The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 33 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Retrofitters, pragmatists, and activists: public interest litigation for accountable automated decision-making
Open accessAbstract
This paper examines the role of public interest litigation in promoting accountability for AI and automated decision-making (ADM) in Australia. Since ADM regulation faces political and geopolitical headwinds, effective governance will have to rely on the enforcement of existing laws. Drawing on interviews with Australian public interest litigators, technology policy activists, and technology law scholars, the paper positions public interest litigation as part of a larger ecosystem for transparency, accountability, and justice with respect to ADM. The paper explores the tactics and strategies of what one participant described as “retrofitting” old laws to ADM. These go beyond creative legal argumentation to encompass practices of community-building, collaboration on theories of change, canny selection of clients and causes of action, and careful alignment of the interests of stakeholders in litigation. Naturally, the paper also contends with the limits of these strategies, and of the Australian legal system. Where limits are, however, capable of being overcome, the paper presents findings on urgent needs: the enabling institutional arrangements without which effective litigation and accountability will falter. The paper is relevant to law and technology scholars; individuals and groups harmed by ADM; public interest litigators and technology lawyers; civil society and advocacy organizations; and policymakers.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This qualitative interview study argues that public interest litigation is one pragmatic tool in a broader Australian ecosystem for holding automated decision-making accountable, especially by retrofitting existing laws to new harms. It documents strategies, enablers, and limits, concluding that transparency, funding, and networks are necessary for effective litigation while systemic and collective harms remain hard to remedy.
Key findings
- Participants saw public interest litigation as part of a larger accountability ecosystem, not a sole solution; it can assert or develop law, prompt law reform, galvanise public opinion, and support advocacy. The Robodebt class action settled with the government agreeing to repay over $751 million and withdraw over $1 billion worth of improperly issued debt notices.
- Pragmatic tactics included “retrofitting” old causes of action to ADM harms, choosing doctrines with monetary remedies (e.g., negligence, breach of confidence, unjust enrichment), adding “bolt-ons” such as public interest arguments or amicus briefs to private suits, and aligning litigant, funder, and firm incentives.
- Enablers identified were transparency across the accountability lifecycle, information-aggregating mechanisms such as complaint systems, networks for referrals and theory development, and funding/adverse-costs reform, including possible protective costs orders.
- Limits included law’s better fit for individualised harms with damages than collective, systemic, or intangible harms; discrimination law’s intent-based model, low damages, and uncertainty; access burdens and adverse costs; and risks of entrenching structural harms or settling away systemic issues.
Methods
- Applied social research in an action-research spirit, recruiting 20 participants with experience in public interest litigation, advocacy, technology law, and policy, including barristers, solicitors, policy advisors, academics, and consumer advocates from public and private institutions.
- Recruitment began through authors’ networks and continued via snowball sampling; data came from recorded one-hour semi-structured interviews, with participants able to review and edit transcripts for clarity and confidentiality.
- Analysis used qualitative thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke) with iterative file notes and memos, coding around challenges, opportunities, barriers, and enablers; ethics approval was obtained from Queensland University of Technology’s faculty low-risk ethics review panel.
Limitations
- Stated in the paper: interviews took place before the late 2024 Privacy Act reforms and before the proposed “mandatory guardrails” for high-risk AI; the study focuses on Australia; and the authors foreshadow forthcoming work on systemic automated harms and related concerns.
- Evident from the text: the qualitative sample of 20 participants, recruited through authors’ networks and snowball sampling, is not representative or generalisable, and the paper does not quantitatively measure litigation outcomes.
- Evident from the text: participant views are time-bound and jurisdiction-specific, and the paper relies on illustrative cases rather than a systematic evaluation of ADM litigation outcomes.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
74 Own interpretation · 43 Own result · 27 No basis given · 17 Sources not found · 14 Not checked yet · 4 No full text of the sources · 1 Partly supported · 1 Own method · accuracy not yet measured
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, litigators can actively work toward this kind of efficiency by gradually retrofitting doctrines over the course of several lawsuits for different clients.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Choosing the right action, client and remedy
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“By contrast, the Pintarich case, about automated communications from the taxation office, produced a decision that (with the greatest of respect) generated more confusion and controversy than clarity about the legal status of automated government decisions (Pintarich v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation 2018).”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Background
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Pintarich v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“More promising, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's suit against the travel website, Trivago, successfully applied the law of misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to claims about the operation of a ranking algorithm (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) v Trivago NV 2020).”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Background
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) v Trivago NV 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By contrast, litigation has yet to produce significant legal clarification with respect to ADM.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Background
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants with a background in litigation tended to be the most positive.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Aims and method
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The views and experiences of the twenty interviewed participants are sufficiently representative of the Australian public interest litigation, advocacy, and technology law community to support general conclusions about strategies and enablers for ADM accountability.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pragmatic litigators, we found, will cannily try to align private interests (litigants', funders and firms) with the public interest.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Bolt-ons and aligning incentives
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Notwithstanding pragmatic efforts to align incentives, participants also reminded us that there will sometimes be irreconcilable misalignments between the immediate interests of a litigant and the public interest more generally.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Entrenching structural harms
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was, however, general agreement about the importance of technical literacy as a condition for effective advocacy about ADM.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Transparency throughout the accountability lifecycle
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So even where lawyers think the law could be applied, they may not take that avenue because they anticipate”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Limits of public interest litigation
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants were generally in favour of horizontal AI regulation, which would mandate, at the very least, basic transparency and explainability requirements for ADM.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Transparency throughout the accountability lifecycle
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 114
- It may state two separate claims as one. 34
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“It is generally recognized that public interest litigation is an important vehicle for the protection of the rights of marginalised or disadvantaged groups, or for driving social or legal change in the absence of political will (Durbach et al. 2013).”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Background
