Tobias Mahler

• Tørresen, Jim; Lindblom, Diana Saplacan; Baselizadeh, Adel; Mahler, Tobias & Bygrave, Lee Andrew (2026). Reducing Robot Vulnerabilities Through Joint Regulatory Assessment and User-Centered Development and Testing. In Weng, Yueh-Hsuan (Eds.), Social Robots and Ethical Design. Springer. ISSN 9789819225156. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  This book chapter introduces research examples from a unique collaboration between legal scholars and technology scholars who have together endeavored to make progress in safe and privacy-preserving robot assistant development and deployment. This collaboration has taken place within the “Vulnerability in the Robot Society” (VIROS) research project at the University of Oslo, Norway (VIROS 2025). Institutionally, this is a joint research project between the Norwegian Research Center for Computers and Law (NRCCL) at the Department of Private Law and the Robotics and Intelligent Systems (ROBIN) research group at the Department of Informatics. The project explores challenges regarding digital vulnerabilities that the adoption of robots in human environments poses, particularly as regards privacy, safety, and security, and how these challenges can be met from legal and technical perspectives. We have been particularly interested in exploring assistant and healthcare robots since this domain imposes high demands on the technology to be used. As part of the project, we have analyzed various European Union (EU) regulations that have been introduced in recent years, with a view to assessing their impact in the domain. The TIAGo robot from PAL Robotics has been the main robot platform for technical work and experimental studies in the project. A number of novel methods for robot sensing and control have been implemented. Further, several of them have been assessed through human–robot interaction studies. This chapter introduces the VIROS project and outlines some of our regulatory and technological research. We also highlight several of the conflicting trade-offs seen in the domain of HRI (Torresen et al. 2023).

• Mahler, Tobias (2025). Risk Narrative: Deconstructing the AIA’s Risk-Based Approach as a Regulatory Heuristic. In Raue, Benjamin; Ungern-Sternberg, Antje von; Kumkar, Lea Katharina & Rüfner, Thomas (Ed.), Artificial Intelligence and Fundamental Rights. Verein für Recht und Digitalisierung e.V.. ISSN 9783565013197. p. 57–74. doi: 10.25353/UBTR-DAB1-9B5C-1EC6. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  While the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) is presented as a landmark "risk-based" framework, this article argues that its reliance on risk levels functions more as a narrative device than a consistently applied methodology. Although the AIA genu-inely engages with the concept of risk, it does so through a patchwork of distinct legislative strategies that often construe and operationalize risk in divergent ways. Examining the AIA's structure reveals that the widely used risk pyramid, while serving a crucial heuristic function in policy communication, only partly reflects the law's underlying legal architec-ture. The AIA primarily establishes two distinct risk-based categories: high-risk AI systems and general-purpose AI models presenting systemic risk, which operate under different regulatory logics. To understand the AIA’s regulatory architecture, the article traces the origins of the risk-based approach and distinguishes between risk regulation and risk-based regulation. It finds that divergent interpretations of risk by lawmakers, enforce-ment bodies, and regulated entities, coupled with the introduction of general-purpose AI models as a separate regulatory object, undermine the coherence of a singular risk-based framework, leading to what the article terms a "risk-regulatory cacophony."

• Mahler, Tobias; Davis, Peter Alexander Earls & Schwemer, Sebastian Felix (2024). Article 79. Procedure at national level for dealing with AI systems presenting a risk. In Pehlivan, Ceyhun Necati; Forgó, Nikolaus & Valcke, Peggy (Ed.), The EU Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act: A Commentary. Wolters Kluwer. ISSN 9789403532271. p. 1122–1139. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias & Schwemer, Sebastian Felix (2024). Article 80. Procedure for dealing with AI systems classified by the provider as non-high-risk in application of annex III. In Pehlivan, Ceyhun Necati; Forgó, Nikolaus & Valcke, Peggy (Ed.), The EU Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act: A Commentary. Wolters Kluwer. ISSN 9789403532271. p. 1140–1148. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias & Schwemer, Sebastian Felix (2024). Article 80. Procedure for Dealing with AI Systems Classified by the Provider as Non-High-Risk in Application of Annex III. In Pehlivan, Ceyhun Necati; Forgó, Nikolaus & Valcke, Peggy (Ed.), The EU Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act: A Commentary. Wolters Kluwer. ISSN 9789403532271. p. 1140–1148. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias; Davis, Peter Alexander Earls & Schwemer, Sebastian Felix (2024). Article 79. Procedure at National Level for Dealing with AI Systems Presenting a Risk. In Pehlivan, Ceyhun Necati; Forgó, Nikolaus & Valcke, Peggy (Ed.), The EU Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act: A Commentary. Wolters Kluwer. ISSN 9789403532271. p. 1122–1139. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2024). Smart Robotics in the EU Legal Framework. Oslo Law Review. 11(1). doi: 10.18261/olr.11.1.5. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  This paper aims to unpack the role the newly adopted EU Machinery Regulation plays in ensuring the safety of smart robots incorporating artificial intelligence (AI). Replacing the EU Machinery Directive of 2006, this Regulation signifies a necessary update for safety of machinery, including robots. A central feature of the Regulation is the inclusion of novel and evolving aspects of robotics, such as robot autonomy, and systems with self-evolving behaviour. In addition, it addresses human-robot interaction, which is relevant because the use of robots is currently transitioning from primarily factory settings to everyday human environments. The Regulation mandates manufacturers to conduct comprehensive risk assessments, considering the entire lifecycle of machinery, including their intended evolution and varying levels of autonomy. This paper points out that the new law falls short of comprehensively regulating robots. Nevertheless, safety is a basic human need, so it makes sense initially to focus a regulatory framework for human-robot interaction on safety. However, this focus on safety alone does not address the broader spectrum of regulatory challenges presented by the integration of robots into society. By establishing a minimum safety level for robotics, the Regulation provides an essential foundation for a more comprehensive regulatory framework. Such a framework should gradually evolve in conjunction with technological advancements in robotics.

• Hauglid, Mathias K. & Mahler, Tobias (2023). Doctor Chatbot: The EU's Regulatory Prescription for Generative Medical AI. Oslo Law Review. 10(1), p. 1–23. doi: 10.18261/olr.10.1.1. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  This article analyses the EUʼs regulation of medical artificial intelligence (AI) from a product safety perspective, concentrating on the interplay between the proposed AI Act (AIA) and the Medical Device Regulation (MDR). Recent advances in AI development illustrate the future potential of generative AI technologies, including those based on Large Language Models (LLMs). In a medical context, AI systems with different degrees of generativity are conceivable. These AI systems can pose new types of risks that are specific to AI technologies, as well as more traditional risks that are typical of medical devices. The proposed AIA is intended to address AI-specific risks foreseen by the EU legislature, whereas the MDR addresses more traditional medical risks. Through two case studies which display different degrees of generativity, this article identifies regulatory lacunae in the intersection between the AIA and the MDR. The article suggests that the emerging regulatory framework for medical AI systems potentially leaves certain AI-specific risks as well as certain typical medical device risks unregulated. Finally, the article discusses possible solutions that are compatible with the intentions of the EU legislature pertaining to the regulation of medical AI systems.

• Tørresen, Jim; Saplacan, Diana; Baselizadeh, Adel & Mahler, Tobias (2023). Machine Excellence Tradeoffs to Ethical and Legal Perspectives, Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IEEE CAI). IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). ISSN 9798350339840. p. 237–240. doi: 10.1109/CAI54212.2023.00109. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Abstract—We appreciate well-functioning technology being able to also personalize its services. However, to protect privacy and avoid a potential misuse of personal data, we are encouraged to limit the amount of personal data we share through apps and Internet services. While some services do not really need all the data they ask us to provide, others depend on it to provide the best possible performance of its service. That regards systems that apply data in machine learning for tasks like medical diagnostics. Especially deep learning algorithms perform better by using a large amount of data and are now able to benefit from the large amount as well with limited training time given access to high-performance computing resources. This paper address and discuss the tradeoffs like the one we have between data sharing minimalization for increased privacy and data maximization for machine learning systems. Perspectives related to ethics, legal, and social issues are considered in the paper. There is no single conclusion on the challenge, but attention to it can increase the awareness that the best balance differs depending on the application addressed.

• Mahler, Tobias (2022). Between Risk Management and Proportionality: The Risk-Based Approach in the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act Proposal. In Colonna, Liane & Greenstein, Stanley (Ed.), Law in the Era of Artificial Intelligence. Nordic Yearbook of Law and Informatics. ISSN 9789188929648. p. 247–269. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  The European Commission has issued a proposal for an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Regulation1 (hereinafter ‘Proposal’ or Artificial Intelligence Act, AIA), laying down harmonised rules concerning certain AI systems in the European Union (EU). A key regulatory approach in the Proposal is that the development and use of AI systems is regulated based on risk level. The Proposal’s ‘risk-based approach’ consists of the use of risk levels as thresholds for specific requirements in the Proposal. AI systems that represent unacceptable risks are prohibited and high-risk systems must comply with specific requirements. Less risky systems must comply with fewer or no requirements.

• Mahler, Tobias (2022). Regulating Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). In Custers, Bart & Villaronga, Eduard Fosch (Ed.), Law and Artificial Intelligence: Regulating AI and Applying AI in Legal Practice. T.M.C. Asser Press. ISSN 9789462655225. p. 521–540. doi: 10.1007/978-94-6265-523-2_26. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  This chapter discusses whether on-going EU policymaking on AI is relevant for Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and what it would mean to potentially regulate it in the future. AGI is typically contrasted with narrow Artificial Intelligence (AI), which excels only within a specific given context. Although many researchers are working on AGI, there is uncertainty about the feasibility of devel- oping it. If achieved, AGI could have cognitive capabilities similar to or beyond those of humans and may be able to perform a broad range of tasks. There are concerns that such AGI could undergo recursive circles of self-improvement, potentially leading to superintelligence. With such capabilities, superintelligent AGI could be a significant power factor in society. However, dystopian superintelligence scenarios are highly controversial and uncertain, so regulating existing narrow AI should be a priority.

• Schwemer, Sebastian Felix; Mahler, Tobias & Styri, Håkon (2021). Liability exemptions of non-hosting intermediaries: Sideshow in the Digital Services Act? Oslo Law Review. 8(1), p. 4–29. doi: 10.18261/ISSN.2387-3299-2021-01-01. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  The European Union is currently discussing a reform of its intermediary liability rules with its recently proposed Digital Services Act. The existing rules in the e-Commerce Directive (Directive 2000/31/EC) offer a safe harbour from liability for certain intermediary functions that are central to the functioning of the internet. A safe harbour for intermediaries is one of the regulatory cornerstones that help protect innovation, creativity and the free flow of information. At the same time, these rules are under pressure. This paper discusses a subset of ‘non-hosting’ intermediary functions. Some of these have traditionally been less visible in content-related regulatory debates. We look at selected examples of functions related to the domain name system (DNS), content delivery networks (CDNs), cloud processing and live-streaming. The current liability exemption regime under the e-Commerce Directive focusses on transmission in, or access to, a communication network, as well as storage. However, significant grey areas arise both in relation to what we call the ‘auxiliary network intermediary’ function (as opposed to ‘direct network intermediary’ functions corresponding to ‘mere conduit’ functions), which does not transmit or provide access, and the ‘temporal provision and processing of information’, which is different from storage.

