Jennifer Pullen
Last Name
Pullen
First name
Jennifer
Email
jennifer.pullen@unisg.ch
ORCID
Phone
+41 71 224 3074
11 results
Now showing 1 - 10 of 11
- Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Scraping durch die Preisüberwachung: Eine rechtliche EinordnungType:journal articleJournal:JusletterIssue:1249 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Neurotechnologie und Mental PrivacyHerausforderungen im Persönlichkeits-und Datenschutz aufgrund neuer technischer Entwicklungen Rasante technische Fortschritte bei Hirn-Computer-Schnittstellen können es künftig ermöglichen, menschliche Gedanken maschinell auszulesen und zu beeinflussen. Dies wirft Fragen zum Persönlichkeits-und Datenschutzrecht auf, welche möglicherweise mit dem Konzept der «mental privacy» beantwortet werden können. Künftige Regulierungsansätze sollten dabei klar gegen konkrete Risiken abgewogen werden.Type:journal articleJournal:Zeitschrift für Immaterialgüter-, Informations- und Wettbewerbsrecht (sic!)Issue:11 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Rise of the Robots: Können und sollten Roboter rechtsfähig sein?Type:journal articleJournal:ex/anteIssue:2 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Towards a Liability Framework For AI in Europe(2022-03); AI regulation is one of the hot topics of today. In the EU, the European Commission and the European Parliament suggest introducing strict liability rules on operators of high-risk AI systems. To create a suitable liability regime, we must consider what makes AI systems different from their non-AI-counterparts. In our article, we identify AI’s novel approach to problem-solving and the potential for (semi-)autonomous decision-making as key issues for liability. However, the deployment of AI per se will not prove necessarily riskier than the human alternative – in contrast, it might actually be safer. Introducing strict liability is usually justified when the regulated activity poses an inherent risk despite the application of reasonable care. This stands in contradiction with the generally safer use of AI. The dangers posed by AI for liability do not necessarily coincide with cases associated with inherent riskier situations regulated by strict liability regimes. In our article, we argue that when formulating a liability regime for AI, we need to consider which aspects of AI prove particularly challenging to liability. More specifically, we need to evaluate whether introducing strict liability for specific AI systems is always appropriate, especially when taking into account that deploying AI does not necessarily pose the inherent risks usually regulated by strict liability regimes.Type:journal articleJournal:TechREG Chronicle - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Navigating the Challenges of Computational Antitrust Enforcement(Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, 2025); - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, The Recoupment Conundrum: Rethinking Predatory Pricing in the Age of AlgorithmsThis chapter examines the challenge of predatory pricing in the context of artificial intelligence (AI), focusing on the assessment of recoupment. In US law, recoupment requires a high burden of proof, demonstrating a dangerous probability, while EU law generally presumes its possibility for dominant firms. The rise of AI in pricing strategies disrupts these frameworks by enabling dominant firms to target specific customer segments with below-cost prices, minimizing predation losses and facilitating recoupment. This challenges the US’ stringent requirements and the EU’s cost-based analysis. The chapter concludes that artificial intelligence necessitates a reevaluation of competition law concepts. As sophisticated artificial intelligence tools make recoupment easier to achieve, a potential convergence between US and EU approaches to recoupment might become likely. However, both jurisdictions may need to adapt their frameworks to effectively address the nuances of predatory pricing in the era of algorithmic pricing strategiesType:book section - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication,