A PYMNTS Company

Protecting the ‘Law’ in Competition Law

By  |  September 30, 2020

By Pablo Ibañez Colomo (Chilling Competition)

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    Competition law is undergoing an exciting – perhaps unprecedented – period of reform and change. Public bodies and academic institutions are evaluating, from Australia to Germany (and indeed the EU), whether it is necessary to introduce adjustments to the discipline to ensure that it is up to emerging challenges, namely digital and sustainable development. The perception that it may not be able to adapt to a changing landscape is driving the demand for broader, faster and more intrusive competition law.

    The desire to move fast and decisively to tackle perceived threats to the competitive process is understandable. The wish to improve the system for the better, in turn, is commendable. The fact that competition law is deemed to be a major part of the response to some of the most pressing concerns in society, finally, says a lot about the continuing relevance of a field that was introduced in a different economic and technological landscape and that has proved capable to adapt to new demands.

    The zeal for change, however, sometimes goes as far as to question some of the pillars of the field. The fact that competition policy is enforced through law is now openly criticised in some quarters. The argument is relatively straightforward: freed from the legal shackles, intervention would be faster, more effective and more responsive. Underpinning this position there is the idea that the law is inherently conservative and insufficiently reactive to emerging issues. It sees with suspicion the EU courts’ dislike of sweeping changes and preference for incremental adjustments to legal doctrines…

    CONTINUE READING…

    “Personality vs. Personalization” in AI Systems: An Introduction (Part 1) “Personality vs. Personalization” in AI Systems: An Introduction (Part 1) | PYMNTS.com

    “Personality vs. Personalization” in AI Systems: An Introduction (Part 1)

    By  |  September 18, 2025

    By: Daniel Berrick & Stacey Gray (Future of Privacy Forum) 

      Get the Full Story

      Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

      yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

      By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

      In this piece authors Daniel Berrick & Stacey Gray (Future of Privacy Forum) look at how conversational AI technologies are increasingly shaping user experiences through hyper-personalization. From general purpose large language models to AI companions, corporate assistants, and educational aides, companies are racing to tailor interactions to individual preferences, behaviors, and contexts. This rapid evolution is driving new questions about how personal data is collected, stored, and inferred, and what risks emerge as these systems gain memory, broader access, and more distinct “personalities.”

      The authors distinguish between two emerging trends: personalization and personality. Personalization adapts AI systems to a user’s history, preferences, or environment, raising concerns about privacy, transparency, and consent. Personality, on the other hand, refers to the increasingly human-like traits of these systems—such as humor, empathy, or skepticism—which can create new risks like manipulation, over-reliance, or emotional dependency. While the two concepts often overlap, analyzing them separately highlights how each interacts differently with existing US legal frameworks.

      Ultimately, Berrick and Gray argue, these trends could have profound implications for both law and society. Personalization challenges existing data protection, consumer protection, and tort law, while personality tests the boundaries of social relationships and human-AI interactions. As these technologies advance, they are not only reshaping user experiences but also pushing lawmakers, regulators, and businesses to rethink how legal and ethical safeguards should evolve…

      CONTINUE READING…