• Schwemer, Sebastian Felix; Mahler, Tobias & Styri, Håkon (2021). Liability exemptions of non-hosting intermediaries: Sideshow in the Digital Services Act? Oslo Law Review. p. 4–29. doi: 10.18261/ISSN.2387-3299-2021-01-01. Full text in Research Archive
• Villaronga, Eduard Fosch & Mahler, Tobias (2021). Cybersecurity, safety and robots: Strengthening the link between cybersecurity and safety in the context of care robots. Computer Law and Security Review. ISSN 0267-3649. 41, p. 105528–105528. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105528. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  This paper addresses the interplay between robots, cybersecurity, and safety from a European legal perspective, a topic under-explored by current technical and legal literature. The legal framework, together with technical standards, is a necessary parameter for the production and deployment of robots. However, European law does not regulate robots as such, and there exist multiple and overlapping legal requirements focusing on specific contexts, such as product safety and medical devices. Besides, the recently enacted European Cybersecurity Act establishes a cybersecurity certification framework, which could be used to define cybersecurity requirements for robots, although concrete cyber-physical implementation requirements are not yet prescribed. In this article, we illustrate cybersecurity challenges and their subsequent safety implications with the concrete example of care robots. These robots interact in close, direct contact with children, elderly, and persons with disabilities, and a malfunctioning or cybersecurity threat may affect the health and well-being of these people. Moreover, care robots may process vast amounts of data, including health and behavioral data, which are especially sensitive in the healthcare domain. Security vulnerabilities in robots thus raise significant concerns, not only for manufacturers and programmers, but also for those who interact with them, especially in sensitive applications such as healthcare. While the latest European policymaking efforts on robot regulation acknowledge the importance of cybersecurity, many details, and their impact on user safety have not yet been addressed in depth. Our contribution aims to answer the question whether the current European legal framework is prepared to address cyber and physical risks from care robots and ensure safe human–robot interactions in such a sensitive context. Cybersecurity and physical product safety legal requirements are governed separately in a dual regulatory framework, presenting a challenge in governing uniformly and adequately cyber-physical systems such as care robots. We conceptualize and discuss the challenges of regulating cyber-physical systems’ security with the current dual framework, particularly the lack of mandatory certifications. We conclude that policymakers need to consider cybersecurity as an indissociable aspect of safety to ensure robots are truly safe to use.

• Fosch-Villaronga, Eduard; Felzmann, Heike; Ramos-Montero, Maria & Mahler, Tobias (2018). Cloud services for robotic nurses? Assessing legal and ethical issues in the use of cloud services for healthcare robots. Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). ISSN 2153-0858. doi: 10.1109/IROS.2018.8593591. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  This paper explores ethical and legal implications arising from the intertwinement of cloud services, healthcare and robotics. It closes an existing gap in the literature by highlighting the distinctive ethical and legal concerns associated with the inter-dependence of the cyber- and the physical aspects of healthcare cloud robotics. The identified core concerns include uncertainties with regard to data protection requirements; distributed responsibilities for unintended harm; achievement of transparency and consent for cloud robot services especially for vulnerable robot users; secondary uses of cloud data derived from robot activities; data security; and wider social issues. The paper aims to raise awareness and stimulate reflection of the legal and ethical impacts on different stakeholders arising from the use of cloud services in healthcare robotics. We show that due to the complexity of these concerns the design and implementation of such robots in healthcare requires an interdisciplinary development and impact assessment process. In light of legal requirements and ethical responsibilities towards end-users and other stakeholders, we draw practical considerations for engineers developing cloud services for robots in healthcare.

• McGillivray, Kevin; Esayas, Samson Yoseph & Mahler, Tobias (2016). Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Terms? Visualising Contract Terms and Data Protection Requirements for Cloud Computing Users. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS). ISSN 0302-9743. 9881, p. 39–56. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-46963-8_4. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  The following article evaluates two models for providing purchasers of online digital content, including cloud computing services, with visual notice of contract terms and data collection practises. Visualisation of contract terms and privacy policies has the potential to provide cloud consumers with an improved means of understanding the contract terms they are accepting when entering into an agreement with a Cloud Service Provider (CSP). The following paper examines two concrete proposals or models for the visualisation of contract terms and privacy practises as compliance tools in the European context. The article focuses primarily on consumer and data protection law. Although the visualisation models are not currently binding or legally required, they start an important conversation on how such terms can be more effectively conveyed.

• Mahler, Tobias & Solhaug, Bjørnar (2016). En konseptuell modell for ugyldighet. In Hjelmeng, Erling Johan (Eds.), Ugyldighet i privatretten - minnebok for Viggo Hagstrøm. Fagbokforlaget. ISSN 9788245018080. p. 307–335. Full text in Research Archive
• Esayas, Samson Yoseph; Mahler, Tobias; Seehusen, Fredrik; Bjørnstad, Frode & Brubakk, Veda (2015). An integrated method for compliance and risk assessment. In Samarati, Pierangela & Noubir, Guevara (Ed.), 2015 IEEE Conference on Communications and Network Security (CNS), Florence, 28-30 September, 2015. IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). ISSN 9781467378765. p. 568–576. doi: 10.1109/CNS.2015.7346870. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  This paper presents an integrated method for risk and compliance assessment and its evaluation in a case study. The sophistication with which modern business is carried out and the unprecedented access to a global market means that businesses are exposed to diverse regulatory requirements in and across jurisdictions. Compliance with such requirements is practically challenging, partly due to the complexity of regulatory environments. One possibility in this regard is a riskbased approach to compliance where resources are allocated to those compliance issues that are most risky. Despite the need for risk-based compliance, few specific methods and techniques for identifying and modeling compliance risks have been developed. The lack of methodological and tool support means the compliance risk identification often involves unstructured brainstorming, with uncertain outcomes. As part of the integrated method, a structured approach for the identification of compliance risks and their graphical modelling is provided. The main goal of the structured approach is to facilitate the identification and assessment of compliance risks and their subsequent documentation in a consistent and reusable fashion. The method is applied in a case study with the aim of assessing the compliance concerns in adopting cloud services. Our experience in the case study demonstrates that the integrated method enables a better structuring in the identification of compliance risks and yields reusable results. As well, the method facilitates communication among different expertise and mitigates subjectivity in making compliance decisions.