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Durbach et al. 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “The appeal of litigation” (page unavailable), the paper describes PIL as an important strategy for changing law and policy, particularly for people without the resources or power to influence policy directly. It does not specifically say that PIL drives change in the absence of political will; that condition is not supported by the passages found. (LLM, conf=0.85)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants with other backgrounds were less enthusiastic.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Aims and method
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The views and experiences of the twenty interviewed participants are sufficiently representative of the Australian public interest litigation, advocacy, and technology law community to support general conclusions about strategies and enablers for ADM accountability.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Few significant cases dealing with ADM have come before the court, and the success of these cases has been mixed.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Background
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants explained that litigators need to consider a range of factors, including how much work would need to be done to keep the law up to date, and what kind of remedy is available.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Choosing the right action, client and remedy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A principal finding of the study is that public interest litigation has a strategic role to play in expanding the application of existing law, bringing to light injustice, galvanising public opinion, promoting law reform and new regulation, and supporting advocacy.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Introduction
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The views and experiences of the twenty interviewed participants are sufficiently representative of the Australian public interest litigation, advocacy, and technology law community to support general conclusions about strategies and enablers for ADM accountability.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Almost all participants agreed that public interest litigation has some role to play in ADM governance, through their levels of enthusiasm varied.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Aims and method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The views and experiences of the twenty interviewed participants are sufficiently representative of the Australian public interest litigation, advocacy, and technology law community to support general conclusions about strategies and enablers for ADM accountability.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rivette's approach to developing the law breach of confidence over 14 years was, he said, conscious and targeted:”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Choosing the right action, client and remedy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the Robodebt litigation, the parties settled and the judge's settlement orders did not produce binding law.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Background
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We gleaned from several participants that the doctrine of negligence has at least three key things going for it: the remedy is monetary; it has a history of incremental adaptation to new technology; and it is not necessary to advert to the mental state of the defendant (e.g.intent) in relation to the harm.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Bolt-ons and aligning incentives
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For instance, Lizzie O'Shea pointed out that enterprising litigation funders may see the funding of a test case, even fairly creatively framed, as an investment in a future revenue stream:”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Bolt-ons and aligning incentives
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We learned from our study that there is a timeline for accountability.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Transparency throughout the accountability lifecycle
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rivette observed that the Australian High Court, especially since the appointment of Edelman J, formerly a law scholar at Oxford University, is open to considering arguments based on scholarly materials (such as academic journal articles) with their more conceptual, less black-letter approach to the law.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Limits of public interest litigation
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants were generally confident about the availability of such expertise.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Transparency throughout the accountability lifecycle
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As tech law professor David Lindsay explained, advocates may find their best path to success is to”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Entrenching structural harms
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As David Lindsay pointed out, privacy rights have expanded significantly through court action, especially in the UK, because of celebrity actions.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Heavy burdens of litigation limit access to justice
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One of the ADM opacity challenges that our participants identified was the fact that the nature and scale of a problem may not be apparent.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Networks for information sharing and community mobilisation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Bennet Moses put the problem in these terms: it's difficult to use litigation as a mechanism to fix systemic error, because you can always settle.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Entrenching structural harms
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a public interest litigator, she was confident of finding partners at the bar to work on ADM matters.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Limits of public interest litigation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Doctrines such as negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of confidence, and other torts and equitable actions, participants explained, are all appealing for that reason.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Bolt-ons and aligning incentives
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A partner at a major commercial law firm, with extensive experience in pro bono work and public interest advocacy, took the view that these burdens block access to justice for people already likely to be experiencing marginalisation as a result of ableism, racial and ethnic injustice, domestic/family violence, an inaccessible health system or poverty.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Heavy burdens of litigation limit access to justice
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So, when that happens, they also get less attention… a lot of people just don't seem to care because [the automated harm] doesn't impact them directly.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Heavy burdens of litigation limit access to justice
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Megan Richardson explained how an amicus curiae brief may permit a court to address public interest matters in the context of lawsuits which would otherwise be more narrowly framed.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Bolt-ons and aligning incentives
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Equitable doctrines may have an additional advantage (Rivette explained) in so far as the range of injuries they recognise and compensate or provide restitution for may be wider than tort.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Bolt-ons and aligning incentives
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Jake Goldenfein was concernedthat the Federal Court, with a”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Limits of public interest litigation
hedgedconditional- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“She was therefore very pessimistic about public interest litigation.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Heavy burdens of litigation limit access to justice
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants answers perturbed basic clichés about a hidebound profession and elderly judiciary unfamiliar with technology.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Transparency throughout the accountability lifecycle
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As Samantha Floreani, then program lead at Digital Rights Watch (and now writing a PhD on 'rent tech') put it, people who are getting harmed by [technology] are usually, generally, already vulnerable or marginalised or historically oppressed or continue to be oppressed.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Heavy burdens of litigation limit access to justice
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Michael Rivette described another bolt-on tactic he used to address public interest concerns in cases that were essentially focused on private disputes.He would include more creative and untested legal claims alongside more conventional, established claims.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Bolt-ons and aligning incentives
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite this, various participants pointed out that other doctrines, such as breach of confidence and negligence, seemed to be associated with a more flexible judicial culture.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Limits of public interest litigation
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants reminded us, however, that mechanisms for transparency that were less targeted than direct explanations to affected persons could still meaningfully promote accountability.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Transparency throughout the accountability lifecycle
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They talked about the ecosystem for recognising harm and progressing complaints toward accountability mechanisms as being what one human rights lawyer called”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Networks for information sharing and community mobilisation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They indicated that it was tactically sound to pursue, where possible, causes of action which provide monetary damages as a remedy.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Bolt-ons and aligning incentives
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A legal scholar specialising in discrimination reflected that judges have”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Limits of public interest litigation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Litigation is extremely stressful, with huge time demands .”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Heavy burdens of litigation limit access to justice
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In this instance, the amicus brief permitted the court to consider a wider range of public interest issues relating to the definition and regulation of personal information.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Bolt-ons and aligning incentives
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Privacy Commissioner v Telstra 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They were generally not squeamish about involving commercial actors in public interest advocacy, seeking alignment between those actors' business interests and the public interest.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Bolt-ons and aligning incentives
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We gleaned from several participants that the doctrine of negligence has at least three key things going for it: the remedy is monetary; it has a history of incremental adaptation to new technology; and it is not necessary to advert to the mental state of the defendant (e.g.intent) in relation to the harm.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Bolt-ons and aligning incentives
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Professor Terry Carney spoke of the need for institutions capable of systematically reviewing administrative complaints and processes, and argued for the reinstatement of Australia's Administrative Review Council, which was composed of experienced decision-makers 'much more attuned' to identifying administrative issues at a systemic level.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Networks for information sharing and community mobilisation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Samantha Floreani and Jake Goldenfein both pointed out how relatively 'immature' Australia's civil society landscape was, relative to the United States and the UK.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Funding support for litigation and litigants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Lizzie O'Shea reminded us that judges, despite generally coming from an older generation that is perceived to be less tech savvy, are already heavily engaged with technology:”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Transparency throughout the accountability lifecycle
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With regard to the profession at large, and the bar specifically, Min Guo reflected that there is a”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Limits of public interest litigation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants made it clear that effective litigation would require not only basic capacity on the part of lawyers and judges, but also assistance from experts.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Transparency throughout the accountability lifecycle
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An anonymous public interest litigator turned law scholar explained that to maintain incentives for private firms and funders, it is important to avoid excessively strict caps on the proportion of monies obtained through settlement or awarded in damages that could be paid out to lawyers or funders.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Funding support for litigation and litigants
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants proposed various options to address this problem, including a specialist digital legal centre, the development of effective referral networks.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Networks for information sharing and community mobilisation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants expressed mixed views about the creativity and risk appetite of the Australian legal profession in this respect.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Limits of public interest litigation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We gleaned from several participants that the doctrine of negligence has at least three key things going for it: the remedy is monetary; it has a history of incremental adaptation to new technology; and it is not necessary to advert to the mental state of the defendant (e.g.intent) in relation to the harm.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Bolt-ons and aligning incentives
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Min Guo suggested that enhanced technical capability in the profession as a whole might just be a question of time, exposure and familiarity.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Transparency throughout the accountability lifecycle
hedgedconditional- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Vicki Sentas summed up the problem in this way:”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Heavy burdens of litigation limit access to justice
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In the worst case, Terry Carney pointed out, powerful counterparties adopt a cynical strategy of separately settling individual cases in order to obfuscate systemic problems and avoid judgments that produce meaningful changes in the law -this was one reason for the delay in effective litigation around Robodebt.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Entrenching structural harms
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Regulators, some participants pointed out, might play such a role for the private sector (as well as for government use of ADM).”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Networks for information sharing and community mobilisation
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In our study, they used varying tactics towards success: retrofitting old laws to new harms, boltingon public interest arguments to more conservative arguments in private suits, trying to align the incentives of private and public interests where possible.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By the same token, a more generous arrangement with regard to adverse cost orders would significantly change the landscape -a view held by many of the litigators in our study.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Funding support for litigation and litigants
hedgeddirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Lead plaintiffs in class actions are solely liable for adverse cost orders, whereas any proceeds of the case are shared with the whole class.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our pragmatic participants made it clear that public interest litigation is most likely to be successful when it addresses the kinds of harms to which our law and legal institutions are best fitted: individualised harms that attract damages as a remedy.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They include reminding stakeholders (such as governments or tech companies) that they are not above the law.They include demanding law reform, through exposing the harms, assumptions, biases and limitations of existing legislation.At times, this involves losing to win.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Ed Santow pointed out that other jurisdictions have mechanisms to protect public interest litigation, such as the protective costs orders available in the UK.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Funding support for litigation and litigants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This process is something more than debugging the law -for, as many of our participants pointed out -the law is not a neutral tool that incremental reforms will somehow 'fix'.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Existing law therefore has an important role to play in regulating ADM.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Background
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“For example, the Robodebt class action against the Australian government led to a settlement where the government agreed to repay over $751 million to wrongly targeted welfare recipients, and to withdraw over $1 billion worth of improperly issued debt notices (Prygodicz v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) 2021).”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Prygodicz v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) 2021
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Despite efforts at other forms of accountability, the intervention which most dramatically exposed the injustice of these systems and precipitated change was litigation (NJCM v The Dutch State 2020;Zynda v. Zimmer 2015;Cahoo v. SAS Analytics Inc 2019; Prygodicz v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) 2021).”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites NJCM v The Dutch State 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Zynda v. Zimmer 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Cahoo v. SAS Analytics Inc 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since ADM regulation faces political and geopolitical headwinds, effective governance will have to rely at least in part on the enforcement of existing laws.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Abstract
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These cases, he said, were used to establish that the equitable action for breach of confidence could apply to privacy harms, and that the threshold for damages for such a breach could be lowered to 'mere distress', rather than more tangible harms.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Choosing the right action, client and remedy
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Nonetheless, public interest litigation faces several well-known barriers and challenges.Costs of litigation may be prohibitive (Edwards 1999;Ginnivan 2016).Losing parties may, in addition to their own legal costs, be required to pay the costs of counterparties under 'adverse costs orders'(Costs Shifting -Who Pays for Litigation?1995).Finally, those most motivated to bring claims may be obstructed”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Background
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Edwards 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Ginnivan 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Cane 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Where litigants have already had some success in pursuing a certain type of claim with a particular doctrine, it will generally be efficient to continue to use (and further develop) that claim in relation to similar harms.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Choosing the right action, client and remedy
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Naturally, we obtained ethics approval for the study from our faculty low risk ethics review panel at Queensland University of Technology before commencing.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Aims and method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“But it is a cliché that the application of existing law to new technologies is uncertain (Brownsword 2008;Collingridge 1980;Bennett Moses 2011).”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Background
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brownsword 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Collingridge 1980
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bennett Moses 2011 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“He spoke of a series of privacy and breach of confidence cases in which the remedies for privacy infringements expanded (Giller v Procopets 2008; Jane Doe v Australian Broadcasting Corporation 2007)”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Choosing the right action, client and remedy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Giller v Procopets 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Jane Doe v Australian Broadcasting Corporation 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Where a series of administrative tribunal decisions, news reports, a Commonwealth Ombudsman's report and a senate committee report seemingly could not stop Robodebt (Carney 2019), the threat of liability under multiple causes action is what ultimately moved the needle.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Carney 2019 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another mechanism for aggregating and appropriately distributing information is through appropriate allocation of regulatory responsibility.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Networks for information sharing and community mobilisation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The workings of algorithms, especially machine learning systems, are known for being inherently inscrutable, intentionally concealed and, even when explained, difficult for those without technical expertise to understand (Selbst and Barocas 2018;Burrell 2016;Fraser, Simcock, and Snoswell 2022).”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Transparency throughout the accountability lifecycle
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Selbst and Barocas 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Burrell 2016 source
- Not matchedcites Fraser, Simcock, and Snoswell 2022
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Since our interviews, the use of AI-based technologies has become increasingly prevalent throughout the profession -tending to bear out this perspective (Bell 2025).”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Transparency throughout the accountability lifecycle
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bell 2025
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It follows that funding and support -as well as the removal of unnecessary cost-barriers -are essential throughout the ecosystems and timelines of accountability for ADM.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Funding support for litigation and litigants
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Costs are the most well-known barrier to effective public interest litigation.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If an action is successful and generates a sufficiently important legal development, funders may then have the opportunity to fund (and profit from) future cases cut from the same cloth.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Bolt-ons and aligning incentives
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While negligence is unconcerned with the defendant's state of mind, discrimination law has difficulties when discrimination arises from something other than bigoted intent.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Limits of public interest litigation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is likely that the community building strategies described above will play an important role in cementing these kinds of partnerships, and building creative legal cultures.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Limits of public interest litigation
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The implication is that an accessible and effective mechanism for complaint-making about automated decisions would be a key condition for the kind of systematic transparency necessary for accountability of all kinds.That includes public interest litigation right at the 'tip' of the iceberg.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Networks for information sharing and community mobilisation
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The tactics described above are, as we said, pragmatic, but the fact that such pragmatism is needed reveals shortcomings of law and politics.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Limits of public interest litigation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The same logic applies to commercial firms, and even barristers.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Bolt-ons and aligning incentives
