Claim OwnershipTalking law and economics at ETH Zurich
Subscribed: 28Played: 263
Subscribe
© ETH Center for Law & Economics
Description
This podcast is brought to you by the ETH Zurich Center for Law & Economics. We discuss current topic in intellectual property law, the law of emerging technologies, experimental law & economics, law & tech, and machine learning.
45 Episodes
Reverse
With the rapid rise of artificial intelligence, large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being considered for tasks once thought to be uniquely human—including legal interpretation. The idea of “AI judges” suggests appealing possibilities: consistent, fast, and ostensibly unbiased answers to legal questions. But how reliable are these models? Can their judgments truly be trusted? And do they withstand careful empirical scrutiny?In this episode of the CLE Vlog Series, Prof. Jonathan Choi (University of Southern California & Washington University, St. Louis) joins Alessandro Tacconelli (ETH Zurich) to discuss his paper, “Off-the-Shelf Large Language Models Are Unreliable Judges.” Prof. Choi presents findings from a series of empirical experiments designed to test how well LLMs perform as legal interpreters. His results reveal that model judgments are highly sensitive to prompt phrasing, output processing methods, and training choices. Moreover, post-training adjustments in today’s most widely used models can push LLMs’ assessments far from empirically grounded predictions of language use. These insights raise serious questions about the credibility of LLMs in legal interpretation and cast doubt on their ability to capture the “ordinary meaning” of legal texts.Paper Reference:Jonathan Choi – University of Southern California / Washington University (St. Louis)Large Language Models Are Unreliable Judgeshttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5188865Audio Credits for Trailer:AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE Vlog Series, Prof. Murat C. Mungan (Texas A&M University) discusses his paper "Symmetry, Presumptions, and the Judges Design" with Karol Rutkowski (ETH Zurich). In his work, Murat C. Mungan discusses an important assumption underlying a popular empirical method used in social sciences, namely average monotonicity, and shows the conditions under which this assumption can be violated.Paper Reference: Murat C. Mungan - Texas A&M UniversitySymmetry, Presumptions, and the Judges DesignPLOS One, Forthcominghttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4322684Audio Credits for Trailer:AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Prof. Berk Ustun (University of California San Diego) discusses his paper "Prediction without Preclusion: Recourse Verification with Reachable Sets" with Benjamin Kohler (ETH Zurich). In their work, Berk Ustun and his co-authors investigate how machine learning models in high-stakes settings, such as lending and hiring, assign "fixed" predictions that individuals cannot change regardless of their actions. They introduce a formal procedure called "recourse verification" to certify whether a model allows for responsiveness or precludes access. In addition, they develop an auditing tool for practitioners to flag models that effectively block access to certain outcomes before they are deployed – a crucial step to promote fairness and transparency in machine-led decision making.Paper Reference: Berk Ustun – University of California, San DiegoAvni Kothari – University of California, San DiegoBogdan Kulynych – Lausanne University Hospital Tsui-Wei Weng – Halıcıoğlu Data Science InstitutePrediction without Preclusion: Recourse Verification with Reachable Setshttps://arxiv.org/abs/2308.12820Audio Credits for Trailer:AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Mitu Gulati (University of Virginia) and Karol Rutkowski (ETH Zurich) discuss "Swiss Cheese Contracts", a topic drawn from Gulati's new book "Contract Hazards: Lawyers and Their Landmines", co-authored with Stephen J. Choi (NYU) and Robert E. Scott (Columbia University).In the study "Swiss Cheese Contracts: The Costs of Creative Lawyering", Prof. Gulati and his co-authors examine contracting practices in high-yield secured syndicated loans and Liability Management Transactions. They describe how new loopholes are continually discovered and exploited, creating a landscape that increasingly resembles a block of Swiss cheese.References: Stephen J. Choi – New York UniversityMitu Gulati – University of VirginiaRobert E. Scott – Columbia UniversitySwiss Cheese Contracts: The Costs of Creative Lawyeringhttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5391281Contract Hazards: Lawyers and Their Landmineshttps://academic.oup.com/book/61634Audio Credits for Trailer:AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Raquel De Haro (ETH Zurich) interviews Anu Bradford (Columbia University) about her recent paper “The False Choice Between Digital Regulation and Innovation.” Prof. Bradford is the Henry L. Moses Professor of Law and International Organization, and a leading scholar on the EU’s regulatory power and digital regulation. She coined the term “Brussels Effect” and is the author of the influential books "The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World" and "Digital Empires: The Global Battle to Regulate Technology".This discussion addresses the widespread belief that digital regulation inevitably harms innovation, and why that assumption is often wrong. Prof. Bradford explains the real factors that have prevented EU technology companies from thriving. She also provides examples illustrating why digital regulation and innovation are not mutually exclusive and can even be mutually reinforcing under certain circumstances.A thought-provoking conversation for anyone interested in tech policy, digital markets, or the global race to govern big platforms.Paper Reference: Anu Bradford – Columbia UniversityThe False Choice Between Digital Regulation and Innovationhttps://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/nulr/vol119/iss2/3/Audio Credits for Trailer:AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Prof. Francesco Parisi (University of Minnesota & University of Bologna) discusses his paper "Rewarding Failure" with Gianmarco Torchetti (ETH Zurich).In their work, Parisi and his co-authors Alice Guerra and Andres Sawicki challenge the one-sided incentive structure of intellectual property law, which rewards only successful innovations while overlooking the social value of failed research. The paper shows how negative results – information about what does not work – can generate significant learning externalities that benefit future research. Yet, under current legal frameworks, these valuable failures often go unshared. Paper Reference: Alice Guerra – University of Bologna Francesco Parisi – University of Minnesota & University of BolognaAndres Sawicki – University of MiamiRewarding FailureUniversity of Miami Legal Studies Research Paper No. 4726758 Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 24-12https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4726758Audio Credits for Trailer:AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Prof. Manisha Padi (University of California, Berkeley) discusses her study "The Rise of Nonbanks in Servicing Household Debt" with Karol Rutkowski (ETH Zurich). In their work, Padi and co-authors study the effects of capital regulation focusing on the case of the market for mortgage servicing rights (MSRs) and the Basel III regulation. Using a theoretical model and U.S. credit registry data, the authors analyze the shift in servicing riskier mortgages from banks towards non-bank servicers triggered by Basel III. Their analysis shows the tension between reducing agency conflicts and enhancing investor welfare on one side, and the borrowers' welfare on the other. Paper Reference: The Rise of Nonbanks in Servicing Household DebtOlin Business School Center for Finance & Accounting Research Paper No. 2023/08 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4550175Naser Hamdi – Equifax, Inc. Erica Xuewei Jiang – University of Southern CaliforniaBrittany Almquist Lewis – Washington University in Saint Louis & Indiana University Manisha Padi – University of California, Berkeley Avantika Pal – Washington University in Saint LouisAudio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Prof. Kevin Cope (University of Virginia) discusses his paper "An Expert-Sourced Measure of Judicial Ideology" with Benjamin Kohler (ETH Zurich). In his work, Kevin Cope investigates how to measure judicial ideology and how this construct influences legal decisions. He introduces the Jurist-Derived Judicial Ideology Scores (JuDJIS), a new metric based on over 10,000 written evaluations of judges by thousands of jurists collected over three decades. The paper shows that these ideology estimates outperform existing measures in predicting appellate decisions. This innovative dataset opens up new possibilities for empirical research in judicial politics that were previously constrained by limited data.Paper Reference:Kevin Cope – University of VirginiaAn Expert-Sourced Measure of Judicial Ideology, Political Analysis (forthcoming)https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4742254Audio Credits for Trailer:AllttA by AllttAhttps://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Prof. Jacob Goldin (University of Chicago) discusses his paper "Work Requirements and Child Tax Benefits" with Noah Fehr (ETH Zürich). In his work, Jacob Goldin examines the trade-offs between targeting child tax benefits to the most vulnerable families and preserving incentives to work. Alongside his co-authors, Goldin uses administrative tax data and quasi-random variation in eligibility to estimate the labor supply effects of removing work requirements from child tax credits. The findings suggest that eliminating these requirements leads to negligible reductions in maternal labor force participation, challenging the notion that such provisions are essential for maintaining work incentives.Paper Reference: Jacob Goldin et. alWork Requirements and Child Tax Benefitshttps://www.nber.org/papers/w32343Revised in December 2024Audio Credits for Trailer:AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Daniel Hemel (New York University School of Law) discusses his paper "Law and the New Dynamic Public Finance" with Luca Baltensperger (ETH Zurich).In his work, Prof. Hemel explores