• Esayas, Samson Yoseph & Mahler, Tobias (2015). Modelling compliance risk: a structured approach. Artificial Intelligence and Law. ISSN 0924-8463. 23(3), p. 271–300. doi: 10.1007/s10506-015-9174-x. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  This article presents a structured and systematic approach for identifying and modelling compliance risks. The sophistication with which modern business is carried out and the unprecedented access to a global market means that businesses are exposed to increasing and diverse regulatory requirements in and across jurisdictions. Compliance with such requirements is practically challenging, partly due to the complexity of regulatory environments. One possibility in this regard is a risk-based approach to compliance, where resources are allocated to those compliance issues that are most risky. Despite the need for risk-based compliance, few specific methods and techniques for identifying and modelling compliance risks have been developed. Due to the lack of methodological and tool support, compliance risk identification often involves unstructured brainstorming, with uncertain outcomes. The proposed approach consists of a five-step process for the structured identification and assessment of compliance risks. This process aims at facilitating the identification of compliance risks and their documentation in a consistent and reusable fashion. As part of the process, the article provides a systematic approach for a graphical modelling of compliance risks, which aims at facilitating communication among experts from different backgrounds. The creation of graphical models can be partly automated based on natural language patterns for regulatory requirements. Furthermore, the structuring of the compliance requirement in a template aims at simplifying the modelling of compliance risks and facilitating a potential future automated model.

• Blandhol, Sverre & Mahler, Tobias (2015). Advokaten i fremtiden. In Knudtzon, Sigurd (Eds.), Å være advokat. Universitetsforlaget. ISSN 9788215025230. p. 24–60. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2014). Rechtsansprüche auf generische Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) nach der Marktliberalisierung - Eine kritische Untersuchung zentraler Begriffe des Domainnamensrechts. Juridikum (Wien). ISSN 1019-5394. p. 522–532. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2014). Assessing Legal Risks of Closed Generic Top-Level Domains. European Journal of Law and Technology. 5(3). Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2014). A gTLD right? Conceptual challenges in the expanding internet domain namespace. International Journal of Law and Information Technology. ISSN 0967-0769. 22(1), p. 27–48. doi: 10.1093/ijlit/eat018. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2013). A Graphical User-Interface for Legal Texts? In Svantesson, Dan Jerker B. & Greenstein, Stanley (Ed.), Internationalisation of Law in the Digital Information Society: Nordic Yearbook of Law and Informatics 2010–2012. Ex Tuto Publishing. ISSN 9788792598226. p. 311–327. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2013). Governance Models for Interoperable Electronic Identities. Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology. 8(2), p. 148–159. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Current implementations of electronic identity in Europe are rather diverse; they include state-driven identity management frameworks as well as private sector frameworks and different forms of public-private collaborations. This diversity may represent a major challenge for the deployment of information society services addressed towards the European internal market. This raises the question: How can we achieve interoperability of electronic identities across Europe, and potentially beyond Europe’s borders? This paper argues that the interoperability of electronic identity could be governed by a multi-stakeholder governance framework that brings together different parties with interests in the provision and use of electronic identities. Such a governance framework could, for example, consist in designing and operating a portal with common functionalities that allows interoperable authentication across multiple domains and contexts. Inspiration for the governance of such a portal could come both from existing successful implementations of electronic identity and from multi-stakeholder institutions that have proven useful in Internet governance.

• Mahler, Tobias (2012). Die Durchsetzbarkeit von Schranken-Schranken der Internetfreiheit. In Kleinwächter, Wolfgang (Eds.), Grenzen der Internetfreiheit. MIND Multistakeholder Internet Dialog. CO:LLABORATORY DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES NO. 1, #3. Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory. ISSN 9783950313963. p. 69–72. Full text in Research Archive
• Jøsang, Audun; Fritsch, Lothar & Mahler, Tobias (2010). Privacy Policy Referencing. In Katsikas, Sokratis K.; Lopez, Javier & Soriano, Miguel (Ed.), TrustBus, Trust, Privacy and Security in Digital Business, 7th International Conference, TrustBus 2010, Bilbao, Spain, August 30-31, 2010. Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 6264. Springer. ISSN 9783642151514. Full text in Research Archive
• Jøsang, Audun; Fritsch, Lothar & Mahler, Tobias (2010). Privacy Policy Referencing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS). ISSN 0302-9743. 6264, p. 129–140. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Data protection legislation was originally defined for a context where personal information is mostly stored on centralized servers with limited connectivity and openness to 3rd party access. Currently, servers are connected to the Internet, where a large amount of personal information is continuously being exchanged as part of application transactions. This is very different from the original context of data protection regulation. Even though there are rather strict data protection laws in an increasing number of countries, it is in practice rather challenging to ensure an adequate protection for personal data that is communicated on-line. The enforcement of privacy legislation and policies therefore might require a technological basis, which is integrated with adequate amendments to the legal framework. This article describes a new approach called Privacy Policy Referencing, and outlines the technical and the complementary legal framework that needs to be established to support it.

