The technology of 3D printing creates serious challenges to the legal system that in its development is lagging behind scientific and technological progress. The development of 3D printing technology leads to the «digitalization» of objects of the material world when the boundaries between the physical world and the digital space are blurred. If 3D printing digitalizes objects of the material world, bioprinting digitalizes the human body. An individual tends to depend on the digital incarnation of his body or its individual organs in the corresponding electronic 3D models.Bioprinting is aimed at the formation of a new medical paradigm that will result in overcoming the deficiency of human organs and tissues in the field of transplantology. The discovery of the possibility of reprogramming differentiated cells and obtaining induced pluripotent stem cells eliminates the ethical and legal problem associated with the use of stem cells of the embryo. This should be taken into account in the development of a model of legal regulation of relations connected with the creation of bio-print human organs.Bioprint organs are synthetic organs, so the relations associated with their creation and implantation need independent legal regulation. Contemporary transplantology legislation and bans and prohibitions contained in it do not take into account the features of the creation of organs through 3D bioprinting. It is acceptable to commercialize relations in the field of bioprinting, to perform non-gratuitous transactions in this area, as well as to permit limited turnover of «bioprinting» organs subjecting them to the regulation applied to any other objects of civil law. Legislation on biomedical cellular products is also not able to regulate relations related to the creation and implantation of bio-printed human organs. Thus, the need arises to adopt a special legislative act aimed at regulating relations at all stages of the use of bioprinting technology.

Bioprinting is a new technology that allows us to overcome the shortage of human organs and tissues in transplantation. This technology, in addition to its positive effect, creates serious risks, since the negative consequences bound to arise from its active implementation remain unknown. For example, deficiencies in digital design of a digital model of a human organ or the skeleton of this organ may harm the life or health of a patient. Therefore, civil liability has become one of the main areas of legal regulation that bioprinting will have a serious impact on. Foreign law enforcement practice indicates that there are problems in determining the model of liability for harm caused in the field of additive technologies and bioprinting. The foreign science of civil law attempts to develop a scientific response to a new technological challenge, in particular, it is proposed to use a number of approaches to compensate for the damage caused by the use of bioprinting technologies. For example, it is proposed to use a special culpable tort or to compensate for damages under the strict liability model. Positions are also expressed in favor of using contractual remedies.It is necessary to take into account not only the risks that bioprinting technology creates, but also its benefits. In order to obtain a beneficial effect, the patient can voluntarily assume the risks arising from its use. Russian law has established a rule according to which compensation for harm can be refused if the harm was caused at the request or with the consent of the victim, and the actions of the harmer do not violate the moral principles of society. This rule may become very important in the future when dealing with questions on liability for harm caused to the patient due to the use of bioprinting technologies in treatment. This will require the use of other compensatory mechanisms aimed at protecting the rights of patients, such as life and health insurance when using bioprinting technologies.

Provision of the population with environmentally friendly and safe agricultural products is an important challenge in the developed states. This chapter analyzes the issues of food safety and quality. The indemnification caused by low-quality products stimulates producers to ensure the quality and safety of food resources. The institute of indemnification caused by low-quality agricultural products is analyzed in the chapter. Special attention is paid to the issues of consumer protection in the legislation of Russia and China.

Technodeterminism determines the main task for civil law when solving issues related to blockchain technologies and smart contracts. This task is connected with the search for answers to the question of the need to amend civil legislation in order to adapt it to new technological challenges or about the possibility of effective application of existing legal norms to the regulation of innovative civil relations.In the doctrine, there is a hypertrophied attitude towards blockchain and smart contract technologies. The standing exists that due to smart contracts, trust in people is replaced by trust in the code. Eschatological predictions were made about the beginning of the end of classical contract law, about emergance of «contract law 2.0». The paper states that the digital code will not be able to replace reality in the field of contractual relations. The revolution in contract law has not happened. Instead of the «revolutionary path» highlighted by some authors, there is a gradual evolutionary development of ideas about a civil contract. The civilistic doctrine has responded to technological challenges by becoming rhizomorphic in its interdisciplinarity, trying to comprehend the legal phenomena associated with the digitalization of public relations.The «ideological core» of the civil doctrine, the «core» of the concept of the contract, remained untouchable. A legal smart contract has remained a speculative phenomenon from a parallel reality, a simulacrum. The Russian and foreign doctrines are dominated by the traditional interpretation of a civil contract, since the concept of a legal smart contract is not able to solve the problem of its incompleteness. From the perspective of futurological perspective, it can be assumed that the traditional approach to the contract will retain its significance, and the digital code will have only an auxiliary, servicing value for the contract.

In the paper, the author points out that humanity has moved into the era of information society, the era of digitalization, when the digitalization of all socio-economic relations becomes an inevitable global process radically changing the existence of man and even of man himself. In the sphere of Economics, the traditional borders between the producer, seller (intermediary) and consumer of goods are being erased, and the phenomenon of sharing economy is replacing traditional channels and supply chains, radically transforming socio-economic relations. New forms of collaboration between manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and consumers are emerging, and a new technological infrastructure for such collaboration is actively developing, i.e. digital online platforms that act as one of the drivers of the fourth industrial revolution. The development of the three-dimensional printing technology allows any individual to participate in the creation of various material goods. Printing of material objects is based on a three-dimensional digital model, the digital equivalent of its physical embodiment. A serious legal challenge is the regulation of relations related to the circulation and use of three-dimensional models of objects of the material world, as well as liability for damage caused by a defect in the three-dimensional digital model.The paper contains a number of prognostic conclusions. If a defective three-dimensional digital model is purchased for a fee as a product (digital content) on the corresponding online platform, it is possible to impose tort liability on both the counterparty under the contract and the platform operator. Such liability must be strict, joint and several. A strict, joint and several liability model will serve as an incentive to ensure transparency in the field of digital turnover, as well as exert a preventive influence by deterring illegal behavior. If the identity of the seller of digital content is not established, only the platform operator will be held liable.If a defective three-dimensional digital model is placed free of charge on the hosting site, the creator of such a digital model will be held liable. The responsibility of a hosting provider that provides only a technical service for hosting content must be subject to the rules on the responsibility of the information intermediary.