how insights from the new dynamic public finance can inform legal policy. This framework challenges conventional wisdom in classical tax theory, offering novel perspectives on taxation, social insurance, and regulatory design. The paper highlights the potential benefits of age-dependent tax schedules, provides fresh justifications for capital taxation, and critiques the structure of retirement savings programs like IRAs and 401(k)s. Paper Reference:Daniel Hemel – New York UniversityLaw and the New Dynamic Public FinanceSSRN Working Paper, March 2025https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5154785Audio Credits for Trailer:AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE vlog series, Raquel De Haro (ETH Zurich) interviews Professor Nick Feamster (University of Chicago) about his studies on compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). Prof. Feamster’s research examines how businesses implement opt-out options for data sharing and explores the use of "dark patterns”. His findings reveal that many websites do not fully comply with CCPA regulations, either by employing tactics that complicate the opt-out process or by failing to provide opt-out options altogether. The discussion further addresses whether the CCPA is emerging as the de facto national privacy standard in the US.Paper References:Van Hong Tran, Aarushi Mehrotra, Ranya Sharma, Marshini Chetty, Nick Feamster, Jens Frankenreiter & Lior StrahilevitzDark Patterns in the Opt-Out Process and Compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.09222Van Tran, Aarushi Mehrotra, Marshini Chetty, Nick Feamster, Jens Frankenreiter & Lior StrahilevitzMeasuring Compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act Over Space and Time https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.17225Audio Credits for Trailer:AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Libertad González (Universitat Pompeu Fabrica and Barcelona School of Economics) discusses her paper on the effect of paternity leave on early child development with Claudia Marangon (ETH Zurich). For their study, Prof. González, Prof. Lídia Farré (IAE-CSIC and BSE), Prof. Claudia Hupkau (CUNEF Universidad and CEP (LSE)), and Prof. Jenifer Ruiz-Valenzuela (UFP, IEB and CEP (LSE)) collected survey data on 5,000 children under the age of six in Spain, and exploited several extensions of paternity leave that took place between 2017 and 2021. Following a differences-in-discontinuities research design, the authors show that four additional weeks of paternity leave led to a significant increase in the fraction of children with developmental delays. The results of the study suggest that paternity leave replaces higher-quality modes of early care. The authors conclude that the impact of parental leave policies on children largely depends on the quality of care provided by parents compared to other childcare options available during that time.Paper References: Libertad González – Universitat Pompeu Fabrica & Barcelona School of Economics Lídia Farré – Institute for Economic Analysis (IAE-CSIC) & Barcelona School of Economics Claudia Hupkau – CUNEF Universidad & CEP (LSE) Jenifer Ruiz-Valenzuela – Universitat de Barcelona & IEB & CEP (LSE)Paternity Leave and Child Development BSE Working Paper 1455, July 2024 https://bw.bse.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/1455-file.pdf
Fines are efficient and widely adopted criminal sanctions due to their low enforcement burdens and the wealth transfer from offenders to society. Among the various fining regimes that have emerged, day fines have been proposed as an optimal way to ensure equality across social classes, yet questions remain about their effectiveness and the fulfilment of their promises in practice. In this episode of the CLE Vlog Series, Alessandro Tacconelli (ETH Zurich) and Prof. Elena Kantorowicz-Reznichenko (Erasmus University Rotterdam) talk about the topic of day fines. Starting from a discussion of her article “Day-Fines: Should the Rich Pay More? – in which she asserts the superiority of day-fine model to other forms of fines – Prof. Kantorowicz-Reznichenko explains some of the main features of those punitive measures, including the quantification of the daily units and their limitations. Her book “Day Fines in Europe,” coedited with Michael Faure (Maastricht University), is recommended to anybody interested to know more about the topic. Paper References:Elena Kantorowicz-Reznichenko – Erasmus University Rotterdam Michael Faure – Maastricht University Day Fines in Europe: Assessing Income-Based Sanctions in Criminal Justice Systems Cambridge University Press (2021) https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108855020Elena Kantorowicz-Reznichenko – Erasmus University Rotterdam Day Fines in Europe: Should the Rich Pay More Review of Law and Economics, 11(3), 481–501 (2015) https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/rle-2014-0045/html Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast series, Prof. Paul Ohm (Georgetown University) and Prof. Filippo Lancieri (Georgetown University, formerly ETH Zurich) discuss Prof. Ohm's study on the pathways for shaping generative AI, with a special focus on fine-tuning.
