Society needs to influence and mould our expectations so AI is used for the collective good. we should be reluctant to throw away hard (and recently) won consumer rights and values on the altar of technological developments.

This chapter commences with a comprehensive overview of Australia’s legal framework on consumer credit. Subsequently, it considers the major obligations applied to Australian credit licence holders in this context, with a particular focus on licensing requirements, disclosure, responsible lending, best interests obligations and various consumer rights. Additionally, given the increased consumer access to high-cost payday loans facilitated by digitalisation, this chapter discusses the relevant issues and proposals for reform.

Consumers are at the forefront of market uses of AI. There are also myriad consumer uses of AI products. Consumer protection law justifies greater responses where the interactions involve significant risks and relevant consumer vulnerability; both such elements are present in the current and predicted AI uses concerning consumers. Whilst consumer protection law is likely to be able to be sufficiently flexible to adapt to AI, there is a need to recalibrate consumer protection law to AI.

The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides for free movement of the factors of production, but also for derogations from free movement where necessary to protect important interests such as public policy, public security and public health. These have been broadened out by the Court of Justice to include other public interest objectives, including the environment and consumer protection, which can also be relied on under certain conditions. All these derogations and protections are to be applied subject to certain conditions – they must be restrictively interpreted, non-discriminatory, procedurally fair and applied in a proportionate and consistent way. Alongside these, there are specific exceptions applying to occupations, excluding public service and official authority from the scope of Articles 45, 49 and 56 TFEU.

Chapter 2 looks at transparency and fintech tools. The premise behind many so-called fintech innovations in consumer markets is to make more personalised financial products available to an often underserved and largely inexperienced cohort. Many consumers are not good at managing their day-to-day finances, selecting optimal credit products or investing for the future. Fintech products, and the applications associated with them, are commonly promoted on the basis they will use consumer data, AI capacities, and a lower cost basis to promote competition and better serve consumers, including financially excluded or vulnerable consumers. Paterson, Miller, and Lyons challenge these premises by demystifying the kinds of capacities that are possible through the fintech technologies being offered to consumers. The most common form of fintech solutions offered to consumers are credit, budgeting, and investment tools. These typically do not disrupt existing service models through the use of deep learning AI. Rather they are commonly enabled by encoding the rules of thumb used by mortgage brokers and financial advisers. They make a return through methods criticised on when deployed by social media platforms, namely on-selling data, targeted advertising, and commission-based sales. There is moreover little incentive for fintech providers to make products that benefit marginalised cohorts for whom there is minimal relevant data and little likelihood of lucrative return. The authors argue that greater transparency is required about what is being offered to consumers though fintech tools and who benefits from them, along with greater accountability for ill-founded and even sensationalised claims.

In this chapter, we offer a number of recommendations for those who are in a position to do something technically, structurally, and legally or otherwise to minimize the risk of psychological harm that comes with the public’s use of social media and other online sites, especially their engagement with graphic or other upsetting digital material. We outline the policy implications of what we’ve learned from more than three years of desk research and original interviews that we have conducted with dozens of people, ranging from technologists to psychologists to content moderators to human rights investigators and beyond. We first spotlight the competing interests that underscore social media companies and governments’ policy deliberations with regard to content moderation. Next, we lay out our suggestions for companies, governments, and individuals with regard to how to improve the experiences of both content moderators and everyday social media users. We close with suggestions for creating a more “pro-social” online environment, one that not only better mitigates the risks of psychological harm but potentially encourages greater connection, resulting in wellness and even flourishing.

A general premise of consumer protection is that greater consumer information and more competition in a market should increase the tendency of firms to behave fairly and honestly.1 In the case of deceptive promotional pricing, greater consumer information comes from having more consumers in the market being attentive to and knowledgeable of reference promotional pricing (i.e. showing a regular price along with the sales price).

There is a long-standing consensus on the need to fight poverty and eliminate it. Some fifty-five years ago, the American President Lyndon B. Johnson launched a “War on Poverty” in his 1964 State of the Union Address. Nevertheless, poverty is still a striking problem. In the United States, more than 46 million Americans lived in poverty in 2012.2 Worldwide, billions live on less than eight US dollars a day,3 and hundreds of millions on less than one dollar a day.4 Poverty is a complex, multifaceted, and persistent problem.5

The final chapter draws on conclusions from the current use of emerging technologies in Africa, digitalization and strategies which can be implemented to help the continent capitalize on the Fourth Industrial Revolution. It contributes to policy discussions and adds a more inclusive approach in analyzing 4IR areas of impact. By analyzing a range of leading and emerging countries, a new framework has been established that gives further study of strengths and weaknesses in developing and developed nations. This book helps to address the route that Africa needs to take to achieve sustainable and inclusive growth. The 4IR is inevitable, which is why governments need to recognize the impact it will have on industries and the global economy.

Internet of Thing (IoT)s. It focuses in particular on the question of liability in circumstances where an IoT system has not performed as expected and where this has resulted in loss or damage. The authors argue that the combination of AI and the IoT raises several novel aspects concerning the basis for assessing responsibility and of allocating liability for loss or damage, and that this will necessitate the development of a more creative approach to liability than generally followed in many legal systems. Linear liability based on contractual relationships and fault-based or strict liability of a wrongdoer in tort law are no longer sufficient to deal with the complex issues associated with the interaction of AI and the IoT. According to the authors, the values underpinning established liability systems, particularly in the field of consumer protection law, should be maintained in the context of new digital technology applications. The adoption of new digital technology applications cannot be a basis for imposing a lower threshold of liability than the level of liability established in other contexts.

The chapter addresses the question of how to continue developing artificial intelligence (AI) without challenging and infringing legal norms, principles and values, represented by the current legal frameworks of liberal democratic societies. To answer this question, the chapter first of all briefly deals with the concept of legality (what it means to be legal in the age of disruptive technologies) and then relates it to two specific private law challenges: The first challenge is related to intellectual property law and is represented by the clash between trade secret protection of algorithms and the increasing public need for algorithmic transparency and explicability; the second challenge is related to consumer protection where the questions of liability and the shifting roles of the main stakeholders build the space for discussing who is who in building, developing and using AI.

The FDA’s Guidance to the Breakthrough Devices Program states the agency “may accept a greater extent of uncertainty of the benefit-risk profile for these devices if appropriate under the circumstances.” The CMS recently began providing supplemental reimbursement through New Technology Add-On Payments for “Breakthrough Devices.” CMS has waived a nearly two-decade criterion that devices receiving such payments must provide a “substantial clinical improvement” to Medicare beneficiaries. These policies will accelerate the approval and adoption into clinical practice of novel medical devices which may later be determined to not meet the statutory standard of reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness (FDA) and/or “reasonable and necessary” (CMS). A crucial, but underutilized, regulatory authority can improve patient safety: conditional approval with withdrawal of approval when (1) clinical data demonstrate the threshold of reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness is not met or (2) postmarket studies are not completed in a timely manner to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. It is rarely used, but there is precedent for FDA revocation of pharmaceutical approvals. In addition, payor coverage should be conditional (and proportional) on data of safety and effectiveness and withdrawn for data showing net harms or if data are not generated in a timely manner.