Strengthening legal protection against discrimination by algorithms and artificial intelligence

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.02859v1
• Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2025 09:54:03 GMT
• Title: Strengthening legal protection against discrimination by algorithms and artificial intelligence
• Authors: Frederik J. Zuiderveen Borgesius,
• Abstract summary: The paper evaluates current legal protection in Europe against discriminatory algorithmic decisions.<n>The paper argues for sector-specific - rather than general - rules, and outlines an approach to regulate algorithmic decision-making.
• Score: 1.0406659081400351
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Algorithmic decision-making and other types of artificial intelligence (AI) can be used to predict who will commit crime, who will be a good employee, who will default on a loan, etc. However, algorithmic decision-making can also threaten human rights, such as the right to non-discrimination. The paper evaluates current legal protection in Europe against discriminatory algorithmic decisions. The paper shows that non-discrimination law, in particular through the concept of indirect discrimination, prohibits many types of algorithmic discrimination. Data protection law could also help to defend people against discrimination. Proper enforcement of non-discrimination law and data protection law could help to protect people. However, the paper shows that both legal instruments have severe weaknesses when applied to artificial intelligence. The paper suggests how enforcement of current rules can be improved. The paper also explores whether additional rules are needed. The paper argues for sector-specific - rather than general - rules, and outlines an approach to regulate algorithmic decision-making.

Related papers

• Price discrimination, algorithmic decision-making, and European non-discrimination law [0.2262632497140704]
  algorithmic decision-making can have discriminatory effects.<n>Online price differentiation could lead to indirect discrimination.<n>Paper shows, however, that non-discrimination law has flaws when applied to algorithmic decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-28T12:41:48Z)
• Protected Grounds and the System of Non-Discrimination Law in the Context of Algorithmic Decision-Making and Artificial Intelligence [0.1915265522996079]
  This paper explores which system of non-discrimination law can best be applied to algorithmic decision-making.<n>The paper analyses the current loopholes in the protection offered by non-discrimination law and explores the best way for lawmakers to approach algorithmic differentiation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-01T15:21:12Z)
• RLJP: Legal Judgment Prediction via First-Order Logic Rule-enhanced with Large Language Models [58.69183479148083]
  Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) is a pivotal task in legal AI.<n>Existing LJP models integrate judicial precedents and legal knowledge for high performance.<n>But they neglect legal reasoning logic, a critical component of legal judgments requiring rigorous logical analysis.<n>This paper proposes a rule-enhanced legal judgment prediction framework based on first-order logic (FOL) formalism and comparative learning (CL)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T14:50:21Z)
• Auditing for Racial Discrimination in the Delivery of Education Ads [50.37313459134418]
  We propose a new third-party auditing method that can evaluate racial bias in the delivery of ads for education opportunities. We find evidence of racial discrimination in Meta's algorithmic delivery of ads for education opportunities, posing legal and ethical concerns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-02T02:00:55Z)
• Unlawful Proxy Discrimination: A Framework for Challenging Inherently Discriminatory Algorithms [4.1221687771754]
  EU legal concept of direct discrimination may apply to various algorithmic decision-making contexts. Unlike indirect discrimination, there is generally no 'objective justification' stage in the direct discrimination framework. We focus on the most likely candidate for direct discrimination in the algorithmic context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-22T10:06:17Z)
• Non-discrimination law in Europe: a primer for non-lawyers [44.715854387549605]
  We aim to describe the law in such a way that non-lawyers and non-European lawyers can easily grasp its contents and challenges. We introduce the EU-wide non-discrimination rules which are included in a number of EU directives. The last section broadens the horizon to include bias-relevant law and cases from the EU AI Act, and related statutes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-12T14:59:58Z)
• DELTA: Pre-train a Discriminative Encoder for Legal Case Retrieval via Structural Word Alignment [55.91429725404988]
  We introduce DELTA, a discriminative model designed for legal case retrieval. We leverage shallow decoders to create information bottlenecks, aiming to enhance the representation ability. Our approach can outperform existing state-of-the-art methods in legal case retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T10:40:14Z)
• The Theory of Artificial Immutability: Protecting Algorithmic Groups Under Anti-Discrimination Law [0.8460698440162889]
  This article examines the legal status of algorithmic groups in North American and European non-discrimination doctrine, law, and jurisprudence. I propose a new theory of harm - "the theory of artificial immutability" - that aims to bring AI groups within the scope of the law.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-02T19:19:43Z)
• Reusing the Task-specific Classifier as a Discriminator: Discriminator-free Adversarial Domain Adaptation [55.27563366506407]
  We introduce a discriminator-free adversarial learning network (DALN) for unsupervised domain adaptation (UDA) DALN achieves explicit domain alignment and category distinguishment through a unified objective. DALN compares favorably against the existing state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods on a variety of public datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-08T04:40:18Z)
• Why Fairness Cannot Be Automated: Bridging the Gap Between EU Non-Discrimination Law and AI [10.281644134255576]
  Article identifies a critical incompatibility between European notions of discrimination and existing statistical measures of fairness. We show how the legal protection offered by non-discrimination law is challenged when AI, not humans, discriminate. We propose "conditional demographic disparity" (CDD) as a standard baseline statistical measurement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-12T16:30:12Z)
• How Does NLP Benefit Legal System: A Summary of Legal Artificial Intelligence [81.04070052740596]
  Legal Artificial Intelligence (LegalAI) focuses on applying the technology of artificial intelligence, especially natural language processing, to benefit tasks in the legal domain. This paper introduces the history, the current state, and the future directions of research in LegalAI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-25T14:45:15Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.