• Mahler, Tobias; Ranheim, Malin Renate & Cojocarasu, Dana Irina (2010). Hvordan vurderer nasjonale domstoler datalagringsdirektivet opp mot grunn- og menneskerettigheter? In Schartum, Dag Wiese (Eds.), Overvåking i en rettsstat. Fagbokforlaget. ISSN 9788245010480. p. 149–166. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Datalagringsdirektivet har vært omdiskutert helt siden det første forslaget ble fremmet. Et sentralt punkt for direktivets motstandere er at det strider mot menneskerettighetene i den europeiske menneskerettighetskonvensjonen (EMK) og respektive grunnrettighetskataloger i nasjonale forfatninger. I skrivende stund er direktivets fremtid åpen. EU skal evaluere direktivet, og mens noen land fortsatt diskuterer om og eventuelt hvordan direktivet skal gjennomføres, har andre land allerede fått prøvd sine datalagringslover for domstolene. På nåværende tidspunkt har verken den europeiske menneskerettighetsdomstolen i Strasbourg, (EMD) eller EU domstolen i Luxemburg, (EUD) tatt stilling til om direktivet eller datalagringslovene strider mot menneskerettighetene. Denne artikkelen omhandler tre dommer fra henholdsvis Bulgaria, Romania og Tyskland, som alle har erklært de respektive nasjonale lovene for grunnlovsstridige. Vi er ikke kjent med saker der datalagringslover har blitt prøvet uten at den respektive domstolen har funnet brudd med menneskerettighetene. Til tross for at domstolenes argumentasjon kretser rundt direktivets gjennomføring i nasjonalt rett, har de fleste av argumentene i disse dommene en overføringsverdi på flere plan. For det første kan de brukes som en veiledning for eventuelt å gjennomføre direktivet på en måte som ikke strider mot menneskerettighetene. Dette forutsetter imidlertid at man, som i den tyske dommen, mener at det i det hele tatt er mulig å gjennomføre direktivet uten å krenke retten til privatliv etter EMK art 8. Alternativt kan argumentene i dommene få betydning dersom andre lands datalagringslover blir et tema ved en nasjonal eller europeisk domstol. Og for det tredje vil EUs evaluering av direktivet også måtte ta stilling til hvorvidt direktivets virkeområde bør utvides for å inkludere teknologier og bruksmåter (for eksempel sosiale medier) som per i dag ikke er direkte omfattet av lagringsplikten. På denne bakgrunn mener vi det er av interesse å sammenligne de sentrale argumentene fra de tre dommene og analysere overføringsverdien, bl.a. i lys av EMDs rettspraksis.

• Mahler, Tobias & Ranheim, Malin Renate (2010). Datalagringsdirektivet og den tyske grunnloven. Lov & Data. ISSN 0800-7853. p. 19–23. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2009). Una definición de riesgo legal. Foro de Derecho Mercantil: Revista Internacional. ISSN 1794-0427. p. 78–113. Full text in Research Archive

View all works in NVA

• Mahler, Tobias (2019). Generic Top-Level Domains: A Study of Transnational Private Regulation. Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN 9781786435132. 280 p. Full text in Research Archive
• McGillivray, Kevin; Esayas, Samson Yoseph & Mahler, Tobias (2016). Give Me a Sign: Expressing Contract Terms and Data Protection Requirements Visually in Cloud Computing. Senter for Rettsinformatikk. ISBN 9788272261428. 20 p. Full text in Research Archive