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Where litigation is intended to fit into a broader strategy of advocacy, its prospects of success are generally better in relation to issues that already carry political momentum.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Entrenching structural harms
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The kinds of organisations that might be doing the kinds of information aggregation described above lack funding and capacity.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Funding support for litigation and litigants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It does not produce large monetary awards, meaning the structural incentives to make a claim are lacking.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Limits of public interest litigation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One broader implication of the problems with discrimination law is that the success of public interest litigation depends largely legal and judicial culture -the attitudes and risk tolerances of lawyers and judges in bringing and assessing cases.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Limits of public interest litigation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the same time, it generates opportunities for systemic retrofitting that create a foothold for future suits.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Bolt-ons and aligning incentives
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That is to say, many lawyers may be conservative, but enough of the profession is curious and public-minded enough that they could be powerful advocates for clients harmed by ADM.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Limits of public interest litigation
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each layer of transparency facilitates further transparency mechanisms.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Transparency throughout the accountability lifecycle
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Transparency at various points in the accountability lifecycle can only lead to meaningful change if stakeholders are able to join the dots.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Networks for information sharing and community mobilisation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Public interest litigation on ADM demands creativity of lawyers.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Limits of public interest litigation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This bolt-on tactic aligns the client's interest with the public interest.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Bolt-ons and aligning incentives
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Once there is sufficient transparency to identify a pattern of wrongdoing, or understand a particular wrong, to bring it to a lawyer, evaluate prospects of success and bring a claim (all formidable challenges), litigation itself can shed further light on ADM wrongs and harms.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Transparency throughout the accountability lifecycle
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our law is far better at dealing with concrete, individualised harms than what are often perceived as 'intangible' harm (harms to mind, emotion and dignity), systemic harm (such as the unchecked expansion of government and corporate power and the normalisation of near-universal surveillance), and collective harms (such as algorithmically encoded discrimination).”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Limits of public interest litigation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To adapt the law to new technologies requires solicitors, barristers, judges, legal centres, and regulators who are prepared to approach and apply the law flexibly.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Limits of public interest litigation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Systemic issues -widely distributed harms that do not neatly fit pre-existing legal categories -may slip through the gaps.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Networks for information sharing and community mobilisation
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance, a mechanism for complaints permits stakeholders to detect patterns of wrongdoing or harm.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Transparency throughout the accountability lifecycle
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Richardson and Rivette's points are generalisable.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Bolt-ons and aligning incentives
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, opacity creates a sense of powerlessness among subjects of ADM.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Transparency throughout the accountability lifecycle
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Adding a less established claim to a lawsuit in effect diversifies the prospects of success.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Bolt-ons and aligning incentives
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Community legal centres and Legal Aid need funding to smooth the transition from grievance or complaint to legal action and enforcement.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Funding support for litigation and litigants
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such institutions could modulate the problem that individual proceedings (whether for administrative review or judicial review) may be piecemeal and, on their own, inadequate to meet systemic harm.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Networks for information sharing and community mobilisation
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“What emerges more broadly from Carney's comment is a sense that formal institutions with responsibility for systematic monitoring and review could complement public interest litigation (including as broadly understood to include administrative merits review through tribunals).”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Networks for information sharing and community mobilisation
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Carney
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is not enough, though, just to know about problems at a systemic level, and to rely on a review body or regulator to correct them.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Networks for information sharing and community mobilisation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This comment is consistent with scholarly analysis by Natalie Sheard on the challenges of applying indirect discrimination to ADM decisions (Sheard 2022).”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Limits of public interest litigation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sheard 2022 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Attempts to retrofit old laws for new circumstances frequently expose the problems with existing laws.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Limits of public interest litigation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Various kinds and degrees of transparency could provide a foundation for public interest legal action.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Transparency throughout the accountability lifecycle
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Since the time of interviews, that body has in fact been reconstituted (Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024).”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Networks for information sharing and community mobilisation
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On this view, litigation is itself a mechanism for transparency through its process of discovery and evidence gathering -and it is this role in bringing to light injustice which permits it to work effectively as part of an overall ecosystem of accountability and advocacy.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Transparency throughout the accountability lifecycle
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All of the other burdens of litigation discussed here provide a strong disincentive against frivolous litigation.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Funding support for litigation and litigants
