Article

1
Article
Property Attachments
Lee Anne Fennell
Max Pam Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School. I am grateful for research support from the Harold J. Green Faculty Fund and the SNR Denton Fund.
1
Article
A Decision Theoretic Approach to Understanding Survey Response: Likert vs. Quadratic Voting for Attitudinal Research
Charlotte Cavaillé
Assistant Professor of Political Science, Georgetown University.
Daniel L. Chen
Professor, Toulouse School of Economics.
Karine Van der Straeten
Senior Researcher, Toulouse School of Economics.

We thank the participants at the University of Chicago Law School Symposium on Radical Markets for their comments. Support through ANR–Labex IAST is gratefully acknowledged.

I. Introduction

Online
Article
Online 86
RadicalxChange: An Academic Agenda
E. Glen Weyl
Principal Researcher, Microsoft Research; Visiting Research Scholar, Julis- Rabinowitz Center for Public Policy and Finance, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University.

Introduction

Print
Article
86.2
The Chilling Effect of Governance-by-Data on Data Markets
Niva Elkin-Koren
Professor, University of Haifa Faculty of Law; Director, Center for Cyber Law and Policy, University of Haifa; Faculty Associate, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University.

We would like to thank Rabeea Assy, Harry First, Eleanor Fox, Tamar Indig, Marcel Kahan, Yafit Lev-Aretz, Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz, Alan Miller, Ariel Porat, Daniel Richman, Eden Sarid, Catherine Sharkey, Katherine Strandburg, Alina Wernick, participants of the Competition, Innovation, and Information Law (CIIL) Speakers Series and the Privacy Research Group at NYU School of Law, and The University of Chicago Law Review Symposium on Personalized Law for most thoughtful comments and discussions. Thanks to Ilana Atron, Saar Ben Zeev, and Lior Frank for most helpful research assistance. This research was supported by the Center for Cyber Law and Policy, University of Haifa. Any mistakes or omissions are the authors’.

Michal S. Gal
Professor and Director of the Forum for Law and Markets, University of Haifa Faculty of Law; President, Academic Society for Competition Law (ASCOLA).

Big data has become an important resource not only in the commercial sphere but also in the legal one. Governance-by-data can take many forms, including setting enforcement priorities, affecting methods of proof, and even changing the content of legal norms.

Print
Article
86.2
Neuroscience and the Personalization of Criminal Law
Deborah W. Denno
Arthur A. McGivney Professor of Law, Founding Director, Neuroscience and Law Center, Fordham University School of Law. All statistics and case distributions discussed in this Essay and presented in the Appendix in Table 1 and Figures 1–5 are organized and on file with the author and with The University of Chicago Law Review.

I am most grateful to the following persons for their contributions to this Essay: Ruben Coen-Cagli, Nestor Davidson, Kathleen Ellis, Janet Freilich, Marianna Gebhardt, David Greenberg, Filippo Maria Lancieri, Jacob Nadler, Mark Patterson, Richard Squire, Ryan Surujnath, and Erica Valencia-Graham. I also thank Alissa Black-Dorward and the Fordham University School of Law library staff for superb research assistance as well as Timothy W. DeJohn for providing information about the Jones case. I received insightful comments on earlier versions of this Essay from the participants in presentations given at Stanford Law School (the BioLawLapalooza 2.0), the Fordham University School of Law, and at The University of Chicago Law Review Symposium on Personalized Law (organized by Omri Ben-Shahar and Ariel Porat). I am indebted to five sources for research funding, without which this project could not have existed: Fordham University School of Law, the Fordham Neuroscience and Law Center, the Gerald Adelman Fellowship, Roger Sacks, and the Barnet and Sharon Phillips Family Fund. No individual or organization acknowledged in this Essay necessarily supports the Essay’s interpretations or conclusions. Responsibility for any mistakes or misjudgments rests solely with the author.

Every criminal case is part of a larger personal story—some headline-grabbing, some entirely mundane; yet each narrative is important to how the criminal justice system assesses an individual’s level of culpability.

Print
Article
86.2
A Framework for the New Personalization of Law
Anthony J. Casey
Professor of Law, The University of Chicago Law School.

I am grateful for research support from the Richard Weil Faculty Research Fund and the Paul H. Leffman Fund. Stephanie Xiao and Courtney Block provided excellent research assistance.

Anthony Niblett
Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair in Law, Economics, & Innovation, University of Toronto Faculty of Law. In the interests of full disclosure, Professor Niblett is also a cofounder of Blue J Legal, a start-up bringing machine learning to the law.

Personalized law is an old concept. The idea that the law should be tailored to better fit the relevant context to which it applies is obvious and has been around as long as the idea of law itself.

Print
Article
86.2
Implementing Personalized Law: Personalized Disclosures in Consumer Law and Data Privacy Law
Christoph Busch
Professor of Law at the University of Osnabrück, Germany.

I am grateful to the participants of The University of Chicago Law Review Symposium on Personalized Law organized by Omri Ben-Shahar, Anthony Casey, Ariel Porat, and Lior Strahilevitz in April 2018 for their very helpful comments and suggestions. I would also like to thank Alberto De Franceschi and the participants of the conference on Granular Legal Norms at Villa Vigoni in March 2017 for their insightful inputs.

Mandated disclosures are probably one of the most widely used regulatory tools in consumer law and data privacy law on both sides of the Atlantic.

Volumes