Chapter analyses whether the Artficial Intelligence Act sufficiently addresses consumers’ interests and how the regulation blends into the existing system of consumer law. It focuses on prohibited practices and how so-called "generative AI systems" should be regulated.

Cybersecurity has emerged as a paramount concern in today’s digital age, especially when considering the vast range of digital assets now in circulation, among which non-fungible tokens (NFTs) hold significant prominence. This chapter delves deeply into the intricate landscape of cybersecurity as it pertains to NFTs. By meticulously analyzing the multifaceted technical challenges and potential vulnerabilities inherent to NFTs from a cybersecurity perspective, this chapter seeks to provide an overview of the landscape as of this writing. Furthermore, this chapter explores how existing laws, policies, and societal norms have addressed these issues thus far, and speculates on how they might evolve in the future to more effectively bridge the governance gaps and safeguard these unique digital assets.

This chapter delves into the intricate relationship between digital assets, specifically non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and the regulatory landscape of anti-money laundering (AML) and counter financing of terrorism (CFT). With the rapid emergence of NFTs, new challenges and opportunities have arisen, necessitating an exploration of evolving regulatory frameworks and enforcement measures to combat AML and CFT risks associated with digital assets. This chapter focuses on the unique characteristics of NFTs, AML, and CFT risks within the NFT market, global regulatory developments, compliance challenges, technological solutions, enforcement actions, collaborative efforts, and future trends. By analyzing these aspects, this chapter aims to provide insights for policy-makers, regulators, scholars, and industry participants in effectively addressing financial crime risks in the digital asset landscape.

In the evolving landscape of technological discourse, non-fungible tokens (NFTs) have risen as pivotal instruments, notably within gaming and digital art. However, their implications are broader, touching upon real-world applications such as land titles and supply chain management. As the Web 3.0 architecture evolves, the role of NFTs in domain nomenclature and email addresses is increasingly significant. Yet, with the existence of alternate methods for these operations, a pertinent question emerges: Why opt for NFTs or blockchain-based solutions? Despite uncertainties surrounding adoption, many early adopters are zealously securing addresses on these avant-garde networks. This chapter delves into the conditions and reasons for considering this nascent technology.

This chapter highlights the dangers of linguistic inaccuracies and misunderstandings that permeate discussions on blockchain technology and non-fungible tokens (NFTs), impacting policy and legal outcomes. It identifies two critical issues hindering effective legislation: a lack of comprehension of blockchain technology’s technical nuances and a failure to appreciate the link between blockchain-related terminology and the intricacies of varying blockchain protocols. By borrowing frequently misused terms without questioning their technical accuracy, policy-makers may unwittingly stifle innovation and develop legal regimes that are ill-suited for their intended purpose. This chapter explores six specific language landmines prevalent in blockchain and NFT discussions, urging researchers, lawmakers, industry members, and other stakeholders to bridge the understanding gap. By addressing these linguistic pitfalls, the chapter advocates for informed and comprehensive policy-making that keeps pace with the evolving landscape of blockchain technology and its applications, including NFTs.

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) introduce unique concerns related to the privacy of personal data. To create an NFT, users upload data to publicly accessible and searchable databases. This data can encompass information essential for the creation, transfer, and storage of the NFT, as well as personal details pertaining to the creator. Additionally, users might inadvertently engage with technology crafted to gather personal data. Traditional paradigms of privacy have not evolved in tandem with advancements in NFT and blockchain technology. To pinpoint where current privacy paradigms falter, this chapter delves into an introduction of NFTs, elucidating their foundational technical mechanisms and processes. Subsequently, the chapter juxtaposes current and historical privacy frameworks with NFTs, underscoring how these models may be either overly expansive or excessively restrictive for this emerging technology. This chapter suggests that Helen Nissenbaum’s concept of “contextual integrity” might offer the requisite flexibility to cater to the distinct attributes of NFTs. In conclusion, while there is a pronounced societal drive to safeguard citizen data and privacy, the overarching aim remains the enhancement of the collective good. Balancing this objective, governments should be afforded the latitude to equate society’s privacy interests with its imperative for transparency.

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) built in the blockchain are quietly revolutionizing ideas around digital assets despite their questionable status under current law. The smart contracts that control many NFTs are disrupting the way deals are done. At the same time, disputes regarding NFTs and smart contracts are inevitable and parties will need means for dealing with these highly technical issues. The chapter tackles this challenge and proposes that parties turn to online dispute resolution (ODR) to resolve NFT and smart contract disputes efficiently and fairly. Furthermore, the chapter acknowledges the benefits and challenges of current means for addressing blockchain issues and proposes ideas for how designers could address those challenges and incorporate ODR to provide efficient and fair resolutions.

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are used in numerous markets for collectibles, art, securities, and commodities. These are different markets, and there is no regulatory framework for all NFTs. To determine a proper legal regime, it is essential to locate the market to which an NFT belongs. This task requires a deep understanding of the economic realities of the associated rights, assets, and transactions. Economic-reality-based interpretations should provide a solid footing for better regulation of NFTs in the US and other jurisdictions grappling with NFT regulation. The new cryptoasset regime in the EU already incorporates a “substance over form” approach. In the US, courts have been successfully applying the Howey test to examine transactions and schemes and establish whether securities law should apply to cryptoassets. In 2023, the SEC and a US federal district court applied the Howey test to demonstrate why and how securities law built for legacy markets where mainstream assets are fungible could apply to transactions in non-fungible assets. The decisions are an example of establishing economic realities of transactions with novel assets regardless of the underlying technologies on which the assets are built. An economic reality approach should help courts and other policy-makers ascertain to which market an NFT belongs and which corresponding legal regime should govern.

This chapter addresses the phenomenon of unauthorized minting of NFTs. Specifically, the chapter examines whether copyright law should allow minting of NFTs that is not authorized by the author of the underlying work. Despite the immense growth of the NFT market, the answer to this question has remained unclear under extant copyright laws around the world. To provide foundations for policy-making in this arena, the chapter seeks to form a normative stance towards the question of unauthorized minting. It does so by analyzing this question from the perspective of the key theories that underly copyright law, including the utilitarian theory, the labor theory, and the personality theory. The matter is also examined from the viewpoint of cultural diversity and distributive justice considerations, which provide important underpinning for copyright policy. All in all, the analysis offers a normative basis for the conclusion that the right to mint an NFT should be awarded to the author of the work that underlies the NFT.