The German Federal Court of Justice recently clarified online platforms' liability for user-generated content, ruling platforms aren't directly liable without knowledge but must act swiftly upon notification, significantly impacting digital service providers across Europe.
Australia’s eSafety Commissioner ordered Telegram to pay AUD 1 million for ignoring transparency obligations. Officials requested details on terrorist and child sexual content steps, but Telegram delayed months, triggering enforcement under the Online Safety Act.
On 28 February 2025, Japan’s Cabinet announced significant plans to introduce a Bill to promote research, development, and practical application of artificial intelligence technologies. The legislation focuses on transparency, protection of rights, and international cooperation.
Digital assets and electronic trade documents raise complex private international law challenges. Jurisdictional uncertainties and fragmented status across borders complicate their use in global trade, prompting urgent calls for harmonised legal frameworks to ensure reliability and predictability.
Modern technology has revolutionised the way businesses operate globally, introducing new tools and practices such as digital assets and electronic trade documents (ETDs).
These innovations offer efficiency and transparency but also present significant challenges impacting conflict of laws.
In February 2024, a call for evidence was launched to pinpoint the most pressing legal issues arising from the use of digital assets and ETDs in digital and decentralised environments.
As we await the release of a detailed consultation paper later in 2025, preliminary insights from the FAQ document provide an intriguing glimpse into the complexities involved.
Digital assets, including cryptocurrencies and tokenised securities, often operate across borders, complicating the application of existing legal frameworks.
Private international law governs cross-border transactions, yet its traditional principles are struggling to keep pace with the decentralised and borderless nature of digital assets.
Consider the challenge of determining jurisdiction in disputes involving digital assets. Unlike tangible goods, digital assets do not have a physical location. For instance, if a transaction between parties in two different countries takes place on a decentralised exchange, which court has the authority to adjudicate disputes?
The FAQs document hints at this difficulty, explaining that traditional rules like "place of delivery" or "place of performance" do not translate easily to digital contexts.
Instead, courts must adapt by focusing on alternative connecting factors such as the domicile of the parties or the location of the relevant blockchain node.
Furthermore, the applicable law is another contentious issue. Digital assets can be stored or transferred across multiple jurisdictions in seconds, making it unclear which legal system should govern their use. This challenge is addressed, noting that parties often specify governing law in their agreements.
However, when such clauses are absent, determining applicable law can involve a mix of national laws, potentially leading to conflicting outcomes. This uncertainty poses a risk to market participants and highlights the urgent need for harmonised rules.
ETDs, such as electronic bills of lading and warehouse receipts, have gained traction in international trade, offering faster processing and reduced paperwork. Yet, their digital nature raises questions under private international law. For example, the legal recognition of ETDs varies widely among jurisdictions.
While some countries have enacted legislation to give electronic documents the same legal status as their paper counterparts, others have not, creating a fragmented legal environment.
The FAQs document outlines how this inconsistency affects cross-border trade. Take an electronic bill of lading issued in a jurisdiction that recognises ETDs: if the bill needs to be enforced in a country without similar laws, its validity may be questioned.
Such discrepancies undermine the predictability and reliability of international trade, prompting calls for standardised legal frameworks.
Another issue concerns the transferability of ETDs. In traditional trade, transferring a paper document is straightforward. With ETDs, the process involves sophisticated technical systems, such as blockchain or other digital ledgers, to ensure security and authenticity.
However, these technologies introduce new legal complexities, particularly around liability and fraud. For instance, if an ETD is hacked or altered, who bears responsibility?
As the FAQs document explains, the legal ramifications depend on a combination of contractual terms, applicable laws, and technical safeguards, all of which require careful coordination across jurisdictions.
The call for evidence and the upcoming consultation paper represent important steps towards addressing these challenges. By engaging stakeholders across industries, governments, and academia, the process aims to build a consensus on key legal principles for digital assets and ETDs.
The FAQs document stipulates the importance of international cooperation, suggesting that global standards are essential to minimise conflicts of law and promote legal certainty.
European Central Bank expands distributed ledger settlement possibilities by linking these transactions with central bank money. This approach seeks to promote a secure foundation for tokenised trading, while opening pathways for cross-border and foreign exchange operations.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has launched a Crypto Task Force to develop clear regulatory guidelines, streamline registration processes, and coordinate with federal agencies. This initiative aims to balance innovation with strong investor protection measures.
Hong Kong’s Securities and Futures Commission has introduced new cybersecurity and asset protection circular for virtual asset trading platforms. The guidelines mandate strong security monitoring, asset segregation, and due diligence to enhance compliance and consumer protection.
Sarcuni v bZx DAO (2023) explores liability within Decentralised Autonomous Organisations (DAOs), highlighting legal challenges in defining DAO membership as a general partnership and addressing security negligence in crypto protocols leading to substantial financial losses.
Follow the latest Tech Law news and updates about AI, Digital Assets, Internet Law, Data Protection, LawTech.
