This essay examines the legal mechanisms of digital content moderation on HR tech platforms as an integral element of contemporary regulation of the digital labor market. In the context of digital transformation, online platforms increasingly move beyond the role of purely technical intermediaries and assume functions of private regulation. Within this framework, content moderation becomes a key instrument shaping the legal environment of interactions between employers and job seekers. The purpose of this study is to identify the legal nature of digital moderation on HR tech platforms, to determine its place within the system of legal regulation, and to substantiate its role as a form of preventive law enforcement in a private digital environment. On a doctrinal basis, the essay examines relevant provisions of Russian law, including rules on the status and liability model of the “information intermediary,” and compares them with foreign regulatory approaches, notably the EU Digital Services Act and the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act. The analysis is complemented by a review of platform user agreements and moderation policies, enabling the identification of operational models of pre-moderation, post-moderation, algorithmic filtering, and appeals procedures. The essay demonstrates that the introduction of specific statutory obligations for operators of online classified services transforms the traditional model of information intermediary liability and objectively requires the implementation of proactive content moderation mechanisms. It is argued that digital moderation on HR tech platforms cannot be reduced to technical filtering; rather, it constitutes a mechanism of primary legal qualification of factual circumstances, the results of which entail legal consequences for platform users. Special attention is paid to the dual legal nature of job vacancy postings, which may fall under different legal regimes depending on their content, and to algorithmic moderation adapted to the sectoral specifics of labor relations. The study further argues that the principle of full transparency of moderation decisions is not universal and, in certain contexts, may undermine the effectiveness of fraud prevention and the stability of platform ecosystems. The essay substantiates the permissibility of limited transparency models, provided that accessible appeal mechanisms and error-correction procedures are maintained. The findings of this research may be applied in the development of user agreements, internal moderation policies, and algorithmic moderation systems of HR tech platforms.

The legal nature and institutional mechanisms of the digital border control systems of the European Union (EU) are analyzed based on case studies of the implementation of the Entry/Exit System and “Smart Borders” project. The relevance of the research is due to the introduction of the Entry/Exit System on 12 October 2025, which represents the world’s first multi-level digital border control instrument operating at the level of a major supranational integration entity. Such a transition to a new model of external border management based on centralized data processing, automated control, and deep digital integration necessitates a comprehensive legal analysis that takes into account issues of institutional development and the protection of fundamental rights. The purpose of the study is to identify the essential characteristics of the legal regulation of large-scale information systems of the EU that ensure automated border control, as well as to determine the institutional and methodological foundations of their functioning within the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). The methodological framework of the research is based on a comprehensive approach that includes a normative legal analysis of European Union regulations, an institutional analysis of the development of the AFSJ, and an examination of the architecture and operational mechanisms of the Entry/Exit System and related digital platforms. The legal regulation of large-scale information systems of the European Union is shown to be characterized by a centralized governance architecture, the mandatory application of unified standards for the processing of biographical and biometric data, a multi-layered access regime, and the prioritization of the principles of personal data protection and proportionality of interference. It is demonstrated that the functioning of such systems is based on the integration of national components into a single digital framework under the management of the eu-LISA Agency, which ensures technical operation, legal interoperability, and infrastructure resilience. The “Smart Borders” project is further revealed to reflect a transition from fragmented information solutions to a comprehensive model of automated border control, while the abandonment of the initial two-system design was driven by institutional and technical constraints. Key legal risks associated with the operation of the Entry/Exit System, which functions as a structural element in the formation of a single digital space of the EU and deepening integration within the AFSJ, are revealed to include the consequences of data errors, integration with other information systems, and the impact of centralized architecture on migration procedures. The study, which contributes to the development of scholarly understanding of digital sovereignty and transformation of border controls, has relevance for the analysis of similar processes in other integration entities.