View all works in NVA

• Schwemer, Sebastian Felix; Weitzenboeck, Emily Mary; Esayas, Samson Yoseph; Hjort, Live Sunniva; Langford, Malcolm & Schmidt, Rebecca [Show all 10 contributors for this article] (2026). The Oslo Submission on the Digital Omnibus and the Digital Fitness Check. doi: https:/ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14855-Simplification-digital-package-and-omnibus/F33380548_en. Full text in Research Archive
• Arnesen, Lars Andre Strøm; Baste, Øystein Flø; Esayas, Samson Yoseph; Hjort, Live Sunniva; Langford, Malcolm & Mahler, Tobias (2025). Høringssvar - utkast til ny lov om kunstig intelligens (KI-loven). doi: https:/www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/d3c954ab2fe045e6a0498fe88bd4e04d/universitetet-i-oslo.pdf?uid=Lars_Arnesen%2C_%C3%98ystein_Fl%C3%B8_Baste%2C_Samson_Esayas%2C_Live_Sunniva_Hjort%2C_Malcolm_Langford%2C_Tobias_Mahler. Full text in Research Archive
• Kjørven, Marte Eidsand; Riisnæs, Rolf; Mahler, Tobias; Gjøsteen, Kristian; Langford, Malcolm & Wærstad, Tone Linn [Show all 7 contributors for this article] (2025). Helhetlig, trygg og inkluderende digital identitetsforvaltning i Norge: Anbefalinger fra SODI-prosjektet. doi: https:/www.jus.uio.no/ifp/forskning/prosjekter/sodi/publikasjoner/rapporter-mv/sodi-rapport-5-2025.pdf. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias & Tørresen, Jim (2025). VIROS in a Nutshell. doi: https:/www.jus.uio.no/ifp/english/research/projects/nrccl/viros/events/seminars/vulnerability-in-the-robot-society-final-conferenc.html. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2025). KI-forordningen: Hvordan jobbe med risikobasert tilnærming når risiko er ukjent? Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2025). KI og mulighetsrommet — i et rettslig perspektiv. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2025). Robots, Humans and the Law. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2025). Risikovurdering etter AI Act. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2025). Robot safety and beyond. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2025). Robotics as a long problem. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2025). Comments to Milton Mueller’s book «Declaring Independence». Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2025). Bør alle KI lover være risikobaserte? Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2025). EU perspectives on the safety of home robots. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2025). KI forordningen og kunnskapssektoren. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2025). KI og risiko for brudd på grunnleggende rettigheter. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2025). Should All AI Laws be Risk-Based? The Logic and Limits of the AI Act’s Risk-Based Approach. Full text in Research Archive
• Riisnæs, Rolf; Mahler, Tobias; Gjøsteen, Kristian; Langford, Malcolm; Wærstad, Tone Linn & Omland, Lars Petter Halvorsen [Show all 7 contributors for this article] (2025). Når BankID er nede, stopper Norge. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2024). Chatbots in healthcare delivery. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2024). The Artificial Intelligence Act and its Interface with the Machinery Regulation. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2024). Systemic Risk as a Legal Transplant in the Artificial Intelligence Act. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2024). Hva betyr EUs AI Act for norsk næringsliv? Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2024). Risk-based approaches in the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2024). Four risk assessments and a funeral. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2024). Vilje, tillit og erklæring i generativ KI. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2024). KI forordningen. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2024). AI and Risk Assessments. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2024). The AIA and the Machinery Regulation. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2024). Forordningen om kunstig intelligens. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2024). Learning Legal Risk: Limitations of Large Language Models in Limelight. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2023). AI for jurister. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2023). Perspektiver på regulering av kunstig intelligens med relevans for nasjonal sikkerhet. Full text in Research Archive
• Hjort, Live Sunniva & Mahler, Tobias (2023). EU har lenge arbeidet med verdens første KI-lov. Her er fem misforståelser om den. p. 28–29. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2023). Global Transnational AI Policy. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2023). Legal requirements for Robot Safety and Privacy – contrasting the Machinery Regulation with the GDPR. Full text in Research Archive
• Calleja, Carlos Jose & Mahler, Tobias (2023). Introduction to Robot Regulation. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2023). Perspektiver på global regulering av kunstig intelligens. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2023). Regulatory steps towards robot autonomy in healthcare settings. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2023). The discourse on global AI policy. Full text in Research Archive
• Tørresen, Jim; Saplacan, Diana & Mahler, Tobias (2023). Ethical, Legal and User Perspectives on Social and Assistive Robots (ELUPSAR) workshop. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2023). Hva betyr KI forordningen for Tolletaten. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2023). Behov for regulating av kunstig intelligens. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2023). Kunstig intelligens og tolletaten. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2023). §147 ChatGPT – advokatroboter neste? [Radio]. Podcast Juspodden. Full text in Research Archive
• Tørresen, Jim; Atsushi, Nazawa; Saplacan, Diana; Prestes, Edson; Mahler, Tobias & Weng, Yueh-Hsuan (2022). Tutorial at IROS 2022 - Ethical, Legal and User Perspectives on Robots and Systems (ELAUPORAS) – Assessments and Potential Measures. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2022). Legal Risk Management and Corruption Risks. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2022). Forklarbar maskinlæring i lys av EUs foreslåtte KI forordning. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2022). Nye regler om kunstig intelligens. Full text in Research Archive
• Bygrave, Lee Andrew; Mahler, Tobias & Lintvedt, Mona Naomi (2022). AI Act og Norges handlingsrom. Full text in Research Archive
• Lie, Runar Hilleren & Mahler, Tobias (2022). Et nettverk av nordiske rettskilder. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2022). AI Research and Europe’s Upcoming AI Law. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Much of the discourse regarding trustworthy AI systems has emphasised the significance of AI ethics. By comparison, this keynote will focus on the legal regulation of AI in Europe. In 2021, the European Commission proposed a new law to regulate AI in Europe, the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA). An important question is what this law will mean for scientific research with an AI focus. The talk will also discuss what the law, if adopted, would imply for AI developers. Ultimately, the question is whether the AIA facilitates the creation of trustworthy AI in Europe, or whether it might limit Europe’s abilities to develop competitive AI systems.

• Mahler, Tobias (2021). Menneske mot maskin. Fordeler og ulemper ved bruken av AI. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2021). Rett og roboter. Full text in Research Archive
• Tørresen, Jim; Saplacan, Diana; Lintvedt, Mona Naomi; Mahler, Tobias & Fosch-Villaronga, Eduard (2021). Tutorial: Ethical and Legal Assessments Related to Robots and Systems. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2021). Nytt rammeverk fra EU om kunstig intelligens. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  EU-kommisjonen arbeider med et forslag til juridisk rammeverk for kunstig intelligens gjennom en ny forordning. Den nye forordningen vil på samme måte som GDPR på personvernområdet innebære felles regler i alle EU/EØS-land og innføring av overtredelsesgebyr.

• Saplacan, Diana; Tørresen, Jim; Mahler, Tobias & Fosch-Villaronga, Eduard (2021). Robots and Society: Ethical, Legal, and Technical Perspectives on Integrating Robots in the Home- and Healthcare Systems and Services (RO-SO). Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  The RO-SO tutorial is a continuation of the previous tutorials regarding robots, ethics, legal, and technical aspects. The tutorial is part of the 30th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN 2021). It focuses on providing an overview and discussing the ethical, legal, and technical perspectives, including challenges, dilemmas, and advantages and opportunities of integrating robots as part of home- and healthcare systems and services. The following two questions will guide the overall objective for this tutorial, but these will not limit the talks: How does the meaning of good care change when we integrate robots as part of the home- and healthcare systems and services? What does good care mean when we integrate assistive robots as part of the home- and healthcare services? What are some of the ethical, legal, and technical challenges and opportunities when integrating assistive care robots in the home- and healthcare services?