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the absence of a federal constitutional or statutory bill of rights, it is prudent for activist legal communities to 'hack' together to build 'theories of the case'; to retrofit our patchwork of old laws to new harms, so that they are ready to take action when the right litigant appears.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Public interest litigation is only one tool in a broader toolkit.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings also reveal the need for broader law reform to prevent harm from automated decision-making.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“It is a proposal backed by a rigorous consultation process, and builds on learnings about the shortcomings of comparative regimes in other jurisdictions.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Mandatory Guardrails Proposals Paper 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It makes sense to think of funding and support of accountability mechanisms in terms of ecosystems and lifecycles: not simply funding one action, but sustaining a whole infrastructure.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Funding support for litigation and litigants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The UK might therefore provide a template for reform to Australia's adverse cost regime”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Funding support for litigation and litigants
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Transparency across the accountability lifecycle is essential so that individuals can understand adverse decisions made against them, query them, and hold them into account, with support of lawyers, researchers and advocates.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The best way to provide the kinds of support that individual litigants need would be through a well-funded civil society, which in turn could develop the structures, expertise and systems to properly support litigants.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Funding support for litigation and litigants
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The kinds of cases we gestured to in our introduction are growing.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On that note, it is clear that support for public interest litigation, to be truly effective, would also need to contend with the personal costs to litigants.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Funding support for litigation and litigants
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While it can be seen as the last stop in the lifecycle, public interest litigation is also, in turn, generative.It exposes mechanisms, unearths data, produces media, builds momentum, births avenues and plants seeds that can act as levers at other stages.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If we are to build a thriving ecosystem for public interest litigation, then there are key points of friction along the lifecycle that require energy, funding and support to overcome.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Conclusion
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Australia has a sound proposal for the introduction of 'mandatory guardrails' for applications of AI and ADM that pose serious risks to individuals, groups and society (Mandatory Guardrails Proposals Paper 2024).”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Mandatory Guardrails Proposals Paper 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A central strategy of public interest litigation is to be in service of a larger public interest agenda.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accountability has an ecosystem and a lifecycle.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Secondly, no one will be able perceive, let alone litigate, automated wrongdoing if they are kept in the dark about its existence, its subjects and its effects.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By establishing a system in which individuals or classes of people can bring public interest litigation against corporations and governments without adverse costs, we could pave some way in redressing the massive power imbalance between these parties.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All of these needs are mutually reinforcing -a more conducive funding landscape, more accessible information, and more robust networks will support a stronger culture of activism and advocacy for justice in the age of digital automation.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While indemnities against such orders by litigation funders may help, getting such indemnities may itself be time consuming and difficult.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Funding support for litigation and litigants
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Lead plaintiffs in class actions are solely liable for adverse cost orders, whereas any proceeds of the case are shared with the whole class.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While mandatory guardrails of the kind proposed may not be a fix-all for the ills of ADM, they will make inroads on the regulatory needs described above.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Without these minimum protections, the risk is that, even after public interest litigation, harmful automated systems are just tweaked to adapt and continue in new forms.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Public interest litigation is a last resort to address harm that has already occurred.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But even with a more appropriate level of transparency about ADM, effective information aggregation mechanisms and referral networks will be essential to progress the detection of wrongs through the accountability lifecycle, all the way to legal action.”
§ Public interest litigation for accountable automated decision -making > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper relies on this without support.
The views and experiences of the twenty interviewed participants are sufficiently representative of the Australian public interest litigation, advocacy, and technology law community to support general conclusions about strategies and enablers for ADM accountability.
“we recruited and interviewed twenty candidates with experience in public interest litigation, advocacy, technology law and policy.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Participants' accounts of past cases and their outcomes are accurate.
“She described the outcome in these terms:”
The paper relies on this without support.
Costs are the most well-known barrier to effective public interest litigation.
“Costs are the most well-known barrier to effective public interest litigation.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Lead plaintiffs in class actions are solely liable for adverse cost orders, whereas any proceeds of the case are shared with the whole class.
“One serious problem is the fact that lead plaintiffs in class actions are solely liable for adverse cost orders (whereas any proceeds of the case are shared with the whole class).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Public interest litigation is a last resort to address harm that has already occurred.
“Public interest litigation is a last resort to address harm that has already occurred.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The mandatory guardrails proposal stalled before any Bill reached Parliament.
“Unfortunately the proposal stalled before any Bill reached Parliament.”
Citations
Cites
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414
Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences
Miller, T. (2019) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007 · Cited by 5,302
The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information
Pasquale, F. (2015) · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674736061 · Cited by 3,796
How the machine “thinks”: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms
Burrell, J. (2016) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951715622512 · Cited by 3,196
Ethical and legal challenges of artificial intelligence-driven healthcare
Gerke, S., Minssen, T., & Cohen, G. (2020) · Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-818438-7.00012-5 · Cited by 1,170
The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata
Matthias, A. (2004) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-004-3422-1 · Cited by 1,101
Veale, M., & Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. (2021) · Computer Law Review International · doi:10.9785/cri-2021-220402 · Cited by 805
Governing artificial intelligence: ethical, legal and technical opportunities and challenges
Cath, C. (2018) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsta.2018.0080 · Cited by 745
The Process Is the Punishment: Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court
Feeley, M. M. (1980) · Michigan Law Review · doi:10.2307/1288075 · Cited by 741
Cobbe, J. (2019) · Legal Studies · doi:10.1017/lst.2019.9 · Cited by 174
Reviewable Automated Decision-Making: A Framework for Accountable Algorithmic Systems
Cobbe, J., Lee, M. S. A., & Singh, J. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445921 · Cited by 150
Algorithmic discrimination in the credit domain: what do we know about it?
García, A. C. B., García, M., & C, R. R. B. (2023) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-023-01676-3 · Cited by 141
Decision Provenance: Harnessing Data Flow for Accountable Systems
Singh, J., Cobbe, J., & Norval, C. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2018.2887201 · Cited by 110
Robo-debt illegality: The seven veils of failed guarantees of the rule of law?
