Civil Liability of Roboadvisors and Technological Neutrality of Sectoral Regulation

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11220%2F25%3A10502817" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11220/25:10502817 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=d6aH5k1Obu" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=d6aH5k1Obu</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Civil Liability of Roboadvisors and Technological Neutrality of Sectoral Regulation

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

This paper examines civil liability frameworks for roboadvisors within Czech law through systematic interpretation of Civil Code (CC) provisions and their interaction with MiFID II requirements. Using legal-dogmatic methodology supplemented by comparative analysis of foreign AI liability debates, this research identifies five distinct roboadvisor business models and evaluates their liability implications. The analysis reveals that contractual liability under§ 2913 CC emerges as the primary framework, with professional standards of care (§ 5 CC) being objectified through sectoral financial regulation. Key findings demonstrate that existing tort law principles provide adequate coverage for AI-driven financial services without requiring fundamental legislative reform. The study identifies specific challenges in determining liability for machine learning algorithms exhibiting unforeseeable behaviour patterns and establishes criteria for distinguishing between natural market risks and legally compensable damage. Different business models create varying liability distributions, with white-label solutions and client-uploaded algorithms presenting the most complex attribution problems. While traditional liability frameworks prove adaptable to roboadvisor operations, the research identifies procedural law adjustments - particularly regarding burden of proof and evidentiary standards -as necessary refinements. The principle of technological neutrality in sectoral regulation effectively prevents regulatory arbitrage while maintaining innovation incentives. Lost profits claims face limitations under current Supreme Court jurisprudence, requiring a case-by-case evaluation of contractual appreciation obligations versus hypothetical profit calculations. The study concludes that civil liability for roboadvisors can be effectively managed within existing legal structures through enhanced algorithmic governance, robust documentation practices, and appropriate professional standards of care rather than novel legislative constructs.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Civil Liability of Roboadvisors and Technological Neutrality of Sectoral Regulation

Popis výsledku anglicky

This paper examines civil liability frameworks for roboadvisors within Czech law through systematic interpretation of Civil Code (CC) provisions and their interaction with MiFID II requirements. Using legal-dogmatic methodology supplemented by comparative analysis of foreign AI liability debates, this research identifies five distinct roboadvisor business models and evaluates their liability implications. The analysis reveals that contractual liability under§ 2913 CC emerges as the primary framework, with professional standards of care (§ 5 CC) being objectified through sectoral financial regulation. Key findings demonstrate that existing tort law principles provide adequate coverage for AI-driven financial services without requiring fundamental legislative reform. The study identifies specific challenges in determining liability for machine learning algorithms exhibiting unforeseeable behaviour patterns and establishes criteria for distinguishing between natural market risks and legally compensable damage. Different business models create varying liability distributions, with white-label solutions and client-uploaded algorithms presenting the most complex attribution problems. While traditional liability frameworks prove adaptable to roboadvisor operations, the research identifies procedural law adjustments - particularly regarding burden of proof and evidentiary standards -as necessary refinements. The principle of technological neutrality in sectoral regulation effectively prevents regulatory arbitrage while maintaining innovation incentives. Lost profits claims face limitations under current Supreme Court jurisprudence, requiring a case-by-case evaluation of contractual appreciation obligations versus hypothetical profit calculations. The study concludes that civil liability for roboadvisors can be effectively managed within existing legal structures through enhanced algorithmic governance, robust documentation practices, and appropriate professional standards of care rather than novel legislative constructs.

Druh

J_SC - Článek v periodiku v databázi SCOPUS

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50501 - Law

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

S - Specificky vyzkum na vysokych skolach

Rok uplatnění

2025

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

The Lawyer Quarterly

ISSN

1805-8396

e-ISSN

1805-840X

Svazek periodika

15

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

4

Stát vydavatele periodika

CZ - Česká republika

Počet stran výsledku

19

Strana od-do

503-521

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-105025889543