Colangelo on Is AI the End of the DMA as we Know It?

Giuseppe Colangelo (Università degli Studi della Basilicata) has posted “Is AI the End of the DMA as we Know It?” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The disruptive potential of AI-enabled applications for competitive dynamics and the core organisational forms of digital intermediation inevitably also has significant implications for the recent regulatory initiatives adopted to govern digital markets. Indeed, because these instruments were conceived without AI specifically in view, they risk becoming outdated within a very short period of time. Notably, while they have been shaped by a Big Tech-centred conception of digital markets, the possible emergence of new gatekeepers in the age of AI marks a turning point that calls into question the very rationale and foundations of these regimes in their present form. As a result, only a few years after its enactment, the role of the DMA, together with its rationale and claimed future-proof character, is already under scrutiny, as the deployment of AI applications raises the question whether policymakers should reopen the legislative framework in order to amend the Regulation. Against this background and in the context of the first review of the DMA, the paper argues that the rise of AI applications calls for a reconsideration of the DMA’s overall architecture and for the development of a distinct competition policy framework, rather than for a merely incremental fine-tuning exercise.

Velasco et al. on The Future of the AI Summit Series

Lucia Velasco (Maastricht U Business and Economics) et al. have posted “The Future of the AI Summit Series” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The AI Summit series – initiated at Bletchley Park in 2023 and continuing through Seoul in 2024 and Paris in 2025 – has become a distinct forum for international collaboration on AI governance. Its early achievements, including the Bletchley Declaration, the Frontier AI Safety Commitments, and the International Scientific Report on the Safety of Advanced AI, are a result of its unique format, regular schedule, and ability to secure concrete commitments from governments and industry.

To ensure its continuing impact, the Summit series must now transition from an improvised sequence of summits towards a more formalized structure. For this evolution to succeed, organizers must carefully examine past successes and realistically assess future challenges. This report examines both, with particular attention to a set of core summit design elements: hosting arrangement, secretariat format, participant selection, agenda setting, and summit frequency. Based on this analysis, we present six recommendations to strengthen the summit series’ impact.

The paper draws on existing international governance models to offer recommendations for each design element, addressing challenges such as a crowded summit landscape, geopolitical shifts, and rapid technological change.

Amadori et al. on Modeling the Geopolitics of AI Development

Alex Amadori (Conjecture) et al. have posted “Modeling the Geopolitics of AI Development” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

We model national strategies and geopolitical outcomes under differing assumptions about AI development. We put particular focus on scenarios with rapid progress that enables highly automated AI R&D and provides substantial military capabilities. Under non-cooperative assumptions-concretely, if international coordination mechanisms capable of preventing the development of dangerous AI capabilities are not established-superpowers are likely to engage in a race for AI systems offering an overwhelming strategic advantage over all other actors.

If such systems prove feasible, this dynamic leads to one of three outcomes: (1) One superpower achieves an unchallengeable global dominance; (2) Trailing superpowers facing imminent defeat launch a preventive or preemptive attack, sparking conflict among major powers; (3) Loss-of-control of powerful AI systems leads to catastrophic outcomes such as human extinction.

Middle powers, lacking both the muscle to compete in an AI race and to deter AI development through unilateral pressure, find their security entirely dependent on factors outside their control: a superpower must prevail in the race without triggering devastating conflict, successfully navigate loss-of-control risks, and subsequently respect the middle power’s sovereignty despite possessing overwhelming power to do otherwise.

Jurcys on Copyright Registration Requirement in the U.S.

Paul Jurcys (U California) has posted “Copyright Registration Requirement in the U.S.” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This entry, prepared for the Elgar Encyclopedia of Intellectual Property Law (2026), provides an overview of copyright registration requirements in the United States. It explains that, unlike patents or trademarks, copyright protection in the U.S. arises automatically upon the creation of an original work fixed in a tangible medium. Registration with the U.S. Copyright Office is therefore optional for obtaining protection but essential for enforcement and evidentiary purposes. The entry traces the historical evolution of copyright formalities—from the 1790 Act’s mandatory filings to the modern system under the 1976 Act—and outlines the procedures, functions, and benefits of registration, including access to statutory damages, attorney’s fees, and prima facie evidence of ownership. It concludes with ongoing debates on formalities, modernization, and AI-related challenges.

Goicouria on Extraterritoriality in AI: Harmonizing the Digital Market Act and US Antitrust Law

Daniel Goicouria (affiliation not provided to SSRN) has posted “Extraterritoriality in AI: Harmonizing the Digital Market Act and US Antitrust Law” (Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Volume 58, No. 4 pp. 1055-1110) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

International AI markets currently operate under divergent and often conflicting competition laws. This splintered approach fosters uncertainty, invites regulatory failure, and risks entrenching dominant firms at the expense of emerging innovators. This Note proposes harmonized enforcement mechanisms to safeguard fair competition and minimize extraterritorial effects on global AI platforms. Recent academic discourse has discussed the domestic effects of ex ante regulations in AI markets, but international harmonization and extraterritoriality remain largely undiscussed. 

This Note proposes treaty-based coordination and uniform enforcement guidelines to ensure consistent international oversight. It synthesizes comparative insights from differing competition frameworks to identify best practices and encourage cross-border cooperation. In effect, this analysis closes jurisdictional gaps and mitigates risks of fragmented enforcement in rapidly expanding AI markets. The Note offers an actionable roadmap to unify competition laws globally, protect consumers, and foster continuing innovation.