In his study, Prof. Ohm explains the differences between pretraining, fine-tuning, in-context learning, and input and output filtering, highlighting why in particular fine-tuning presents the best mix of cost versus capability for shaping the outputs of generative AI. He also analyzes why fine-tuning is especially well-suited for legal interventions, through a case study on fixing biased models. Finally, Paul Ohm evaluates the market and competition implications of focusing on fine-tuning, such as considerations about the small number of market actors who can afford the costs of the pretraining stage.
In this vlog episode, Paul Ohm discusses his study in detail with Filippo Lancieri.
Paper References:
Paul Ohm – Georgetown University
Focusing on Fine-Tuning: Understanding the Four Pathways for Shaping Generative AI
Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, 25, 214–240 (2024)
https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/stlr/article/view/12762/6286
Audio Credits for Trailer:
AllttA by AllttA
https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast series, Prof. Giorgio Zanarone (HEC Lausanne) and Karol Rutkowski (ETH Zurich) talk about Prof. Zanarone's recent paper "Relationships in the Wild: How Institutions Affect the Governance of Firms". In their study, Zanarone and his co-authors Gani Aldashev (ULB) and Heikki Rantakari (Rochester) develop a relational contracting model to describe how firms, either privately owned or state owned, perform in the shadow of a ruler. After setting the paper in the context of the Washington consensus and the best practices of governance, Prof. Zanarone gives a summary of the model, shortly outlines its main implications and presents two interesting examples. Paper References:Gani Aldashev – Université Libre de BruxellesHeikki Rantakari – University of RochesterGiorgio Zanarone – HEC LausanneRelationships in the Wild: How Institutions Affect the Governance of Firms Aldashev-Rantakari-Zanarone-May-23.pdf (chaire-eppp.org)Audio Credits for Trailer:AllttA by AllttA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZawLOcbQZ2w
In 1883, the US Supreme Court declared that no one is above the law, emphasizing that all government officials must obey it. This principle, widely accepted in contemporary legal systems, asserts that politicians, like everyone else, should not be immune from prosecution. Unlike for everybody else, though, the decision to prosecute a politician, may be influenced by partisan politics.
In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Prof. Ian Ayres (Yale Law School) shares insights of the paper “How to Legitimate the Prosecution of Politicians” with Alessandro Tacconelli (ETH Zurich). In their study, Prof. Ayres and co-author Prof. Saikrishna Prakash propose the creation of a Prosecutor Jury—a mechanism designed to ensure politicians’ accountability while preventing politically motivated prosecutions. According to their proposal, when prosecutorial decisions raise partisanship concerns, a super-majority of a politically balanced panel of former U.S. attorneys shall agree on indictment. They recommend the application of this framework to decide whether to prosecute presidential candidates, members of Congress, candidates for federal offices, and federal judges.
Paper References:
Ian Ayres - Yale University
Saikrishna Prakash - University of Virginia
How to Legitimate the Prosecution of Politicians
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4544804
Audio Credits for Trailer:
AllttA by AllttA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast Series, Prof. Luigi Zingales (University of Chicago) discusses the broader topic of "Sharehoder Democracy" with Dr. Philine Widmer (ETH Zurich).