• Mahler, Tobias (2021). Perspectives on Cybergovernance. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2020). Regulering av kunstig intelligens og oversikt over rettsutviklingen i EU. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2020). Regulating AI Risk. Full text in Research Archive
• Aronsen, Jan Magnus; Smedt, Koenraad De; Heggland, Ingrid; Dingsør, Liv; Tronstad, Stein & Pedersen, Ole Petter [Show all 8 contributors for this article] (2020). Hvordan få økt deling og gjenbruk av forskningsdata? Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias & Schwemer, Sebastian Felix (2020). Reforming the liability of non-hosting intermediaries. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2020). The intermediary liability of DNS actors. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2019). Robot impact assessments. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias & Eduard, Fosch Villaronga (2019). Cybersecurity Considerations for (Care) Robots. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2019). The future of Law: Regulating robots and AI. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2019). Introduction to Robot law. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias; Bygrave, Lee Andrew & Tørresen, Jim (2019). The VIROS Project: Vulnerability in the Robot Society. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2019). Multistakeholderism in the Transnational Private Regulation of the Internet. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2019). Robotik, artificiell intelligens, skador och försäkringsrätten; kommentar. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2019). Rett og roboter. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2019). Rettslige problemstillinger rundt kunstig intelligens. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2019). The VIROS project: Vulnerability in the Robot Society. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2019). Robot impact assessments: A suitable regulatory mechanism for addressing robot deception? Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2019). Robots and Artificial Intelligence on the EU Regulatory Agenda. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2018). ‘ICANN Shall not Regulate’: A Critical Analysis of ICANN’s Post-Transition Regulatory Powers. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2018). Hvordan forholder jussen seg til AI? Full text in Research Archive
• Fosch-Villaronga, Eduard; Felzmann, Heike; Ramos-Montero, Maria & Mahler, Tobias (2018). Cloud services for robotic nurses? Assessing legal and ethical issues in the use of cloud services for healthcare robots. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  This paper explores ethical and legal implications arising from the intertwinement of cloud services, healthcare and robotics. It closes an existing gap in the literature by highlighting the distinctive ethical and legal concerns associated with the inter-dependence of the cyber- and the physical aspects of healthcare cloud robotics. The identified core concerns include uncertainties with regard to data protection requirements; distributed responsibilities for unintended harm; achievement of transparency and consent for cloud robot services especially for vulnerable robot users; secondary uses of cloud data derived from robot activities; data security; and wider social issues. The paper aims to raise awareness and stimulate reflection of the legal and ethical impacts on different stakeholders arising from the use of cloud services in healthcare robotics. We show that due to the complexity of these concerns the design and implementation of such robots in healthcare requires an interdisciplinary development and impact assessment process. In light of legal requirements and ethical responsibilities towards end-users and other stakeholders, we draw practical considerations for engineers developing cloud services for robots in healthcare.

• Weitzenboeck, Emily Mary; Mahler, Tobias & Jones, Andrew J.I. (2015). Introduction. Artificial Intelligence and Law. ISSN 0924-8463. 23(3), p. 197–199. doi: 10.1007/s10506-015-9171-0. Full text in Research Archive
• Esayas, Samson Yoseph; Mahler, Tobias & Solhaug, Bjørnar (2015). An Integrated Approach for Compliance and Security Risk Assessment. 121, p. 32–35. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Organizations that rely on ICT infrastructures need to maintain a high level of information security and protection from cyber-attacks. This is not only due to the self-interest of protecting business critical infrastructures; it is also due to laws that deal with information security. For this reason, technical and legal risks often need to be understood in combination. The RASEN project proposes an approach to integrate compliance and security risk assessment.

• McGillivray, Kevin; Esayas, Samson Yoseph & Mahler, Tobias (2015). Using Technology to Enhance Confidentiality and Regulatory Compliance by Design. 123(3), p. 21–24. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2015). Desafíos de la Privacidad Digital (panel). Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2014). New Generic Top Level Domains: Legal and Economic Issues. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2014). Visualisation of legal norms, Jon Bing: En Hyllest/A Tribute. Gyldendal Norsk Forlag A/S. ISSN 9788205468504. p. 137–153. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2013). New gTLD Agreement. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2013). eSociety Legal Issues. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2013). Public Policy Issues Regarding New Generic Top Level Domains. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2013). Vurdering av personvernkonsekvenser -- Privacy Impact Assessment. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2012). A Graphical User Interface for Legal Texts? Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2012). Nye Internett Toppdomener. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2012). From Delegation to Allocation: On the Law and Economics of gTLD Policy. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2012). Managing legal risks of new gTLDs. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2012). Criteria for Assessing ICANN’s New TLD Program. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2012). Internet Governance and new gTLDs. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2012). New top-level domains: Regulatory issues, dispute resolution and rights protection. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2011). Hvordan kan rettslige spørsmål integreres i en risikovurdering? Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2011). Datalagringsdirektivet slik tyske og rumenske domstoler har vurdert det. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2011). Legal Risk Management as a Methodical Perspective on Uncertainty and Complexity. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2011). Analyse av kontraktsrisiko. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2011). Legal Risk Assessment of Introducing a New Internet Top-Level Domain. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Internet top-level domains such as .com, .org, .de and .uk are central for the functioning of the Internet. So far, their number has been very limited, but this will change in the proximate future. After years of discussions, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is opening up the application process for new generic top-level domains (gTLDs). Proposals are likely to include both genuinely generic names such as .music, .bike or .bank and geographic names and abbreviations such as .berlin, .paris and .nyc. In addition, several major corporations are expected to register their brand names as top-level domains. The introduction of a new gTLD is sought by many applicants in order to offer registry services in an expanding market for Internet domain names. In some cases new gTLDs may also facilitate novel and innovative business models. On the other hand, applying for a new gTLD can be quite costly, since an applicant has to disburse inter alia a substantial application fee and possible costs of an auction, in addition to start-up costs. Applicants therefore need to carefully assess and manage risks related to the project of introducing a new gTLD. From the applicant’s perspective, relevant risks can be related to the business model, to the applicant’s financial situation or to operational, technical and legal issues. The assessment of legal risks – which is the key focus for this paper – is essential for any applicant, for at least two reasons. First, it is in the interest of the applicant to identify and manage legal risks in an early phase when cost-efficient proactive action is still possible. In addition, all applicants even need to include a contingency plan in their applications, and the quality of this plan will count for the application’s success. This explicitly includes the relevance of any regulation, law or policy that might impact the project. Applicants are evaluated based on a scoring system, and in order to achieve the highest score, they must show that they have thoroughly identified the key risks and the chances that each will occur, including legal risks.

