Publicness of Platform’s Private Power: Discovering Platform Autonomy In platform-centric business models, platforms have evolved from private intermediaries into infrastructural actors with significant public implications. As private entities driving the digitalization of society and are responsible for providing essential public services, they have effectively engaged in the process of co-creating public value, thus transcending the traditional public-private dichotomy to become private entities with publicness. This article conceptualizes the evolution of platform autonomy – from creative to dominant to decisive – and examines its correlation with market power. Through their strategic positioning, platforms develop disciplinary power that enables them to shape a ‘third law’ as applicable rules. While this transformation holds potential for more efficient governance, enabling platforms to complement public regulation and contribute to good governance, it also introduces systemic risks. Platforms’ disruptive position and lobbying capacity may weaken the state’s regulatory capacity, and they impose structural constraints on consumer autonomy, undermining freedom of choice and facilitating imbalanced rules. The article ultimately argues that the evolution of platform autonomy gives rise to an increasing degree of publicness in platforms’ private power. Understanding this transformation helps explain why platform rulemaking authority has moved beyond merely private ordering, raising significant questions about the legitimacy and accountability of such authority and the reconfiguration of public-private regulatory relations.
Domestic Taxation and Digitalization: Livestreaming Commerce in China While much of the existing literature focuses on the challenges that the digital economy poses to international taxation, relatively little attention has been paid to its implications for domestic tax systems. The rapid rise of livestreaming commerce (‘LSC’) in China has provided a microcosm for evaluating these implications. By examining how LSC’s business model interacts with China’s domestic tax system, the article identifies several key issues hindering effective taxation, including income mischaracterization, exploitation of presumptive taxation, data accessibility and quasi-nexus. These challenges stem from the misalignment between China’s traditional tax framework and the digitalized LSC model. The Chinese tax authorities have responded principally with administrative measures, such as enhanced reporting requirements and enforcement campaigns. However, these measures focus on ex ante supervision and technological interventions rather than structural legal reforms, reinforcing China’s unique tax-administration paradigm that prioritizes monitoring over self-assessment. The article argues that the absence of comprehensive legal frameworks and judicial review limits the effectiveness of these responses, leaving systemic issues unaddressed and undermining the rule of law in taxation. It concludes by advocating for several legislative steps toward the modernization of China’s taxation of LSC and the digital economy in general.
The Right to Autonomy In recent years, human autonomy, agency and dignity have been at the heart of normative justifications for human rights law. From freedom of speech to freedom of assembly and freedom of movement, human rights presume that humans are autonomous agents, making their own choices and decisions and choosing their own actions. The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) threatens to upend this normative state. Automated decision-making, opaque AI integrated into decision processes and recommender systems, all undermine the free nature of human choice. As automated decision-making encroaches on more areas of our lives, we may reach a tipping point where human autonomy is entirely abrogated. Meanwhile, recommender systems pre-empt human decision-making, curating and guiding users to preference some choices over others. This article extends on the work of James Griffin by arguing for an explicit right to human autonomy to be codified into human rights law, drawing on conversations had in the drafting of the Munich Convention on AI, Data and Human Rights. The argument rests on a consideration of imagined futures, relying on future-visioning and horizon scanning techniques to map out potentiality with regard to AI decision-making. The authors grapple with the hypothesis that human rights may no longer exist in a fully automated society and what this means for the future of human life. The authors take an interrogative approach to the existing literature on AI Ethics, which at times, focuses on outcomes in the short term, as opposed to longer-term considerations on the future societies AI systems will generate.
Enforcement of Consumer Rights in Digital and AI-Powered Markets This article explores the enforcement challenges of EU consumer law in the context of digitalisation and artificial intelligence (AI), focusing on the relationship between public and private actors. The rapid growth of digital markets and AI-driven business practices, such as dark patterns, digital goods and services, virtual influencers and opaque credit scoring systems, has intensified existing enforcement barriers and introduced new ones. Despite recent legislative reforms, including the Omnibus Directive, the Representative Actions Directive and the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Regulation enforcement mechanisms often remain insufficient, particularly when it comes to addressing complex, large-scale and cross-border violations. The article critically assesses the limits of individual consumer actions, the shortcomings of collective redress frameworks and the resource constraints faced by public authorities. It argues that more effective enforcement requires a rethinking of the roles and responsibilities of all actors involved. Key policy proposals include empowering consumers and organisations through financial and procedural support, introducing mandatory internal and external oversight for AI systems, expanding the use of follow-on claims and leveraging large digital platforms as enforcers through legal obligations. Ultimately, the article contends that the principle of private autonomy must be recalibrated within the EU’s internal market. Consumer protection enforcement should be viewed as a legitimate regulatory constraint on economic freedoms, provided it respects proportionality. Strengthening enforcement mechanisms through better cooperation, supervision and structural support is essential to safeguard compliance with consumer rights, ensure legal redress and uphold trust in digital and AI-powered markets.
Shifting Responsibilities and Eroding Autonomy in Tax Compliance: Impact of the Directive on Administrative Cooperation on the Evolving Roles of Tax Authorities, Taxpayers and Third Parties The evolution of the European Union (EU) Directive on Administrative Cooperation (DAC) marks a fundamental shift in the dynamics of tax compliance and EU tax governance, redefining the roles and responsibilities of taxpayers, third parties and tax authorities. Originally designed to reduce information asymmetry and enhance tax transparency, the DAC framework now relies heavily on third-party data collection. This transformation has introduced new reporting obligations that constrain the autonomy of both taxpayers and intermediaries, effectively outsourcing functions traditionally performed by taxpayers and tax administrations. Taxpayers are becoming increasingly passive participants, often relying on pre-filled returns generated from the vast amounts of data available to the tax administration. Meanwhile, intermediaries face growing legal obligations without corresponding safeguards, raising concerns about professional independence and legal liability. Tax authorities, operating in a digital environment, must now recalibrate their assessment powers to ensure proportionality and respect for fundamental rights. These developments expose all parties to new risks. This article, grounded in classic legal research, addresses the following pressing questions: How is the DAC transforming the relationship between tax authorities, taxpayers and third parties? How should the resulting shifts in responsibility, autonomy and risk be managed? By mapping the evolving roles of each stakeholder and examining the legal mechanisms available to mitigate emerging risks, such as legal professional privilege and data protection legislation, this article argues for a more balanced and coherent model that upholds transparency while safeguarding individual autonomy and legal certainty.
