysis to language learning that assists a machine to understand thoughts, experiences and senses. The major functioning of A.I is to analyse the data and provide responses in accordance to the collected intelligence, basically AI provides a sui generis ability to analyse the big data applications in its various dimensions. Therefore, AI is most about the computer-generated behaviours which is considered intelligent in human beings. The concept of AI has existed for some time now, and contemporarily it is a reason of rapidly increasing computational power in industry (a phenomenon known as Moore’s law) [i] leading to the point where AI market will surpass $100 billion by 2025.[ii] AI is significant as it will transform the medium of interaction between humans and technology resulting in overall societal advantages such as inventiveness, innovation and confidence.

With all the advancement that AI will bring in the industry, it brings a lot of concern for regulators across the different jurisdictions. One of the major concerns with the application of AI is its character of feasting on large amount of data and hence its impact on data-privacy. This is making the regulators hesitant in order to allow AI start-ups to initiate any kind of large-scale activities based on AI technology. AI start-ups are soon going to hit a major impediment as the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is in effect now. The GDPR, adopted in April 2016, is being considered as the intention of European Union (EU) to form a strengthened, integrated and unified data-privacy mechanism within the EU. It aims primarily to provide the EU citizens an instrument of more control over their personal data and its protection. It provides a framework in which individuals will have liberty to ask questions that how the companies or institutions are processing and storing their personal data. The challenge of full accountability to consumer as strictly put mentioned by the GDPR makes the collection of data by more difficult impacting the AI start-ups which are absolutely dependant on varieties of personal data for machine-learning initiatives.

When it comes to knowing the specific limits that GDPR will put on AI start-ups and services then it can be explained in two-fold impacts. Firstly, processing of data has direct legal effects on the customer, such as credit applications, e-recruiting, or workplace monitoring, the GDPR will completely limit the usefulness of AI or these purposes as the Article 22 and Recital 71[iii] strictly provides for the requirement of explicit consent for each and every unit of data that is used making the functioning of the market slower. Secondly, the algorithms that the AI developers use for the application evolve themselves making it later not at all understandable, and this data combination becomes very complex to regulate.[iv]

The way out for AI start-ups seems to be in the organisational procedures that can standardise the obtaining of consent for the governance of the data within a well-structured data management framework. To be in compliance with the GDPR while processing the huge amount of data it is required that AI developers provide a fixed policy of filing an automated appeal to consumers. Illustrating this it is required that if a consumer is denied the service by any AI application, developers should provide a chance to know the reason to that consumer i.e. an appeal. It is worth mentioning that it is humans that have created, modified and implemented AI technology and they also have the potential to make it compliant and moderate according to the reasonable considerations of regulators. GDPR is not an evil for AI applications but it is just a regulatory initiative with which if AI technology develops, it will get more confidence of the potential consumers.

[i] ICO, Big Data, Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Data Protection, Information Commissioner’s Office, https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/2013559/big-data-ai-ml-and-data-protection.pdf.

[ii] Todd Wright and Mary Beth, The GDPR: An Artificial Intelligence Killer?, Datanami, https://www.datanami.com/2018/02/27/gdpr-artificial-intelligence-killer/.

[iii] David Roe, Understanding GDPR and Its impact on the Development of AI, CMS wire, https://www.cmswire.com/information-management/understanding-gdpr-and-its-impact-on-the-development-of-ai/.

[iv] David Meyer, AI Has a Big Privacy Problem and Europe’s New Data Protection Law Is About to Expose It, Fortune, http://fortune.com/2018/05/25/ai-machine-learning-privacy-gdpr/.

Understanding the ‘Technology of Regulation’: Regulating the Scientific Advancements

Regulations are most often considered as adversaries of technological changes. The position of technology is to stimulate the growth of the enterprises, markets, and industries, while the periodical regulations as issued by the government, represents the limits that are imposed on this growth. This is the general conception of regulations that is no doubt everyone has regarding the regulation of technology since the 1970s when the debate started which was focused on controlling the nation-states expedition of nuclear energy, supersonic transport, and food additives. Today, the debate continues as the fears of technologies such as dark web, genetically modified foods etc. calling for regulations as precautionary measures. And to an extent, the conflict is unavoidable.

The dynamics that are induced by the technology revolution are credited with half or more productivity growth. The process of ‘creative destruction’ by entrepreneurs who devise new ways of producing goods and services is potentially a far more potent source of progress that is short-term price competition, as pointed out by Schumpeter. However, regulation can retard all of Schumpeter’s three stages of technological change: invention, innovation, and diffusion.

Every negative in the whole story is just not about the regulations. An anxiety amounts when there is talk about driverless cars, artificial intelligence, and social media, regulation is the only way to relax the stress of uncertainties that these technological changes will bring in lives of humans. These are not the views of legislators only, but also from the people who are driving these technologies and people who are driven by these technologies.

Is there a way to balance regulation and technology? The way seems to be accepting the change in the technology of regulation. Regulations are being imposed in traditional ways only such that considered to be of one type and of effecting in one way only. However, there is a way to explore more in this regard, just as there are many different types of technologies, there are many different types of regulations. Different technology instruments, such as technical requirements, performance standards, taxes, allowances, and information disclosure, can have very different effects on technological change and other important consequences.

One of the main reasons that the present regulatory technology is not rendering desired results is that the state regulators are not dedicating the time, energy, or funding to the regulations in the way the technology is developed. The key to bringing in the same creativity and inspiration into the regulations, such that the incentivized-approach must be followed, is to allow the private regulators to build the regulatory systems of the digital age.

The drivers of this shift are often ultimately regulated companies themselves- looking to define a reasonably reliable playing field on which they and their competitors meet. Private regulators are already regulating to a certain extent by having autonomy over the governance of choosing their terms and conditions of the ‘agreement’ which is the main source of the entire corporate control. Another compelling reason for bringing up the private regulators in the game is that the private entities are closer to what is happening, at increasingly high speed, on the ground, and in the cloud is not going to go away till the time they are responsible for developing new technologies.

It is very important to create a supervised cohort of private regulators. This gets the best of both worlds: the regulations that follow the incentivized approach and being accountable to the government and the understanding of these regulations to the market players in very clear terms. The question of arbitrariness because of these regulators cannot creep in as the licenses to regulate will always be in the hands of the government. Further, they have to keep their regulatory clients happy by developing easier, less costly and more flexible ways of implementing regulatory controls.

The sooner we adopt the new technology of regulation and move beyond the idea that conventional regulation can handle the challenges of our powerful new technologies, the better. The idea to regulate the innovative and disruptive technologies is a useless idea unless we figure out how to harness the power of markets, and new approaches to government accountability, to that task.

(This blog series will explore and cover all the areas of regulations that are present and required for adjusting the balance with certain scientific advancements. Suggestions and Improvements are invited from readers)