• Mahler, Tobias (2011). New generic Top-Level-Domains (gTLDs). Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2011). Rettslige krav til risikovurderinger for IDforvaltning. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2010). Juridisk risikostyring i ID-systemer: Verktøybasert kontraktanalyse. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2010). The lawyer in 2020. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2010). Lagringsdirektivet kan koste 2 Mrd. [Journal]. Computerworld. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2010). Juristisches Risikomanagement: Eine Methode zur Ergänzung rechtlicher Analysen? Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2009). Jurister på vei til Neandertal? Omtale av Richard Susskind: The end of lawyers? Lov & Data. ISSN 0800-7853. p. 20–21. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2009). Hvordan analysere legale risikoaspekter i tillitshåndtering? Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2009). Visualising legal risk. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2009). Rettslige risikovurderinger: metoder og modeller. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2009). Legal risk management. Full text in Research Archive
• Mahler, Tobias (2009). Visualising Legal Risk. Full text in Research Archive
• Baselizadeh, Adel; Tørresen, Jim; Saplacan, Diana; Khaksar, Weria & Mahler, Tobias (2024). Advancing Safety and Privacy in Human-Robot Interaction: Exploring Learning-Based Control and Multi-Modal Sensing Approaches. Universitetet i Oslo. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  As robots are imported from industrial settings to homes and healthcare environments, new risks emerge. Chief among these are concerns about user safety and privacy, which must be carefully considered during the development and integration of robots into daily life. Ensuring these aspects is essential for building trust between humans and robots, allowing them to function effectively and safely in close proximity to people. This thesis addresses these challenges by focusing on two key areas: improving safety through addressing the human-robot collision avoidance problem, and enhancing privacy through the use of privacy-preserving sensors in robots. In terms of safety, advanced control frameworks grounded in machine learning algorithms, control theory methods, and the integration of these two approaches have been developed to address the collision avoidance problem for robotic arms, ensuring safe operation without compromising efficiency. Regarding privacy, the thesis explores the use of privacy-preserving sensors such as thermal cameras and 3D lasers. These sensors offer effective monitoring while minimizing the collection of sensitive data, maintaining a balance between utility and privacy. By integrating these sensors with multimodal deep learning models, robots can recognize human activities and monitor users during human-robot interaction without invading personal privacy. This thesis contributes to safer and more private human-robot interactions, particularly in sensitive environments like healthcare, paving the way for more trusted and widely accepted robotic systems in daily life.

• Krogstie, John; Storsul, Tanja; Frigessi, Arnoldo; Lyngstad, Cathrine Pihl; Andreassen, Eirik & Martinkenaite, Ieva [Show all 13 contributors for this article] (2023). Overordnede tiltak - Andre notat fra rådgivende ekspertgruppe for KI-satsingen. Norges forskningsråd. Full text in Research Archive
• Aabakken, Gard Lid; Eguia, Lara Marie Nicole; Mahler, Tobias & Schwemer, Sebastian Felix (2023). Mapping Legal Tech in Norway. Universitetet i Oslo. doi: https:/www.jus.uio.no/ifp/forskning/publikasjoner/complex/2023/complex_01_2023.pdf. Full text in Research Archive
• Storsul, Tanja; Rettberg, Jill Walker; Brandtzæg, Petter Bae; Frigessi, Arnoldo; Strumke, Inga & Mahler, Tobias [Show all 12 contributors for this article] (2023). 1. notat fra rådgivende ekspertgruppe for KI-satsingen: Nåsituasjon og forventninger. Forskningsrådet. Full text in Research Archive
• Aronsen, Jan Magnus; Smedt, Koenraad De; Heggland, Ingrid; Dingsør, Liv; Tronstad, Stein & Pedersen, Ole Petter [Show all 10 contributors for this article] (2021). Hvordan skal vi dele forskningsdata? Utredning og anbefalinger om lisensiering og tilgjengeliggjøring. Norges forskningsråd. ISSN 9788212039018. Full text in Research Archive
• Schwemer, Sebastian Felix; Mahler, Tobias & Styri, Håkon (2020). Legal analysis of the intermediary service providers of non-hosting nature. European Commission. ISSN 9789276213307. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  This study is part of the broader evidence collection conducted by the Commission in view of the evaluation of the ECD and preparation of a new Digital Services Act. Its main objective is to inform the Commission on the technological and legal evolution around non-hosting intermediary services and the way the legal framework for such services could be upgraded. The study focuses in particular on the legal clarity in the liability exemption for such services in light of the technical characteristics and nature of the respective services. The overall goal of the study is to provide insights to answer the question whether Article 12 and 13 ECD are still fit for purpose, and –where applicable– to provide recommendations on how the current framework might be updated.

• Mahler, Tobias (2010). Legal Risk Management. Developing and Evaluating Elements of a Method for Proactive Legal Analyses, With a Particular Focus on Contracts. Det juridiske fakultet - Universitetet i Oslo. Full text in Research Archive

View all works in NVA