Journal of Law, Market & Innovation

Foreword to Issue 2/2024

Riccardo de Caria, Corrado Druetta, Cristina Poncibò, Andrea Santos López — Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0200

The interplay between telecommunications operators and digital platforms in an evolving digital ecosystem

Antonio Manganelli — Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0200

Digital ecosystem comprises a composite array of complementary and substitutability relationships among its different actors, eg, telcos and very large digital platforms. Traditionally those actors have been regulated in different and separate fashion, and the evolution of their interactions disregarded. This asymmetric and uncoordinated regulation of different actors of the digital ecosystem has led to (unintentionally) generate market distortions or enhance situations of power unbalance. A new regulatory approach should focus on existing interdependences and trade-offs, in order to build a level regulatory playing field.

Navigating the skies of regulation and innovation: The case of civil drones

Aurelien Portuese — Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0200

The deployment of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), colloquially known as civil drones, necessitates an in- depth analysis of regulatory frameworks to understand their impact on market competition and technological innovation. This study presents a comparative examination of the regulatory landscapes governing UAV operations in the European Union (EU) and the United States (US), focusing on the interplay between legal provisions and market dynamics within the drone industry. In the EU, the imminent introduction of UAV-based package delivery systems exemplifies a regulatory environment conducive to drone technology advancement. Governed by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the EU’s regulatory structure is characterised by its coherence and integrative nature, fostering a regulatory milieu that balances safety and privacy concerns with the promotion of technological development. The uniform regulatory guidelines across EU Member States serve as a catalyst for innovation, providing clarity and stability for UAV operators and manufacturers, thereby enhancing competitive dynamics within the market. Conversely, the US regulatory context, as illustrated by the legal confrontation between SZ DJI Technology Co. Ltd. and Autel Robotics USA LLC, highlights a multifaceted and litigious approach. Central to this is the role of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in navigating the intricate interplay between antitrust litigation and competitive practices in the UAV sector. The US framework’s reactive nature, often mired in judicial proceedings, introduces a degree of uncertainty and complexity for industry stakeholders, potentially impeding technological innovation and market diversification. The juxtaposition of the EU and US regulatory frameworks unveils contrasting methodologies in governing civil drone operations. The EU’s unified and innovation-centric approach markedly diverges from the litigious and segmented regulatory landscape in the US. These disparities exert considerable influence on the UAV industry, shaping the contours of market competition, technological advancement, and regulatory industry equilibrium. The disparate regulatory paradigms in the EU and US present distinct challenges and opportunities in the realm of UAV operations. The EU’s streamlined and proactive regulatory approach encourages innovation and market growth; while the US’s intricate and adversarial regulatory environment poses substantial hurdles for industry stakeholders. This comparative analysis is vital for policymakers, legal experts, and industry participants in navigating the complex and evolving domain of UAV technology and its regulatory governance.

Drone users’ and landowners' rights in Italy and the Netherlands: The medical use of drones

Andrea Parziale — Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0200

Background. Drones are increasingly integrated into recreational and economic activities, including for medical uses. In this scenario, drones carrying medical equipment or patients may fly over someone else’s property. This raises the question of how conflicts between drone users and landowners arising from the medical use of drones are resolved. This question predominantly revolves around the vertical extension of property rights. Aim and methodology. This article offers a comparative study of how these conflicts are tackled in Italy and the Netherlands, exploring the different operational solutions offered by their respective legal frameworks. In particular, the aim of the article is two-fold. First, the article intends to assess to which extent the Italian and Dutch operational solutions differ or converge, based on insights from the legislative, judicial, and doctrinal legal formants. Secondly, based on this comparative analysis, the article makes use of socio- economic considerations to assess the potential impact of the reconstructed Italian and Dutch operational solutions on the advancement of drone medical uses. Conclusions: The article argues that the current legal framework fails both to facilitate the use of drones, also for medical emergencies, and to protect landowners’ rights. A clear-cut height above which drones can fly (and under which drones cannot fly) can provide more clarity over the respective spheres of interest of the parties concerned.

Navigating the Skies: A cross-country exploration of drone policies in Europe, USA and China, unveiling privacy and cybersecurity challenges

Floriana Granieri — Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0200

The article begins with a comprehensive examination of the evolutionary trajectory of drone technology, originally conceived for exclusive military applications but progressively diversifying to encompass a multitude of commercial uses. Notably, the technology has also made its foray into the realm of entertainment, captivating enthusiasts and amateurs alike. Given this relentless technological advancement and the surging interest in drones - which extends beyond governmental bodies to encompass corporate and individual stakeholders - a multitude of risks associated with the proliferation of these aerial devices has surfaced. Equipped with increasingly intrusive applications, drones have also the potential to significantly impact individual rights such as privacy and security. The focal point of this article revolves around the intricate nexus of risks concerning privacy and cybersecurity. It delves into an analysis of how major economic powers, attuned to the implications of these technologies, have taken measures to regulate the utilization of drones in order to mitigate the associated risks, while highlighting some issues that still remain in the shadows.

Tragedy of commons, civil drones and hybrid modes of technology regulation: a comparative law and economics perspective

Mitja Kovac — Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0200

This paper provides a multidisciplinary assessment of the growing use and importance of civil drones, evaluates the related problem of the commons, and seeks to assess its impact on the research & development processes in companies that develop or employ civil drones in their daily operations. Recommendations are given to ensure optimal regulatory intervention covering potential, uncontemplated automated civil drone-related hazards. If it evolves in ways not intended by its designers or users, the judgement-proof automated civil drone could create unforeseeable losses wherever current tort and contract law regimes do not ensure optimal risk internalisation and precaution, while also not deterring opportunism. Moreover, it is argued in the paper that the identified shortcomings mean the debate on the different approaches to controlling hazardous activities boils down to the question of efficient ex ante safety regulation and allocation of property rights (resembling those in the aviation industry). Hybrid modes of regulation are also investigated with a focus on the inclusive growth of the AI-drone industry in the EU and a set of economically informed normative suggestions is presented for an improved hybrid regulatory response, which should achieve optimal risk internalisation, precaution, and firm-level innovation.