(With Zoe Asser, University of Sussex)

The Online Safety Act 2023, culminating over six years of debate on UK internet regulation and online safety, received Royal Assent in October 2023. Its central novelty—statutory duties of care for internet service providers—marks a significant departure from previous platform-led content moderation. However, we argue that key legislative changes during the bill’s passage fundamentally altered the Act’s ambition to make the UK “the safest place in the world to be online”.

Using process tracing (Pickering, 2022), we examine the duty of care concept’s evolution throughout the Act’s lifecycle, drawing on eighteen semi-structured interviews and qualitative analysis of legislation, Ofcom’s codes and guidance, and consultation submissions.

Building on risk-based regulation literature (Black & Baldwin, 2012; Baldwin & Black, 2016), we argue that a regulatory approach grounded on a duty of care attempts to balance conflicting interests. However, this concept has been significantly shaped by disputed interpretations and political compromises during the Act’s passage. Specifically, it shifted from an overarching statutory duty to specific duties related to illegal content and child safety—contradicting the initial ‘safety by design’ framework for more holistic and proactive risk mitigation. We show that disputes persist regarding the interpretation of the enshrined duties, the scope of Ofcom’s powers, the level of detail it must provide to regulated services, and indeed what these services must do to comply.

Our findings have implications within and beyond the UK, illuminating the Act’s possibilities and limitations and offering insights for other jurisdictions considering internet regulation.

(With Ivar Hartmann, INSPER)

This paper examines the STF’s pending ruling on the constitutionality of Article 19 of the MCI—the cornerstone provision establishing the intermediary liability regime in Brazil—against the wider context. Through analysis of the current legal framework, the STF’s decision, and wider political economy considerations, we address the following research question: To what extent are existing civil liability mechanisms in the Marco Civil da Internet sufficient to adequately address the nature and functioning of modern information and communication systems controlled by the largest digital platforms, and what impact will the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision on platform liability have on the future of platform regulation in Brazil?

We argue that while the STF’s ruling on the constitutionality of the MCI’s intermediary liability regime will significantly impact the future of platform regulation in Brazil, it represents just one component of a necessary broader (and urgent) reform agenda. Platform regulation in Brazil has historically been shaped by both courts and Congress, and this dual influence will continue to be crucial as the country develops more comprehensive approaches to platform regulation.

(forthcoming in the Journal of Online Trust and Safety)

(With Camila Pires Alves and Vitor Jardim Barbosa)

Digital markets are destabilising the conventional separation between ex post competition law and ex ante economic regulation. Platform market power increasingly rests on the ongoing governance of access, interfaces, defaults, data, and monetisation, a form of continuous control that generates cumulative, forward-looking harms which retrospective enforcement struggles to reach, and which sectoral regulation, built for stable industry boundaries, cannot easily capture either. The most significant responses now occupy ground the two instruments have always shared, combining prospective obligations with ex post adjudication by competition authorities. We argue that hybrid regimes offer genuine complementarities, since prospective obligations give enforcement a clearer baseline, continuous supervision generates information and expertise for the authority, and ex post cases serve as both a backstop and a laboratory for the regime. At the same time, they concentrate discretion and place accountability under strain. The article proposes a framework of four design decisions, concerning scope, obligation design, supervision, and review, through which these benefits can be secured and the risks contained. Brazil provides the test case: the Apple App Store settlement shows hybrid governance improvised within ex post enforcement, while Bill No. 4675/2025 would institutionalise it within competition law, grounding bespoke obligations in competition-law analysis and disciplining discretion through participation, transparency, and external oversight. The analysis carries lessons for other jurisdictions confronting the same convergence.