Carney, T. (2019) · Alternative Law Journal · doi:10.1177/1037969x18815913 · Cited by 99
Mann, M., & Matzner, T. (2019) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951719895805 · Cited by 88
Agents of Change: How the Law ‘Copes’ with Technological Change
Bennett Moses, L. (2011) · Griffith Law Review · doi:10.1080/10383441.2011.10854720 · Cited by 59
Marshall, A., & Hale, D. C. (2014) · Annual Review of Law and Social Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102612-133932 · Cited by 47
The application of traditional tort theory to embodied machine intelligence
Karnow, C. E. A. (2016) · Robot Law · doi:10.4337/9781783476732.00010 · Cited by 32
Fraser, H., & Suzor, N. P. (2025) · Law Innovation and Technology · doi:10.1080/17579961.2025.2469345 · Cited by 29
Self-citationContesting the public interest in AI governance
Cohen, T., & Suzor, N. P. (2024) · Internet Policy Review · doi:10.14763/2024.3.1794 · Cited by 21
Liability Regimes in the Age of AI: a Use-Case Driven Analysis of the Burden of Proof
Fernández Llorca, D., Charisi, V., Hamon, R., Sánchez, I., & Gómez, E. (2023) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.1.14565 · Cited by 20
EU liability rules for the age of artificial intelligence
Buiten, M., de Streel, A., & Peitz, M. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3817520 · Cited by 20
Analysis of architecture options for foundation-model-based agents: A taxonomy and decision model
Zhou, J., Lu, Q., Chen, J., Zhu, L., Xu, X., Xing, Z., & Harrer, S. (2026) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2026.113109 · Cited by 17
AI Opacity and Explainability in Tort Litigation
Fraser, H., Simcock, R., & Snoswell, A. J. (2022) · 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533084 · Cited by 15
Self-citationRobodebt cultures and useful idiots: Why Robodebt was not a techno‐failure
Henman, P. W. F. (2025) · Australian Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1002/ajs4.383 · Cited by 11
A Taxonomy of Architecture Options for Foundation Model-based Agents: Analysis and Decision ModelPreprint
Zhou, J., Lu, Q.-H., Chen, J.-S., Zhu, L.-M., Xu, X.-W., Xing, Z.-C., & Harrer, S. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.02920 · Cited by 11
Privacy and data protection regulations for AI using publicly available data: Clearview AI case
Jung, W. K., & Kwon, H.-Y. (2024) · International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance · doi:10.1145/3680127.3680200 · Cited by 10
The regulation of fine-tuning: Federated compliance for modified general-purpose AI models
Hacker, P., & Holweg, M. (2025) · Computer law & security review · doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106234 · Cited by 10
Public Interest Litigation: Making the Case in Australia
Durbach, A., McNamara, L., Rice, S., & Rix, M. (2013) · Alternative Law Journal · doi:10.1177/1037969x1303800404 · Cited by 3
Ng, Y.-K. (2025) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009599207 · Cited by 3
Governing Artificial Intimacy: From Locks and Blocks to Relational AccountabilityPreprint
Fraser, H., Ciriello, R., & Szczuka, J. M. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6078412 · Cited by 3
Self-citationEmployment Discrimination by Algorithm: Can Anyone Be Held Accountable?
Sheard, N. (2022) · University of New South Wales Law Journal · doi:10.53637/xtqy4027 · Cited by 2
Trump, tech and transatlantic Turbulence
Echikson, W. (2025) · European View · doi:10.1177/17816858251339298 · Cited by 2
The Regulation of Fine-Tuning: Federated Compliance for Modified General-Purpose AI Models
Hacker, P., & Holweg, M. (2025) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5289125 · Cited by 2
Strategic Litigation and Racism in Healthcare
Newhouse, G., Dozer, A., Janssen, I., & MacGregor, N. (2024) · Griffith journal of law and human dignity. · doi:10.69970/gjlhd.v11i2.1262 · Cited by 1
Protective Costs Orders and Costs Capping Orders: The New Law
Lock QC, D., & Mills, A. (2016) · Judicial Review · doi:10.1080/10854681.2016.1229856
Meeusen, P. W. (2026) · Law & Society Review · doi:10.1017/lsr.2026.10098
Chintoh, G. A., Segun-Falade, O. D., Odionu, C. S., & Ekeh, A. H. (2024) · International Journal of Social Science Exceptional Research · doi:10.54660/ijsser.2024.3.1.103-109
Gerlick, J., & Liozu, S. M. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3454123
Research works printed but not linked: 27
- Reference List "ACM FAccT Call for Papers." 2025. https://facctconference.org/2025/cfp.
- Asaro, Peter. 2012. "A Body to Kick, but Still No Soul to Damn: Legal Perspectives on Robotics." In Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics, edited by Peter Lin, Keith Abney, and George A. Bekey. MIT Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/algorithms- and-law/robot-machines-and-civil-liability/012874F59C7AD1A2ED48C6DD1625B66E.
- Barocas, Solon, and Andrew D. Selbst. 2016. "Big Data's Disparate Impact." California Law Review 104: 671. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2477899.
- Brownsword, Roger. 2008. "So What Does the World Need Now? Reflections on Regulating Technologies." In Regulating Technologies, edited by Roger Brownsword and Karen Yeung, 23-48. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
- Buolamwini, Joy, and Timnit Gebru. 2018. "Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification." Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, January 21, 2018, 77-91. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a.html.
- Caruso, David, Michael Legg, and Jordan Phoustanis. 2019. "The Automation Paradox in Litigation: The Inadequacy of Procedure and Evidence Law to Manage Electronic Evidence Generated by the'internet of Things' in Civil Disputes." Macquarie Law Journal 19: 157-88.
