Digital Law Journal

Advanced search

Personalized Law and Fundamental Rights


In recent years, scholars have focused increased attention on the idea of personalized law. It suggests the creation and enforcement of individualized legal norms based on the algorithmic processing of data in the similar manner companies personalize their services using Big Data tools. The article aims to define the role and position of personalized law and to evaluate the risks and consequences of personalization in the context of the emerging digital economy. The research analyses the theoretical grounds of personalized law and justifies its interpretation from the perspective of Hart’s legal positivism striking a balance between the sociological facticity of law and normativism. The study reveals the content, essential features of personalized law and defines its concept. The author analyses the correlation of personalized law with fundamental rights, thus evaluating the risks and consequences of personalization. Particularly, the errors of the approximation of a person’s actual will could occur as part of algorithmic decision-making thereby resulting in discrimination. It appears reasonable that at the beginning, algorithmic personalization should cover only those domains which have the minimal risk of the violation of fundamental norms and of intrusion into the field of social debates. The study underscores, that the transparency of the public sector and of the data-based algorithmic decision-making process is crucial in the context of personalized law, but nevertheless could debase its idea due to opportunistic practices. The issues identified during the research lead one to suggest that professionals who have both legal education and expertise in computer sciences would be in demand in the future. Such professionals could perform the role of independent experts and neutral authority monitoring compliance with data subject’s rights.

About the Author

Tembot Z. Misostishkhov
National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University)
Russian Federation

Tembot Z. Misostishkhov — LLM 

20, str. Myasnitskaya, Moscow, 101000


1. Abdrakhmanova, G. I., Vishnevskiy, K. O., & Gokhberg, L. M. (Eds.). (2019). Chto takoye tsifrovaya ekonomika? Trendy, kompetentsii, izmereniye: Doklad k XX Aprel’skoy mezhdunarodnoy nauchnoy konferentsii po problemam razvitiya ekonomiki i obshchestva [What is the digital economy? Trends, competencies, measurement: Report to the XX April International Scientific Conference on the development of economy and society]. Izdatel’skiy dom Vysshey Shkoly Ekonomiki.

2. Ayres, I. (1993). Preliminary thoughts on optimal tailoring of contractual rules. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 3, 1–18.

3. Barry, J. M., Hatfield, J. W., & Kominers, S. D. (2020). To thine own self be true? Incentive problems in personalized law. San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 20–439.

4. Belyavskiy B. A. (2020). «Vrag moyego vraga», ili Ob obyedinyayushchem potentsiale rynochnogo radikalizma. Retsenziya na knigu: Posner E. A. , & Weyl G. E. (2018). Radical markets: Uprooting capitalism and democracy for a just society. Princeton University Press [“The enemy of my enemy”, or on the unifying potential of market radicalism. Book review: Posner E. A., & Weyl G. E. 2018. Radical markets: Uprooting capitalism and democracy for a just society. Princeton University Press]. Ekonomicheskaya Sotsiologiya, 21(2), 76–90.

5. Bender, P. M. (2020). Limits of Personalization of default rules — Towards a normative theory. Working Paper 2020–02. Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.

6. Bratanovskiy, S. N., & Ostapets, O. G. (2019). Konstitutsionnoye pravo Rossiyskoy Federatsii: Uchebnik dlya vuzov [Constitutional law of the Russian Federation: Textbook for universities]. Direkt-Media.

7. Busch, C. (2019). Implementing personalized law: Personalized disclosures in consumer law and data privacy law. The University of Chicago Law Review, 86(2), 309–332.

8. Casey, A. J., & Niblett, A. (2019). Framework for the new personalization of law. The University of Chicago Law Review, 86(2), 333–358.

9. De Franceschi, A., & Busch, C. (2018). Granular legal norms: Big Data and the personalization of private law. In V. Mak, E. T. T. Tai, & A. Berlee (Eds.), Research handbook on data science and law. (pp. 17). Edward Elgar.

