In this editorial article, we aim to map out the central features of algorithmic regulation and its conceptual basis – seeking to bring together different strands of the literature relating to the topic that have often remained apart. We then reflect on the ways through which algorithmic law could evolve to address the challenges of artificial intelligence in the legal domain, particularly by examining the potential of applying a “prudential” test in order to determine whether automated decision-making systems are suitable to adequately support legal decision-making.

This article describes the recent developments in Brazilian law that led to the enactment of the Sports Fans Statute in 2003. Over the last decade, Brazilian fans have been treated as consumers and are consequently entitled to a bundle of legal rights: fairness of the competition; transparency; access to an ombudsman; transportation; personal safety; insurance; sanitation; fair tickets and food pricing; and ticket selling standards. In addition to these consumer rights, due to the escalation of violence among hooligans, Brazilian authorities established Sports Fans Courts, prohibited alcohol consumption inside football stadiums, and permitted certain sports fans associations to be banned as well as individual spectators. Recently, the organisation of the World Cup provoked a clash between the transnational culture of FIFA executives and the local legal culture of Brazilian lawyers, as the norms adopted to organise the national Brazilian competition will be suspended during the international tournament.

No abstract

The paths to digital justice focus on the challenges of contemporary digital societies in reaching automated decision-making processes through software, algorithms, and information technology without loss of its human quality and the guarantees of due process. In this context, this article reflects on the possibilities of establishing judicial robots in substitution for human judges, by examining whether artificial intelligence and algorithms may support judicial decision-making independently and without human supervision. The point of departure for this analysis comes from the experience of criminal justice systems with software for judgment of the possibility of recidivism of criminal defendants. Algorithmic decision-making may improve the public good in support of judicial decision-making, but the analysis of current technology and our standards for due process of law recommends caution on the conclusion that robots may replace human judges and satisfy our expectations for explainability and fairness in adjudication.

Bolonha, for the opportunity to write this book review. Professor Nelson Rosenvald recommended reading the book Scholars of Tort Law and his suggestion was especially helpful for the passage related to Patrick Atiyah in this book review. Executive-Editor Daniel Lucas did a terrific job in editing the entire number and I am grateful that he used in the cover a photograph that I took as part of my farewell to Oxford. Errors are all mine. 2 DPHIL (Oxford), JSM (Stanford), LLM (Harvard), MBE (Coppe-UFRJ), BA (PUC-Rio), LLB (UFRJ).