Ferguson on Personal Medical AI: A Framework for Individual-Based Healthcare Monitoring SubTitile: Personal Medical AI Framework

John Ferguson (The Ferguson Clinic) has posted “Personal Medical AI: A Framework for Individual-Based Healthcare Monitoring SubTitile: Personal Medical AI Framework” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Current healthcare AI systems compare patient data against population norms, potentially missing clinically significant deviations that are abnormal for specific individuals. We propose a framework for personal medical AI that establishes individual baselines, learns patient-specific patterns, and detects deviations meaningful to each patient rather than comparing against population averages. This paradigm shift from population-based to individual-based monitoring requires addressing technical architecture, clinical integration, the radical transparency problem, impacts on the doctor-patient relationship, and equity concerns. Personal medical AI represents not a replacement for clinical care but a transformation of the patient-AI-clinician relationship that requires careful implementation to preserve therapeutic value while enabling unprecedented longitudinal insight.

Burke on TikTok, Instagram, and the “Fourth Party”: The Impact of Technical Design on Personal Content Moderation

Caitlin Burke (Stanford U) has posted “TikTok, Instagram, and the “Fourth Party”: The Impact of Technical Design on Personal Content Moderation” (Ohio State Journal On Dispute Resolution 2025) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

As policymakers debate Section 230, children’s online safety, andsocial media regulation, increasing attention has shifted from online content to the design of digital platforms. This article examines how thepersonal content moderation systems of TikTok and Instagram shape user experiences through interface design, reporting tools, appeals processes, and platform governance. Drawing ondispute system design, it introduces the concept of the “fourth party” to explain how technical design influences online disputes and redistributes power between platforms and users. The article argues thatplatform design is analytically distinct from protected speech and should therefore be evaluated separately from content moderation under theFirst Amendment. By reframing content moderation as a problem of product and interface design rather than speech alone, the article offers a framework forplatform accountability, consumer protection, and online safety that preserves free expression while addressing the harms of modern social media.

Zhang et al. on Balancing Data-Driven Competition and Privacy Protection: A Duopoly Analysis of AI-Powered Digital Assistants

Xiong Zhang (Beijing Jiaotong U) et al. have posted “Balancing Data-Driven Competition and Privacy Protection: A Duopoly Analysis of AI-Powered Digital Assistants” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly empowering smart products, enhancing both work efficiency and quality of life. However, these improvements rely heavily on the continuous collection and processing of user data, raising significant concerns about privacy. In response, many countries have enacted regulations to protect personal data and consumer privacy. This study examines how privacy protection influences market competition in AI-powered digital assistant markets. We develop a stylized analytical model of a duopoly where firms differ in their ability to collect and monetize consumer data. The results reveal that stronger AI capabilities amplify the profitability of data-intensive firms, while data-light firms can strategically strengthen privacy protection to remain competitive, thereby generating mutual profit gains and enhancing consumer surplus as well as overall social welfare. These findings contribute to the theoretical understanding of data-driven competition and digital privacy management, while offering actionable insights for firms seeking to balance innovation, consumer trust, and regulatory compliance in smart product markets.

Salman on The Digital Panopticon: How AI has Reshaped Workplace Surveillance and Labor Control

Urooba Salman (Lahore U Management Sciences (LUMS)) has posted “The Digital Panopticon: How AI has Reshaped Workplace Surveillance and Labor Control” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This paper seeks to interrogate how artificial intelligence has transformed the exercise of managerial power, labor autonomy, and the traditional and foundational principles of labor law. Drawing on Michel Foucault’s theory of thepanopticon and extending it to the modern workplace, it argues that algorithmic systems have created a “digital panopticon”; an architecture of invisible surveillance which disciplines workers through datafication and the fear of surveillance rather than outright coercion. Using insights from labor law scholarship, critical theory, and existing empirical research, the paper demonstrates that AI-based monitoring tools, ranging from productivity trackers and biometric attendance systems to predictive analytics, actually embed control into the very scaffolds of the modern workplace, eroding collective bargaining practices, privacy, and procedural fairness.

This study situates these changes and transformations within the Pakistani context and legal framework, where though the infiltration of surveillance is not so perverse, fragile labor protections, weak privacy and data governance laws, and imported surveillance technologies create an especially fertile ground for exploitation. It conceptualises this phenomenon as “surveillance colonialism,” wherein technologies from authoritarian or unregulated jurisdictions infiltrate developing economies under the guise of modernization. The paper contends that Pakistan’s outdated legal architecture regarding AI and data cannot adequately address such algorithmic decision making, leading to an accountability vacuum and a structural silencing of labor resistance which needs to be addressed before it is too late.

Remolina on Open Finance

Nydia Remolina (Singapore Management U Yong Pung How Law) has posted “Open Finance” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This chapter provides an account of open finance as a regulatory and technological architecture for customer-authorised financial data sharing. It begins by defining open finance and open banking, and identifying its core components: data holders, data users, APIs, consent mechanisms, technical standards and governance arrangements. It then traces the evolution of open finance from open banking initiatives, with particular attention to the UK and EU experiences and their influence on later frameworks. The chapter next examines the main claimed benefits of open finance, including competition, innovation, improved user experience, safer data access, AI-enabled services and financial inclusion. It also analyses the risks and implementation challenges, including fragmented standards, cybersecurity, liability, privacy, profiling, discrimination and platform concentration. Finally, the chapter compares market-development and compulsory regulatory models across jurisdictions.