10. Dvorkin, R. (2004). O pravakh vser’yez [Taking rights seriously]. ROSSPEN.

11. Ehrlich, I., & Posner, R. A. (1974). An economic analysis of legal rulemaking. The Journal of Legal Studies, 3(1), 257–286.

12. Elkin-Koren, N., & Gal, M. S. (2019). The chilling effect of Governance-by-Data on data markets. The University of Chicago Law Review, 86 (2), 403–432.

13. Geis, G. S. (2006). An experiment in the optimal precision of contract default rules. Tulane Law Review, 80, Article 1109.

14. Grigoleit, H. C., & Bender, P. (2019). The law between generality and particularity — Chances and limits of personalized law. In C. Busch, & A. de Franceschi (Eds.), Data economy and algorithmic regulation: A handbook on personalized law (pp. 45). Beck C. H.

15. Hacker, P. (2017). Personalizing EU private law: From disclosures to nudges and mandates. European Review of Private Law, 25(3), 651–678.

16. Isztin, P. (2019). Eric Posner and E. Glen Weyl, radical markets: Uprooting capitalism and democracy for a just society. OEconomia, 9(4), 873–880.

17. Kaminski, M. E., & Witnov, S. (2015). The conforming effect: First Amendment implications of surveillance, beyond chilling speech. University of Richmond Law Review, 49, 465–518.

18. Karbon’ye, ZH. (1986). Yuridicheskaya sotsiologiya (V. A. Tumanova, Per. i Vstup.) [Legal sociology (V. A. Tumanova, Trans. and Intr.)]. Progress.

19. Kasatkin, S. N. (2008). Osnovnyye idei «Postskriptuma» Herbert L. A. Kharta [The main ideas of “Postscript” by Herbert L. A. Hart]. Vestnik Samarskoy Gumanitarnoy Akademii. Seriya “Pravo”, (1), 3–26.

20. Khayyek, F. A. (2018). Konstitutsiya svobody [The Constitution of Liberty]. Novoye Izdatel’stvo: Biblioteka Svobody.

21. Khayyek, F. A. (1992). Pagubnaya samonadeyannost’. Oshibki sotsializma [Pernicious arrogance. The mistakes of socialism]. “Novosti” pri uchastii izd-va “Catallaxy”.

22. Khizhnyakov, D. P., & Lebedev, S. D. (2011). Informatsionnyye bar‘yery v sisteme gosudarstvennogo upravleniya [Information barriers in the public administration system]. Nauchnyye Vedomosti BelGU. Seriya: Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Pravo, 2(87), 223–232.

23. Kurzinski-Singer, E. (2011). Yurisprudentsiya tsennostey kak osnova metodiki nemetskogo prava [Jurisprudence of values as the basis of the methodology of German law]. Nauchnyye Trudy Adilet, (1), 87–94.

24. Nekhayev, A. V. (2019). Plokhoy zakon kak chistoye pravo: Kriticheskiye zametki k filosofii prava H. L. A. Kharta [Bad law as pure law: Critical notes to the concept of law of H. L. A. Hart]. Vestnik TGU, (440), 72–80.

25. Porat, A., & Strahilevitz, L. J. (2014). Personalizing default rules and disclosure with Big Data. Michigan Law Review, 112(8), 1417–1478.

26. Savel’yev, A. I. (2019). Na puti k kontseptsii regulirovaniya dannykh v usloviyakh tsifrovoy ekonomiki [Towards a data regulation concept in the digital economy]. Zakon, (4), 174–195.

27. Sunstein, C. R. (2013). Deciding by default. The University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 162(1), 1–57.

28. Verstein, A. (2019). Privatizing personalized law. The University of Chicago Law Review, 86(2), 551–580.

29. Zeman, I. (1966). Poznaniye i informatsiya. Gnoseologicheskiye problemy kibernetiki (R. Ye. Mel’tser, Per.) [Knowledge and information. Epistemological problems of cybernetics (R. E. Melzer, Trans.)]. Progress.

Views: 76

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

ISSN 2686-9136 (Online)