At the end of September 2022, the European Commission presented two notable documents designed to fundamentally change the current system of product liability in Europe. In part, these projects were a response to the challenges posed by digitalization and modern technology. The first document is designed to regulate liability for harm caused by artificial intelligence systems, while the second is aimed at adapting the EU Council Directive of July 25, 1985 No. 85/374/EEC to contemporary conditions. The present article sets out to review the key developments in the field of product liability in Europe. To this end, a review of the existing system of product liability in Europe is carried out. The existing product liability system is comprised of two parts: norms enshrined in national laws, as well as harmonized liability under the EU Council Directive of July 25, 1985 No. 85/374/EEC 1985. However, there is no consensus in European doctrine and practice regarding the regime of harmonized liability. While on the one hand, this regime is based on the idea of strict liability, on the other hand, there is also a reasoned opinion that the Directive factually establishes a regime of liability based on fault. On the example of German law, it is revealed that, despite the strict liability regime approved by special law, courts often focus in practice on a manufacturer’s breach of the duty of care, which once again testifies to liability based on fault. Possible factors behind the decision on the part of the European regulator to reform the existing liability system include: the increasing complexity of the goods themselves; the expansion of intermediary chains and emergence of new potential subjects of liability, including owners of aggregators; difficulties in proving the existence of a product defect and a causal link between such a defect and the resulting harm; the concept of harm in the digital age and the special role of data; providers’ liability for goods equipped with artificial intelligence technology.

Representing a network of virtual worlds, the metaverse ultimately forms a complex object of legal regulation due to the possibility of its normalization according to the provisions of different branches of law. The present work sets out to reveal the legal nature of the metaverse from a legal perspective. The selected methodology for determining its legal nature consists in comparing objects that are similar to the metaverse, but are already regulated by legal provisions. Such objects include the Internet, websites, multiplayer online video games, and virtual space in general. In order to identify their similarities and differences, the metaverse is compared to the specified objects. While the multifaceted nature of the metaverse permits its definition from a Russian legal perspective as information, as an object of intellectual property, or as a means of communication, the metaverse resembles the compared objects only in the most general way, while their differences are so significant that reducing its legal nature to only one of them does not fully account for its salient characteristics. By analogy with other spatial categories, but taking into account its specific features, the metaverse can be considered as a virtual space sui generis. While there is a lack of current legal regulation to support such a conclusion, future legislation of the metaverse should be built with this in mind.

In the rapidly evolving field of quantum communication, the regulatory framework plays a crucial role in ensuring security, standardization, and international cooperation. This article examines various approaches employed by countries to regulate quantum communication. The purpose of this research is to comprehensively analyze and compare different international approaches to the regulation of quantum communication to identify key features characteristic of the current stage of development and regulation of quantum communication, as well as to develop recommendations for optimizing and improving regulatory governance in this area. The methodological basis of the study consisted of general scientific and special methods. A detailed study of various legal documents, strategies, and standards related to quantum communication was conducted using the following general scientific methods: analysis, synthesis, induction, and system analysis. Among the special legal methods used was the comparative legal method, which made it possible to identify general trends, differences, and unique approaches in the regulation of quantum communication, as well as the formal-legal method for studying legal categories and legislative techniques used in various acts in the studied area. The study systematically examines legislative measures, government policies, and industry standards to determine the relationship between technological innovation and regulatory governance in the field of quantum communication. The research revealed that the regulation of quantum communication is primarily carried out at the level of strategic documents, such as national roadmaps, which contain recommendations and guidelines for regulating quantum communication. It was found that technical standards play a vital role in the development of quantum communication, with this development occurring at both national and international levels. Special groups and centers have been established for the effective implementation, development, and regulation of quantum communication, which allows for the identification of social, legal, political, and ethical issues. The main conclusions include the need to monitor administrative barriers, identify priority sectors for the implementation of quantum communication, and recognize quantum communication as a dual-use technology. It is recommended that an international certification and tracking system be created for quantum communication devices for export and import control purposes.

This study addresses the issues involved in holding information intermediaries accountable for infringement of intellectual property rights. The growing significance of online commerce and the necessity to protect intellectual property rights in a digital environment makes this research especially relevant. This study aims to identify the various approaches to holding intermediaries accountable and assess the effectiveness of existing legal regulations in the United States and China. The findings indicate significant differences in the approaches to this issue in the legal systems studied. For instance, in the United States, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act imposes fewer obligations on intermediaries to monitor user-generated content. This approach provides broad protection to platforms and encourages innovation, but leaves certain gaps in the protection of intellectual property rights. Conversely, China’s E-commerce Law places more responsibilities on platforms to prevent violations, offering them less protection. The conclusions drawn may contribute to the improvement of legal regulation concerning the activities of information intermediaries, the enhancement of enforcement mechanisms, and the development of strategies to combat intellectual property rights infringement.

In connection with the Fifth Antimonopoly Package, the author analyzes the effectiveness of new competition law. The aim of the research is to identify the legal and economic consequences of including the term “network effect” and special legal structures for abuse of a dominant position in digital markets in Russian legislation. The study is based on Russian and foreign legislation, materials from judicial practice, and scientific research. The new rules make it possible for the existing legal regulation on the protection of competition to be applied to the phenomena of the digital economy. However, in the digital sectors, prohibiting the abuse of a dominant position contributes to strengthening the dominance of platform operators and the formation of a digital monopoly. This is not entirely consistent with the goals of antitrust regulation. With the consolidation in the provisions of Russian law of the principle of technological neutrality, as well as the design of a public contract, the strengthening of the dominance of platform operators may be restricted. A consequence of the lack of unified terminology in the Fifth Antimonopoly Package and legislation on digital platforms is the unreasonable limitation of the subject composition of the prohibition of abuse of a dominant position in digital markets. The Fifth Antimonopoly package applies to the activities of marketplaces and aggregators, but does not extend to digital ecosystems and digital services in the format of applications, cloud storage, social networks, search engines, streaming services, among others. This limitation will be overcome by applying the general rules on the prohibition of monopolistic activities and unfair competition to digital ecosystems and digital services. The author draws attention to a number of practical problems in applying dominance criteria to the activities of digital intermediaries, focusing on their business model. Conclusions are drawn about the advisability of expanding the subject composition of relations regulated by the new special rules of the Fifth Antimonopoly Package. Legal means are also proposed aimed at ensuring a balance of interests of the dominant digital platform operators and users.