This Chapter will examine whether the Digital Content Directive (DCD) can sufficiently protect the consumer who concludes contracts through software on AI-driven online platforms (without being directly involved in the contractual process) against certain of the existing risks. More specifically, due to a technical error or some other factor, such contracts may be mistaken or unintended by the human consumer. Moreover, the consumer may end up dealing with an unreliable, fraudulent or even fictitious trader suffering loss as a result. The question arises as to whether the consumer will have a sufficient remedy in these cases, namely an available route to compensation. In this respect, the Digital Content Directive merits examination with the aim of ascertaining whether it responds to this need of the consumers who contract on AI-driven platforms. The main questions in this context will be whether such platforms qualify as ‘digital services’ within the meaning of said Directive and if yes, whether the provisions of the measure are suitably adjusted to the need of the substituted consumer for an available route to compensation in these cases. These questions may also pinpoint to a possible approach towards the liability of marketplaces for the non-conformity of goods and services offered by third party sellers through their systems. As it will be shown, though the DCD does contain tools that could prove useful to consumers in their attempt to claim and receive compensation, its application is not without problems that may prevent this result. Other measures, specifically the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) may offer some help, where the DCD could not do much.

Chapter 13 starts with brief summary of Chapters 1–12. Subsequently, to show that the strategy described in this book is valid for design of other materials, computational designs for other four materials (Mo2BC thin film, Cu3Sn interconnect material, slag/metal/gas LD-converter steel process, and slag recycling) were highlighted. In view of the need for establishing more quantitative relationships among four cornerstones (composition/processing-structure–properties–performance) in materials science and engineering as well as advancing product design methods, several future orientations and challenges for computational design of engineering materials are suggested. These are (1) advancement of models and approaches for more quantitative simulation in materials design, such as interfacial thermodynamics, thermodynamics under external fields, and a more quantitative phase-field model; (2) the need for scientific databases and materials informatics; (3) enhanced simulation software packages; and (4) concurrent design of materials and products (CDMP). Finally, the correlations among ICME, MGI, and CDMP are discussed.