Features of Legal Regulation of Scoring in the United States of America and the European Union

The paper analyzes the legal regulation of scoring models in the USA and the EU. It examines specific issues of personal rating using automated systems: information sources and requirements for it, legal grounds for data processing, transparency of scoring models; legislation on the regulation of artificial intelligence systems is evaluated from the perspective of its effectiveness in ensuring the protection of human rights. Attention is being paid to the issue of unfair data processing practices, including the use of scoring models by data brokers in the United States, which is caused by an ineffective «patchwork» approach to legal regulation. It is concluded that in the digital space consent to the processing of personal data, including the allocation of a special one for the use of fully automated systems, has lost its value and the American approach to granting the right to refuse automated processing is preferable. The author substantiates the special importance of the legal reflection of the principles of reliability and completeness of the information underlying the scoring model, as well as the assessment of the quality of data used to develop an artificial intelligence system. The conclusion is made about the insufficient legal elaboration in the European legislation of the duties of the operator of the artificial intelligence system to ensure impartiality when working with the system. The author addresses specific problems of digital scoring, i.e., personal rating using digital footprints. Based on law enforcement practice, the amount of information to be disclosed in connection with the use of scoring models, including derived data, has been determined.

1. Abrusio J. The (In)Efficacy of Consent for the Processing of Personal Data. Global Network Journal. 2024;6(1):180-205. DOI: 10.24861/2675-1038.v6i1.133.

2. Agafonova VV, Vishnever VYa, Frumusaki SV. Technological evolution of credit scoring in the consumer banking lending system. Vestnik Volzhskogo Universiteta imeni V.N. Tatishcheva. 2018;2(3):21-26. (In Russ.).

3. Berg T, Burg V, Gombović A, Puri M. On the Rise of FinTechs — Credit Scoring Using Digital Footprints. The Review of Financial Studies. 2020;7:2845-2897.

4. Bertrand M, Kamenica E. Coming apart? Lives of the rich and poor over time in the United States. Chicago; 2017.

5. Desai N, Gross J. Scoring systems in the critically ill: uses, cautions, and future directions. BJA Education. 2019;19(7):212-218. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjae.2019.03.002.

6. Germundsson N, Stranz H. Automating social assistance: Exploring the use of robotic process automation in the Swedish personal social services. International Journal of Social Welfare. 2023. P. 1–12. DOI: 10.1111/ijsw.12633.

7. Kuznetsova SS. Legal regulation of digital human profiling in the practice of foreign countries. Pravoprimenenie. 2024;8(4):63-72. DOI: 10.52468/2542-1514.2024.8(4). (In Russ.).

8. Lunyakov OV, Lunyakova NA. Development of credit channels in the context of the transition to the digital economy: Demand modeling. Finansy: teoriya i praktika [Finance: Theory and practice]. 2018;22(5):76-89. DOI: 10.26794/2587-5671-2018-22-5-76-89. (In Russ.).

9. Martin K. Privacy notices as Tabula Rasa: An Empirical Investigation into How Complying with a Privacy Notice is Related to Meeting Privacy Expectations Online. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. 2014. P. 68–85. DOI: 10.1509/jppm.14.139.

10. Merli F. Automated Decision-Making Systems in Austrian Administrative Law. Fascicolo. 2023;1:41-50. DOI: 10.13130/2723-9195/2023-1-19.

11. Mochalov AN. Digital Profiling and the Legal Regime of Derived Personal Data. Kutafin Law Review. 2024;11(3):491-513. DOI: 10.17803/27130533.2024.3.29.491-513.

12. Mochalov AN. Human digital footprints and privacy. Antinomii [Antinomies]. 2024;24(4):164-189. DOI: 10.17506/26867206_2024_24_3_164. (In Russ.).

13. Mochalov AN. The paradox of anonymity on the Internet and the problems of its legal regulation. Vestnik SurGU. 2021;4(34):111-121. (In Russ.).

14. Obar JA, Oeldorf-Hirsch A. The biggest lie on the Internet: ignoring the privacy policies and terms of service policies of social networking services. Information, Communication & Society. 2018;23(1):128-147. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1486870.

15. Rice L, Swesnik D. Discriminatory Effects of Credit Scoring on Communities of Color. National Fair Housing Alliance; 2012.

16. Roig A. Safeguards for the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing (Article22 GDPR). European Journal of Law and Technology. 2017;8(3):1-17.

17. Ruvinsky RZ. Legal aspects of the introduction of the social credit system in modern public administration. N. Novgorod: NIU RANHiGS Publ.; 2022. (In Russ.).

18. Sherman J. Data Brokers and Sensitive Data on U. S. Individuals Threats to American Civil Rights, National Security, and Democracy. Durham; 2021.

19. Vilkova OV. On the issue of the scientific meaningfulness of the use of web scraping as a data collection method in sociological research. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Politologiya [Tomsk State University Journal. Philosophy. Sociology. Political science]. 2020;54:63-175. DOI: 10.17223/1998863X/54/16. (In Russ.).