The transition toward the so-called post-cookie era, driven by the decision of major technology companies to abandon third-party cookies, is significantly reshaping the architecture of digital advertising. In the context of narrowing possibilities for conventional online tracking, interface practices for obtaining consent and interacting with users have been gaining importance. However, these practices are increasingly being associated with so-called dark patterns. Accordingly, there arises a need to assess how different legal systems respond to such challenges. Since leading jurisdictions set the benchmarks for global regulation of behavior in information and telecommunication networks, including the Internet, the European Union and the United States play a key role in this process. In this light, the present study examines the similarities and differences between European and American approaches to regulating dark patterns. The stated objective has determined the selection of sources and research methods, which include EU and US legal acts, enforcement practices undertaken by data protection authorities, methodological documents, academic publications, and the results of the author’s own empirical analysis. The latter encompassed an examination of interface practices across several popular websites and services. The findings indicate that the European model is based on preventive regulation, which restricts the use of manipulative practices already at the design stage of user interfaces. At the same time, the American model functions predominantly on a post-intervention basis. Taken together, this leads to the conclusion that effective regulation of digital advertising requires the development of a digital environment architecture grounded in the principles of predictability, transparency, and data minimization, rather than on restricting manipulative practices. These processes should be ensured by both applicable legislation and specific algorithms designed by technology companies.

In this article, we delve into a comprehensive study of the legal nature of proceedings regulated by the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Our aim was to examine specific features of the UDRP legal regulation and to analyze its arbitration nature and legal problems arising in the process of its application. The pool of research materials included the texts of the UDRP and UDRP Rules, ICANN documents, analytical studies, as well as judicial and arbitration practice. Formal legal and comparative legal methods were used. Arguments in favor of qualifying proceedings under the UDRP as a type of arbitration (arbitration proceedings), despite the absence of a classic arbitration clause, are presented. The mechanism for agreeing the parties’ intention to refer the dispute to an ICANN-accredited arbitration center through an agreement with the registrar and the filing of a respective complaint is examined. In addition, the issues involved with the arbitrability of domain disputes and the relationship between the UDRP and national courts are discussed, as well as the structure of the DNS system and the powers of ICANN. Particular attention is paid to criticism of the UDRP, including such aspects as the bias of accredited arbitration centers in favor of trademark owners, the lack of appeal review, procedural restrictions, issues of the language of proceedings, and the inability to sanction unscrupulous applicants. The conclusion is made that despite the procedural features that distinguish UDRP from classical arbitration, this dispute resolution model has all the characteristics of extrajudicial private law (alternative) proceedings. The results obtained allow us to classify the UDRP procedure as arbitration and consider this procedure a significant example of an effective alternative dispute resolution mechanism adapted to the digital environment.

A basic postulate of the civil transfer and exchange of digital assets consists in the rule according to which their transfer on the basis of a transaction is not subject to agreement with the obligated party (Article 141.1(3) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). However, the interpretation of this legal provision gives rise to certain difficulties in both doctrine and practice. Moreover, the very idea of the universalism of the concept of free (in the context of the indifference of the opinion of the debtor or other obligated party) circulation of digital rights can be subject to criticism. The present study sets out to establish the legal significance of this concept in primary terms of the (in)expediency of giving it an unconditional character. For this purpose, a comprehensive analysis of the content of the norm of Article 141.1(3) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (in conjunction with other legislative provisions regarding the transfer of property rights and the functioning of information systems) is carried out on the basis of general scientific (formal and dialectical logic) and specific scientific (legal-dogmatic, comparative legal, interpretation of legal norms) methods along with the rules of information systems developed by individual operators. The presented analysis of the general meaning and limitations of the scope of the norm of Article 141.1(3) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation reveals the critical problem of the (un) reasonableness of its qualification. The inadequacy of the differentiation of the modes of transfer of digital rights (in terms of taking into account the opinion of the obligated person) based on the legal and factual basis (transaction or occurrence of circumstances provided for by law) consists in the impossibility of demonstrating that the norm under study cannot abrogate the need to obtain the consent of subjects other than the person obligated under the digital right. the absence of indisputable factors for qualifying the rule as imperative is demonstrated in terms of the exercise and disposal of digital rights solely in the information system without recourse to a third party and not determining the inadmissibility of introducing a permit-based procedure. since the existence of political and legal grounds for refusing to perceive the concept of free transfer of digital rights as unconditional must be acknowledged, the fundamental acceptability of decentralized regulation of issues of coordinating the conclusion of a transaction with an obligated party is confirmed. The secondary nature of local regulation of the conditions for the circulation of digital rights in the rules of the information system is substantiated in terms of necessity for such conditions to be determined by the parties to the agreement).