This article is dedicated to a comprehensive analysis of the legal nature of a domain name as a special object functioning in the digital environment and proactively involved in civil commerce. The relevance of this work is attributable to the lack of a uniform approach used to qualify domain names in the legislation and judicial practices of different legal systems, which complicates the establishment of effective legal remedies. The goal of this analysis is to identify the prevailing doctrinal and law enforcement approaches applied to determine the legal nature of a domain name in the Russian, German and American legal systems and also to determine possible legal remedies in the respective countries. The authors have used as materials here the regulatory and legal acts, judicial practices and sources of academic research of the indicated legal systems. The underlying concepts of the legal nature of a domain name are analysed in the article: as address facilities, as a digital asset, identifier and item of intellectual property. They demonstrate that a limited technical understanding of a domain name does not reflect its actual role in the digital economy. The authors highlight the prevalence of a fragmented and contradictory approach in Russian law—by contrast, the German and American legal systems provide more flexible models of legal qualification, which enable the use of existing legal institutes to protect the rights of a domain name administrator. Particular attention is paid to analysis of a domain name as a subject of property rights and as a digital asset that has independent economic value and is capable of generating turnover. The authors conclude that a domain name has a hybrid legal nature, combining features of different legal categories, and substantiate the need to adopt a differentiated approach to its legal qualification, depending on the functions being performed, which makes it possible to ensure a balance of the interests of participants in civil commerce and enhance the effectiveness of the legal protection that is provided.

The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) across a wide range of economic sectors, including transportation, healthcare, and finance, has significantly transformed decision-making processes and operational efficiency. At the same time, increasing reliance on AI has generated new legal challenges, particularly with respect to accountability and sanctions. Central issues include decisional responsibility, algorithmic transparency, and data regulation, especially in relation to bias. Traditional legal frameworks, which were developed to govern human conduct, are poorly equipped to address the self-learning capabilities, unpredictability, and opacity of AI systems. This paper examines the emerging concept of shared responsibility within multi-stakeholder AI ecosystems, in which liability may extend across developers, manufacturers, operators, and users. It analyzes product liability principles and the allocation of accountability in cases where AI systems cause harm. Particular emphasis is placed on the need to adapt legal frameworks to keep pace with the rapid evolution of AI technologies, ensuring flexibility, resilience, and alignment with international legal standards. The European Union’s AI Act is examined as a case study illustrating efforts to address accountability gaps while promoting ethical guidelines to strengthen public trust. Through the use of case studies and hypothetical scenarios, this paper highlights the importance of transparency and fairness in managing the legal implications of AI. Finally, it advocates for closer collaboration between computer science and law to bridge gaps in AI literacy, product development, and regulation. By addressing contemporary challenges and proposing legal responses, this paper offers a coherent framework for managing liability in the age of artificial intelligence.

The last day of July 2025 was marked by the adoption of Federal Law No. 289-FZ “On Certain Issues of Regulating the Platform Economy in the Russian Federation,” fulfilling a long-standing need. Back in 2024, in a message to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, the President of the Russian Federation highlighted the strategic priority of developing digital platforms in all key sectors of the country by 2030. Platformization proved to be relevant, effective and, consequently, highly demanded in all areas, including employment. According to experts, the Federal Law “On Employment in the Russian Federation” dated December 12, 2023, No. 565-FZ required revision to eliminate certain vulnerabilities. However, the legislators took a different course and adopted the law in question. In this article, the author carries out a brief review of the legal framework governing platform employment under the adopted law, taking into account current scientific concepts of platform employment. The research was conducted using available sources of information about platform employment, legislative acts, and publications in professional media. Legal norms were examined using the formal-legal method of analysis. The systems method was applied to generalize the academic doctrine and to assess the concepts introduced into the law in view of established perspectives within the field and legislative drafting practices. Among the positive aspects of the legislation under analysis are the introduction of a conceptual framework, including the notion of a “partner of an intermediary digital platform,” the classification of partners, the possibility of rating parties, and clarification of their rights and duties. At the same time, the text of the law does not provide a sufficiently clear classification of platforms, which represents a shortcoming of the reform. In conclusion, the author notes a positive trajectory in the development of legislation on platform employment and emphasized the need to adopt subordinate regulatory acts to further develop this institution.