A Permanent Centre of Gravity: IE Lawtomation Days
From AI regulation to fundamental rights, personal data protection and algorithmic trust, the fourth edition of IE Lawtomation Days turned IE University Law School into the epicentre of global debate on law and technology. This year, for the first time, thanks to a fruitful partnership with “The Digital Constitutionalist” (DigiCon), we are proud to publish a selection of the works presented in Madrid. This initiative marks the beginning of a new phase.
IE Lawtomation Days is organised by the members of the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence for Law and Automation (Lawtomation). Launched in 2022, the centre is a focal point of competence and knowledge on the impact of automation on the law that promotes excellence in teaching and research. The Centre develops synergies between legal experts across disciplines and data scientists, in an open dialogue with policymakers, civil servants, practitioners and society at large. It also aims to generate
insights that can support policymaking.
Lawtomation is much more than a research project; it is a community, a permanent centre of gravity, where ideas meet, collide and spark new energy. Despite its relatively young age, the conference has already become a tradition, a stop in the international calendar for law and technology. It has also served as a springboard to this and many other projects among participants. The aim for the future is to push forward solutions that genuinely serve progress and prosperity, and to insist that law can be an engine of positive transformation.
Technology and (Dis)Trust: the conference’s fourth edition IE Lawtomation Days is a flagship international gathering at the intersection of law and technology. With 120 speakers, 200 participants, 23 parallel panels, 19 chairs and 80 institutions from 25 countries across 4 continents, this year’s edition captured the breadth and depth of debates on AI, regulation and law.
The main theme was trust and its opposite, distrust. Over two intense days, we interrogated confidence in algorithms, datasets, institutions, legal education and the legal profession by using a comparative lens. The conversation circled back to a key question: Can law alone sustain trust in AI driven societies, or must ethics, technical safeguards and corporate responsibility shoulder part of the task?
The keynote speeches framed these questions powerfully. Professor Michèle Finck (University of Tübingen) posited that, far from a robust safeguard, the AI Act may function as a form of deregulation, subtly shifting power from public institutions to private powers. As she noted, “The general portrayal is that the AI act is thought of as an international outlier in its stringent approach to regulating AI. My main point is that it is actually deregulatory as it is a pre-emption of member state control of AI.” She underlined how the AI Act’s scope extends to providing harmonized rules for the placing on the market, putting into service, and the use of AI systems. Legislators’ primary intention was to prevent member states from adopting their own rules in relation to AI in a broad manner. Finck explained that the “open-ended nature” and “undefined legal terms” mean there is significant uncertainty about what national enforcement will look like.
Professor Veena B. Dubal’s (UC Irvine School of Law) keynote, “Data Rights at Work: A Comparative Perspective,” explored the growing impact of algorithmic management and surveillance technologies on labour rights. Her talk shone a spotlight on the power imbalance between employers and employees in digital workplaces, reflecting on how data collection and algorithmic decision-making can erode autonomy and dignity. Using the example of gig-economy workers in San Francisco, she observed how the algorithms determining employees’ constantly changing pay are themselves constantly changing. With algorithms now deliberately designed to modify behaviours through fluctuating wages or targets, traditional data protection laws (which rely on individuals understanding how they are being assessed) fall short: “Collectively understanding the logic of decision-making systems then, will not help them advance in their jobs, as the systems may be designed to learn about and treat individuals differently.”
Mathias Siems, professor at the European University Institute, explored the challenges and opportunities posed by Generative AI in legal research in higher education. Siems proposed a risk assessment framework for AI use in academia, likening it to EU food labelling systems with a colour coded scale for different practices. Rather than banning AI altogether, universities and research centres should promote literacy, individual (full) responsibility and disciplinary diversity, helping scholars assess when AI use is appropriate.
Fellow panellist Ignacio Cofone from the University of Oxford discussed the relational nature of modern data: “As soon as you download an app and use it for a minute, companies get information on you because they profile you according to the behaviour patterns of people who came before”.
In practice, companies can now infer your sexuality from your buying habits. Therefore, “in a world of unpredictable inferences, the model of giving people the power to choose breaks down,” as there is simply no way for individuals to know how the individual elements aggregate. All in all, regulators will have to reframe their approach to accountability: “Data protection should not just regulate individual choices – it is about holding the powerful accountable for the consequences of what they do”.
This year also marked the launch of the Jean Monnet Chair in EU Digital Private Law, led by Francisco de Elizalde, which will further strengthen and expand the activities of the Centre. The Chair addresses the institutionalisation of private law with the EU digital regulations. Private law is transformed both in substance and procedure to address the specialities of power in the digital environment. The Chair explores the unfolding legal scenario with research, teaching and dissemination activities. It becomes a new line of research of the Centre, which has profited from the cross-sectoral approach of the IE
Lawtomation Days.
The intellectual quality, collegial spirit and global diversity on display this year reaffirmed what many already know: Lawtomation is the place to go for anyone seeking to understand how technology reshapes legal frameworks, and how law, in turn, can help shape a digital future that remains accountable and trustworthy.
This is a collective success, whose merits are shared. None of this would have been possible without the tireless work of our IE Law School staff and faculty members, the dedication of 64 student volunteers and the support of our partners: the International Labour Organization, the European Law Institute (ELI) and DigiCon, with whom we have prepared our first collective volume.
The convenors are also grateful for the backing of the research project PID2023-
149184OB-C43, granted by MCIU / AEI / 10.13039/501100011033 and the FSE+.
Antonio Aloisi
Antonio Aloisi is an Associate Professor of Law at IE University in Madrid, where he teaches European and comparative labour law and introduces students to digital and platform regulation. He co-leads the “Lawtomation” Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence and is affiliated with the “LawAhead” Center on the Legal Profession. He is also a fellow at the UNESCO Chair in AI Ethics & Governance.
Francisco De Elizalde
Francisco de Elizalde is an Associate Professor of Private Law at IE University and Director of the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence for Law & Automation (Lawtomation).
Co-founder of DigiCon
Assistant Professor at IE University
