Experimental Regulations for AI: Sandboxes for Morals and Mores
Open accessAbstract
Recent EU legislative and policy initiatives aim to offer flexible, innovation-friendly, and future-proof regulatory frameworks. Key examples are the EU Coordinated Plan on AI and the recently published EU AI Regulation Proposal which refer to the importance of experimenting with regulatory sandboxes so as to balance innovation in AI against its potential risks. Originally developed in the Fintech sector, regulatory sandboxes create a test bed for a selected number of innovative projects, by waiving otherwise applicable rules, guiding compliance, or customizing enforcement. Despite the burgeoning literature on regulatory sandboxes and the regulation of AI, the legal, methodological, and ethical challenges of these anticipatory or, at times, adaptive regulatory frameworks have remained understudied. This exploratory article delves into the some of the benefits and intricacies of allowing for experimental instruments in the context of the regulation of AI. This article’s contribution is twofold: first, it contextualizes the adoption of regulatory sandboxes in the broader discussion on experimental approaches to regulation; second, it offers a reflection on the steps ahead for the design and implementation of AI regulatory sandboxes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The temporary relaxation of legal obligations in sandboxes exposes third parties to heightened risks that would otherwise be mitigated under fully regulated conditions.
“The temporary relaxation of legal obligations exposes third parties to heightened risks that would otherwise be mitigated under fully regulated conditions (Allen 2020; Knight and Mitchell 2020; Ranchordas 2021).”
From Bridging Liability Gaps in the Age of AI: The Case for No-Fault Compensation Schemes (2025) · cites this paper as Ranchordas 2021
Cites
The entrepreneurial state: debunking public vs. private sector myths
(2014) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.51-3359 · Cited by 2,297 · see citing works
Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Floridi, L. (2017) · International Data Privacy Law · doi:10.1093/idpl/ipx005 · Cited by 1,308 · see citing works
Algorithmic regulation: A critical interrogation
Yeung, K. (2018) · Regulation & Governance · doi:10.1111/rego.12158 · Cited by 842 · see citing works
From a ‘race to AI’ to a ‘race to AI regulation’: regulatory competition for artificial intelligence
Smuha, N. A. (2021) · Law, Innovation and Technology · doi:10.1080/17579961.2021.1898300 · Cited by 380 · see citing works
Robotics and the Lessons of Cyberlaw
Calo, R. (2014) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2402972 · Cited by 269 · see citing works
Towards ethical and socio-legal governance in AI
Theodorou, A., & Dignum, V. (2020) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0136-y · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Malgieri, G. (2019) · Computer Law & Security Review · doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2019.05.002 · Cited by 124 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Regulating AI: Challenges and the Way Forward Through Regulatory Sandboxes
Yordanova, K., & Bertels, N. (2024) · Law, Governance and Technology Series · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-41264-6_23 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Bridging Liability Gaps in the Age of AI: The Case for No-Fault Compensation Schemes
Tran, H.-C. (2025) · Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1609/aies.v8i3.36797 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ranchordas, S.
- Venue
- Morals & Machines
- Publisher
- Nomos Verlag
- Published
- 2021
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 86-100
- ISSN
- 2747-5174 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4247503958
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 8.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Morals & Machines (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Regulation and Compliance Studies
- Keywords
- regulatory sandboxes, AI regulation, experimental regulation, EU AI Act, adaptive regulation, anticipatory regulation, fintech regulation, regulatory design
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review