Algorithmic decision-making in private law

Algorithmic decision-making is becoming widely used in private law. Today, algorithms are routinely employed to screen job applicants, execute transactions, and freeze bank accounts. However, existing rules and doctrinal approaches do not always provide adequate responses to the legal challenges posed by algorithmic errors and the lack of transparency in algorithmic decision-making systems, particularly in cases where decisions are generated by artificial intelligence operating as a “black box.” In this article, the author sets out to examine how the delegation of legally significant decisions to increasingly autonomous algorithms affects private law relationships. The author analyzes whether the established doctrinal principles and legislative rules are capable of resolving the emerging problems, or whether they require conceptual reconsideration. The study draws on the provisions of Russian civil law and personal data legislation, the provisions and practice of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), as well as domestic and international academic literature on algorithmic decision-making, algorithmic transparency and accountability, and legal safeguards designed to mitigate the risk of unlawful algorithmic decisions. It was found that algorithmic errors and the opacity of algorithmic decision-making can lead to a discrepancy between the data subject’s will and the will expressed through the algorithmic decision. The concept of the algorithm as a representative (agent) proves unsuitable for addressing the resulting legal issues. It is argued that algorithmic decisions should be classified as legal facts constituting either lawful or unlawful acts of the individual who delegated the process of decision-making to the algorithm. The lawfulness of automated decisions should be assessed on a par with other actions of legal subjects, while taking into account the subjective element of the subject’s conduct, including algorithmic errors and the measures taken by the subject during the implementation and use of algorithms. On this basis, the author proposes a reinterpretation of the concepts of intent, knowledge, and good faith in the context of algorithmic decision-making. It is argued that algorithmic transparency and accountability should be regarded as components of a risk management system and as prerequisites for monitoring the lawfulness of automated decisions. The right to object to an algorithmic decision is effective only provided that human review includes an analysis of the decision-making logic, as well as the identification and correction of errors that influenced the decision. At the same time, judicial review is not a universal remedy against automated decisions, since the proper subject of litigation can be the unlawful conduct of the party responsible for the algorithmic decision and specific remedies applied in individual situations.

1. Bayern, S. (2020). Algorithms, agreements, and agency. In W. Barfield (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the law of algorithms (pp. 153–161). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108680844.008

2. Budylin, S. (2022). Delo o bitve robotov, ili mozhet li smart-kontrakt byt' nedeystvitel'nym? [The case of the battle of the robots, or can a smart contract be invalid?] Vestnik Ekonomicheskogo Pravosudiya, 46–70. https://doi.org/10.37239/2500-2643-2022-17-3-46-70

3. Erakhtina, О. S., & Khramoeva, A. D. (2021). Pravovaya priroda ehlektronnyh agentov: Voprosy teorii i pravoprimenitel'noj praktiki [The legal nature of electronic agents: Issues of theory and law enforcement practice]. Zakony Rossii: Opyt, Analiz, Praktika, (3), 85–90.

4. Ioffe, O. S. (2020). Izbrannyye trudy po grazhdanskomu pravu. Iz istorii tsivilisticheskoy mysli. Grazhdanskoye pravootnosheniye. Kritika teorii "khozyaystvennogo prava" [Selected works on civil law: From the history of civil law scholarship. The civil law relationship. A critique of the theory of "Economic Law"] (4th ed.). Statut.

5. Karapetov, A. G. (Ed.). (2018). Sdelki, predstavitel'stvo, iskovaya davnost': postateynyy kommentariy k stat'yam 153–208 Grazhdanskogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Legal transactions, representation, and limitation periods: An Article-by-article commentary on articles 153–208 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation] (1st digital ed.). M-Logos.

6. Karapetov, A. G. (Ed.). (2020a). Dogovornoye pravo (obshchaya chast'): Postateynyy kommentariy k stat'yam 420–453 Grazhdanskogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Contract law (general part): An article-by-article commentary on articles 420–453 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation] (2nd digital ed.). M-Logos.

7. Karapetov, A. G. (Ed.). (2020b). Osnovnyye polozheniya grazhdanskogo prava: postateynyy kommentariy k stat'yam 1–16.1 Grazhdanskogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Fundamental principles of civil law: An article-by-article commentary on articles 1–16.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation] (1st digital ed.). M-Logos.

8. Katyal, S. K. (2020). Private accountability in an age of artificial intelligence. In W. Barfield (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the law of algorithms (pp. 47–106). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108680844.004

9. Kharitonova, Yu. S. (2023). Pravovyye sredstva obespecheniya printsipa prozrachnosti iskusstvennogo intellekta [Legal means of providing the principle of transparency of the artificial intelligence]. Journal of Digital Technologies and Law, 1(2), 337–358. https://doi.org/10.21202/jdtl.2023.14

10. Krylov, I. V. (2024). Trudopravovyye aspekty ispol'zovaniya iskusstvennogo intellekta [Labour law aspects of artificial intelligence use] [Doctoral dissertation, Lomonosov Moscow State University]. Dissovet 2.0. https://dissovet.msu.ru/dissertation/3027

11. Kuteynikov, D. L., Izhaev, O. A., Zenin, S. S., & Lebedev, V. A. (2020). Algoritmicheskaya prozrachnost' i podotchetnost': Pravovyye podkhody k razresheniyu problemy «chernogo yashchika» [Algorithmic transparency and accountability: Legal approaches to solving the "black box" problem]. Lex russica, 73(6), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2020.163.6.139-148

12. Kuznetsova, S. (2025). Osobennosti pravovogo regulirovaniya skoringa v Soyedinennykh Shtatakh Ameriki i Evropeyskom Soyuze [Features of legal regulation of scoring in the United States of America and the European Union]. Lex russica, 78(10), 90–106. https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2025.227.10.090-106

13. Morondo Taramundi, D. (2022). Discrimination by machine-based decisions: Inputs and limits of anti-discrimination law. In B. Custers, & E. Fosch-Villaronga (Eds.), Law and Artificial Intelligence (pp. 73–85). T.M.C. Asser Press The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-523-2_4

14. Savelyev, A. (2016). Dogovornoe pravo 2.0: "Umnye" kontrakty kak nachalo kontsa klassicheskogo dogovornogo prava [Contract law 2.0: "Smart contracts" and the beginning of the end of the classic contract law]. Vestnik Grazhdanskogo Prava, 16(3), 32–60.

15. Savelyev, A. (2021). Nauchno-prakticheskiy postateynyy kommentariy k Federal'nomu zakonu «O personal'nykh dannykh» [An article-by-article scholarly and practical commentary on the Federal Law "On Personal Data"] (2nd ed.). Statut.

16. Scherer, M. U. (2019). Of wild beasts and digital analogues: The legal status of autonomous systems. Nevada Law Journal, 19(1), 259–292. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3223174

17. Scholz, L. (2017). Algorithmic contracts. Stanford Technology Law Review, 20(2), 128–169. https://ir.law.fsu.edu/articles/607/

18. Tamò-Larrieux, A., Guitton, C., & Mayer, S. (2025). AI and law: How automation is changing the law. Chapman and Hall; CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003386919

19. Weitzenboeck, E. M. (2001). Electronic agents and the formation of contracts. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 9(3), 204–234. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/9.3.204