The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Assessing the (severity of) impacts on fundamental rights
Open accessAbstract
"Risk to fundamental rights,", "impact on fundamental rights", "harm to fundamental rights" and "non-material damages" are all terms referring to similar problems, though inherently ambiguous and very problematic, especially in the age of AI-based technologies and digital platforms. Traditionally, legal and social sciences have two different approaches to analysing the impacts on fundamental rights: the rights-based approach and the risk of harm-based approach to fundamental rights. The rights-based approach is binary, focusing on whether rights and obligations are respected or violated. In contrast, a harm-based approach focuses on the anticipation of undesired events and measuring their likelihood and severity. However, focusing solely on "harms'' or "damages'' is reductionist, while existing impact assessment models often use vague terms like "gravity", "intensity," and "magnitude", which do not effectively help measure interferences with fundamental rights. Without operational criteria to measure these risks, most EU digital strategies demanding impact and risk assessments fail. Examples include the Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) in the GDPR, Fundamental Rights Impact Assessments (FRIA) in the AI Act, and systemic risk assessments in the Digital Services Act (DSA). We posit that interferences with fundamental rights are seen as a spectrum that ranges from social contacts to violations, and these interferences can and should be measured. Thus, this article proposes a rights-based approach, combining it with elements from the harm approach and proposes an actionable parameter-based framework (also based on social meaning theories and social perception methodologies) to assess impacts on fundamental rights. The proposed multi-metric approach ensures a comprehensive assessment of the severity of impacts on fundamental rights within EU law, particularly in GDPR, DSA, and AI Act. This approach aims to inform policymaking, prioritise high-risk scenarios and propose mitigation measures in digital markets. This is especially important for detecting and addressing human vulnerabilities in interactions with digital technologies.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Assessing the severity of fundamental rights impacts requires a rights-based evaluation of the nature and intensity of the interference, rather than a generic account of harm.
“Malgieri and Santos further show that assessing the severity of fundamental rights impacts requires a rights-based evaluation of the nature and intensity of the interference, rather than a generic account of harm (Malgieri and Santos, 2025).”
From Human-centric AI governance in the European Union. Accountability, fundamental rights, and institutional resilience in public administration (2026) · cites this paper as Malgieri and Santos, 2025
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ahuja, S., Gunawan, J., Bielova, N., & Santos, C. T. (2025) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3715668.3736336 · Cited by 4
“In addition, these effects – including dark pattern harms [36] and severity [27] – may be further compounded due to the presence of multiple dark patterns in the same interface [19].”
Self-citationLaw and AI in Hiring: Lessons from the EU on Reconceptualizing Risks and Rights
Rigotti, C., Potocka-Sionek, N., Aloisi, A., & Fosch‐Villaronga, E. (2026) · Industrial and Labor Relations Review · doi:10.1177/00197939261429875 · Cited by 3
The FRIA in EU AI Act: governance, rights, and global jurisdiction
Karathanasis, T. (2026) · Law Innovation and Technology · doi:10.1080/17579961.2026.2710952 · Cited by 1
Proposing PaFRIA: A Participatory Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment Aligned with the EU AI Act
Ullstein, C., Hohendanner, M., Papakyriakopoulos, O., & Großklags, J. (2026) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3805689.3806497 · Cited by 1
Alam, N., Islam, M. A., Howlader, M. M. R., & Lucky, N. S. (2015) · International Journal of Biological Research · doi:10.14419/ijbr.v3i1.4486 · Cited by 1
Dragomir, A. N., Bulea, I., & Tarnu, L. I. (2026) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2026.1928481 · Cited by 1
Campo, A. D., Zara, N., & Ugarte, R. Á. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5265938
Castellano, P. S. (2025) · Revista Catalana de Dret Públic · doi:10.58992/rcdp.i71.2025.4486 · Cited by 1
“La literatura recent ofereix pautes concretes amb propostes i models que graduen la gravetat dels impactes i n’orienten la mitigació (Malgieri i Santos, 2025), enfocaments empírics que integren evidència i governança (Mantelero i Esposito, 2021), propostes de formalització de l’AIDF mitjançant la…”
DIGITAL DEPENDENCY NEEDS, VULNERABILITY, AND POWER IN THE PLATFORM ECONOMYPreprint
Malgieri, G., & Susser, D. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6000580
Self-citationUsing personal data in AI model training under EU law
Olifirenko, A. A. (2026) · Digital Law Journal · doi:10.38044/2686-9136-2025-6-12
The challenges of AI regulation: data protection, civil rights, and landmark cases
de Freitas, J. A. G. (2026) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2026.1626848
AI and corporate responsibility – From fragmented compliance to unified governance
Jackowski, M., & Greser, J. (2026) · Cambridge Forum on AI Law and Governance · doi:10.1017/cfl.2026.10046
“Thus, their legitimacy must be constructed through compliance with fundamental rights, and the FRIA framework with its requirements for consultation and participatory procedures supports this endeavor (Mantelero, 2024; Malgieri & Santos, 2025).”
Lütz, F. (2026) · ERA Forum · doi:10.1007/s12027-026-00885-9
“35 See as a matter of illustration, Karathanasis [26]; Ho-Dac / Xenou [25]; Gill-Pedro [20]; Malgieri / Santos [32].”
Mallick, N., Sahu, S., & Nanda, H. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-45875-0.00027-2
Ciacchi, A. C., Berardi, G., Onaie, A.-C., & Singer, N. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-19720-7_11
Masai, P., Carta, L., & Arnaldi, S. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-19720-7_12
Digital Dignity in Algorithmic Management and Inclusive Innovation in Southeast Asian Workspaces
Marlapa, E., & Pawirosumarto, S. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-5213-8.ch022
Privacy and Manipulation in the Platform Economy: An EU Framework for Regulating Dark Patterns
Kitsos, P., & Pappa, P. (2026) · Platforms · doi:10.3390/platforms4030019
“…al. argue that digital markets render all users structurally vulnerable rather than identifying vulnerability with defined groups [19], and Malgieri and Santos have developed methodologies for assessing the severity of impacts upon fundamental rights that could support graduated enforcement [21].”
From Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment to Human Rights Auditing
Andrae, S. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-2600-0221-6.ch007
Metadata
- Authors
- Malgieri, G., & Santos, C.
- Affiliations
- Leiden University (NL)
- Utrecht University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Malgieri, Gianclaudio
- Venue
- Computer Law & Security Review
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2025-04
- Volume
- 56
- Pages
- 106113
- ISSN
- 2212-473X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4408061180
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 5
- FWCI
- 111.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Computer law & security review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- ZonMw
- NWO (NWA.1540.21.001)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal Rights and Human Rights
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Industrial relations › Legal and Labor Studies
- Keywords
- fundamental rights, impact assessment, rights-based approach, severity measurement, non-pecuniary damage, data protection impact assessment, fundamental rights impact assessment, EU AI Act, Digital Services Act, GDPR, digital platforms, social perception, human vulnerability, EU digital policy, risk assessment
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