Cited by 5Discrimination and Equality LawDigitalization, Law, and RegulationEthics and Social Impacts of AI

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reconsidering discrimination grounds in the data economy: An EU comparison of national constitutions

Open access
Custers, Bart·2023·Computer Law & Security Review

Abstract

The principle of equal treatment (i.e., all people have the right to be treated equally) is protected by non-discrimination provisions in national constitutions across the EU as well as the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFEU). These provisions specify which grounds (e.g., gender, race, religion) are prohibited to use as the basis for making decisions on people, such as offering a person a job. In the data economy, in which large amounts of personal data are collected and analyzed, it has become possible to make decisions on people on the basis of all kinds of grounds, also grounds that are not protected in anti-discrimination law (e.g., zip code, shoe size, wealth). Even though mostly unintentional, patterns revealed by sophisticated data analysis can turn out to be discriminatory, either directly or indirectly. Particularly indirect discrimination (i.e., discrimination by proxy) can be hard to discover and enforce. From a substantive perspective, these technological developments also raise the question which discrimination grounds should be protected, since discrimination grounds are in flux and not harmonized across the EU. In this paper, through legal comparison, discrimination grounds across EU national constitutions and the CFEU are compared, to identify overlaps and differences. This overview is then used to start the discussion on the extent to which current legislation is still appropriate in the data economy or should perhaps be reconsidered.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105851

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Custers, B.
Affiliations
Leiden University (NL)
Corresponding author
Custers, Bart
Venue
Computer Law & Security Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-09
Volume
50
Pages
105851
ISSN
2212-473X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4386003923
Cited by
5
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3
FWCI
8.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computer law & security review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Discrimination and Equality Law
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
data economy, anti-discrimination law, EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, national constitutions, indirect discrimination, algorithmic discrimination, personal data, EU harmonization, equal treatment, legal comparison

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review