References:
Eleonora Broccardo – University of Trento
Oliver Hart – Harvard University
Luigi Zingales – University of Chicago
Exit vs. Voice
European Corporate Governance Institute – Finance Working Paper No. 694/2020
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3671918#
Podcast: Capitalisn't – University of Chicago Podcast Network
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/when-a-few-financial-institutions-control/id1326698855?i=1000647523708
Audio Credits for Trailer:
AllttA by AllttA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE vlog & podcast series, Prof. Kevin Davis (New York University) discusses his study "Did the Global South Have Their Say on EU Supply Chain Regulation?" with Luca Baltensperger (ETH Zurich).
Prof. Davis' study (joint with Roy Germano and Lauren E. May from NYU) uses data from the EU’s ‘Have Your Say’ platform to examine how actors from the Global South responded to the European Commission’s formal consultation process on the proposed Corporate Sustainability and Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). Actors from the Global South who participated in the consultation overwhelmingly supported the proposed due diligence framework. The CSDDD is supposed to establish a corporate due diligence standard on sustainability issues, such as environmental concerns, climate change, and human rights, for businesses operating in the EU.
However, the findings of Prof. Davis' study call into question the strength of the EU’s commitment to including affected actors from the Global South in regulatory processes. They are consistent with the hypotheses that actors from the South have limited capabilities to participate in formal consultation processes or believe that they lack the power to influence outcomes through those processes.
In this vlog episode, Prof. Davis talks about the background of the study, the findings, and its implications.
Paper References:
Kevin Davis – New York University
Roy Germano – New York University
Lauren E. May – New York University
Did the Global South Have Their Say on EU Supply Chain Regulation?
NYU Law and Economics Research Paper No. 24-13
https://ssrn.com/abstract=4735442
Audio Credits for Trailer:
AllttA by AllttA
https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE Vlog & Podcast series, Amit Zac (University of Amsterdam) and Filippo Lancieri (ETH Zurich) discuss Prof. Zac’s study "The Court Speaks, But Who Listens? Automated Compliance Review of the GDPR", which is an empirical analysis of the mobile applications’ response to the famous European Court of Justice ’Schrems II’ decision in the EU.
In July 2020, the European Court of Justice invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield with immediate effect. As a result, many personal data transfers from the European Union to the United States became illegal overnight. Prof. Zac and his co-authors present a unique dataset allowing them not only to observe what firms say about their behavior in privacy policies, but also how firms actually behave. Using machine-learning tools, they analyze the privacy policies of over 7,500 apps on the Spanish Google Play Store and find limited compliance with the Schrems II decision. In this vlog episode, Prof. Zac discusses his study with Dr. Lancieri (ETH Zurich).
Paper References:
Amit Zac – University of Amsterdam
Pablo Wey – ETH Zurich
Stefan Bechtold – ETH Zurich
David Rodriguez – Polytechnic University of Madrid
Jose M. Del Alamo – Polytechnic University of Madrid
The Court Speaks, But Who Listens? Automated Compliance Review of the GDPR
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4709913
Audio Credits for Trailer:
AllttA by AllttA
https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
In this episode of the CLE vlog & podcast series, Prof. Christoph Engel (Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods Bonn) and Prof. Stefan Bechtold (ETH Zurich) discuss Engel's recent study on the German Constitutional Court. The latter has powers that are no weaker than the powers of the US Supreme Court. Justices are openly selected by the political parties. Nonetheless, public and professional perception are strikingly different. Justices at the German court are not believed to be guided by the policy preferences of the nominating party.
In his paper, Prof. Engel uses the complete publicly available data to investigate whether this perception is well-founded. It exploits three independent sources of quasi-random variation to generate causal evidence. There is no smoking gun of ideological influence. Some specifications show, however, that justices nominated by the left-wing parties (SPD and the Greens) are more activist, even in domains where activism likely runs counter the ideological preferences of these parties.
Paper References:
Christoph Engel – Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods Bonn
The German Constitutional Court – Political, but not Partisan?
(Work in Progress)
Audio Credits for Trailer:
AllttA by AllttA
https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w
Comments
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store
United States