- Crenshaw, Kimberlé Williams. 2013. "Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color." In The Public Nature of Private Violence, 93-118. Routledge. https://api.taylorfrancis.com/content/chapters/edit/download?identifierName=doi&identifierV alue=10.4324/9780203060902-6&type=chapterpdf. · DOI
- Edwards, Kellie. 1999. "Costs and Public Interest Litigation after Oshlack v Richmond River Council." The Sydney Law Review 21 (4): 680-702. https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/agis_archive.20000078. · DOI
- Fraser, Henry, Christine Parker, Fiona Haines, Jose-Miguel Bello y Villarino, and Kimberlee Weatherall. 2024. "Should Australia Follow Europe's Approach to AI Standards and Regulation?" ANU Journal of Law and Technology 5 (1): 96-130. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/251557.
- Ginnivan, Eliza. 2016. "Public Interest Litigation: Mitigating Adverse Costs Order Risk." Precedent (Sydney, NSW), no. 136: 22-25. https://search.informit.org/doi/pdf/10.3316/informit.445494154037901. · DOI
- Giuffrida, Iria. 2019. "Liability for AI Decision-Making: Some Legal and Ethical Considerations Symposium: Rise of the Machines: Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and the Reprogramming of Law." Fordham Law Review 88 (2): 439-56. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/flr88&i=455.
- McGrath, Chris. 2008. "Flying Foxes, Dams and Whales: Using Federal Environmental Laws in the Public Interest." Environmental and Planning Law Journal 25 (5): 324-59. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chris-Mcgrath- 7/publication/265101289_Flying_foxes_dams_and_whales_Using_federal_environmental_la ws_in_the_public_interest/links/5c58e6b3a6fdccd6b5e3879f/Flying-foxes-dams-and-whales- Using-federal-environmental-laws-in-the-public-interest.pdf.
- Ramsden, Michael, and Kris Gledhill. 2019. "Defining Strategic Litigation." Civil Justice Quarterly 4 (October): 407. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3467034.
- Schönberger, Daniel. 2019. "Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: A Critical Analysis of the Legal and Ethical Implications." International Journal of Law and Information Technology 27 (2): 171- 203.
- Schuett, Jonas. 2023. "Risk Management in the Artificial Intelligence Act." European Journal of Risk Regulation, February 8, 2023, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2023. · DOI
- Selbst, Andrew D. 2020. "Negligence and AIs' Human Users." Boston University Law Review (Boston, United States) 100 (4): 1315-76. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2451875921/abstract/2ACE0C609D6449D0PQ/1.
- Selbst, Andrew D., and Solon Barocas. 2018. "The Intuitive Appeal of Explainable Machines." Fordham Law Review 87 (3): 1085-140. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/flr87&i=1118.
- Stardust, Zahra, Danielle Blunt, Gabriella Garcia, Lorelei Lee, Kate D'Adamo, and Rachel Kuo. 2023. "High Risk Hustling: Payment Processors, Sexual Proxies, and Discrimination by Design." CUNY Law Review 26: 57. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/nyclr26&id=69&div=&collection=.
- Strauss, Anselm L., and Juliet M. Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications.
- Stringer, Ernest T., and Alfredo Ortiz Aragón. 2020. Action Research. SAGE Publications.
- Taylor, Mark B. 2020. "Litigating Sustainability-Towards a Taxonomy of Counter Corporate Litigation." University of Oslo Faculty of Law Research Paper, nos. 2020-08. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3627580.
- Tzimas, Themistoklis. 2021. Legal and Ethical Challenges of Artificial Intelligence from an International Law Perspective. Vol. 46. Springer Nature. https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=twM7EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP7&dq=l egal+and+ethical+challenges+of+ai&ots=RfWLuy_J1a&sig=bnOz1nRd2Jc_cs2xSkI3d7wwS RA.
- Wachter, Sandra. 2020. "Affinity Profiling and Discrimination by Association in Online Behavioral Advertising." Berkeley Technology Law Journal 35 (2): 367-430. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27121752.
- Wachter, Sandra, Brent Mittelstadt, and Chris Russell. 2018. "Counterfactual Explanations Without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR." Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 31: 841.
- Weatherall, Kimberlee. 2025. "The AI Liability Gap." Paper presented at 2025 ALSA Law and Technology Conference, UNSW. July 10, 2025.
- Yeung, Karen. 2019. "Why Worry about Decision-Making by Machine?" In Algorithmic Regulation, 21-48. Oxford University Press.
- Yoshikawa, Jin. 2018. "Sharing the Costs of Artificial Intelligence: Universal No-Fault Social Insurance for Personal Injuries." Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 21 (4): 1155.
Cited by
Still being checked.
Metadata
- Authors
- Fraser, H. L., & Stardust, Z.
- Affiliations
- Queensland University of Technology (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Fraser, Henry Leopold
- Venue
- Law & Society Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2026-10-22
- Pages
- 1-32
- ISSN
- 0023-9216 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5893
- OpenAlex
- W7104289959
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 27
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Law & Society Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- intR2Dok (Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Deakin University
- Australian Research Council (CE200100005)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Law › Artificial Intelligence in Law
- Keywords
- public interest litigation, automated decision-making, algorithmic accountability, AI regulation, transparency, algorithmic justice, civil society advocacy, Australian legal system, law and technology
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
