Talking law and economics at ETH Zurich

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 UniversityFocusing 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/12762/6286Audio 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 UniversitySaikrishna Prakash - University of VirginiaHow to Legitimate the Prosecution of Politicianshttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4544804Audio 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

In this episode of the CLE vlog & podcast series, Christopher S. Yoo (University of Pennsylvania) and Christophe Gösken (ETH Zurich) talk about Prof. Yoo's study "An Economic Analysis of the Right to be Forgotten". The so-called “right to be forgotten” has gained prominence under the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and similar regulatory frameworks have recently been introduced in US state privacy statutes. Commentators have largely defined the right to be forgotten as a clash between the privacy interests of data subjects and the free speech rights of data controllers. However, framing the issues as a clash of individual rights ignores how giving data subjects the ability to render certain information unobservable can give rise to systemic effects that can harm society as a whole. Prof. Yoo's analysis fills this gap by exploring the implications that adverse selection, moral hazard, and the emerging policy intervention know as “ban the box” have on the right to be forgotten. In this vlog episode, Prof. Yoo discusses his study with Christophe Gösken (ETH Zurich). Paper References: Christopher S. Yoo – University of Pennsylvania An Economic Analysis of the Right to Be Forgotten https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4124596 Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

For a long time, scholars have been classifying most legal systems around the world as falling within one of two inherently different categories: common or civil law systems. While the former (common law), rooted in England and practiced also in the US, involves precedent or deference to previously published judicial opinion; the latter (civil law), practiced in continental Europe and elsewhere in the world, does not – or so many still think. In this episode of the CLE vlog series, Prof. Holger Spamann (Harvard Law School) examines the myths and the reality of common and civil law with Alessandro Tacconelli (ETH Zurich). After a brief explanation of the alleged differences between the two systems and the history of such distinction, Prof. Spamann explains the findings of some of his work on the topic. In his paper ‘Judges in the Lab,’ he and his co-authors recruited 299 real judges from seven major jurisdictions to judge an international criminal appeals case and to determine the appropriate prison sentence, to show that: (i) document use and written reasons did not differ between common and civil law judges, and (ii) ‘precedent effect’ was barely detectable. Similarly, in his paper ‘The Reasons Highest Courts Give,’ Prof. Spamann and co-authors quantitatively analysed 80 representative opinions of English and German apex courts in the late 19th century and early 21st century, to find that, even in 1880s, opinions of English and German courts differed in degree rather than kind and that, by the 2000s, the Germans cited precedent as frequently as the English.Paper References:Judges in the Lab: No Precedent Effects, No Common/Civil Law Differences Holger Spamann, Lars Klöhn, Christophe Jamin, Vikramaditya Khanna, John Zhuang Liu, Pavan Mamidi, Alexander Morell, Ivan Reidel Journal of Legal Analysis, Volume 13, Issue 1, 2021, Pages 110–126https://doi.org/10.1093/jla/laaa008The Reasons Highest Courts Give: England vs. Germany, 1880-1889 vs. 2007-2016 Jasper Kunstreich, Markus Lieberknecht, Heinrich Nemeczek, Holger Spamann, Stefan VogenauerWorking PaperAudio Credits for Trailer:AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

For years, academic experts have championed the widespread adoption of the “Fama-French” factors in legal settings. Factor models are commonly used to perform valuations, performance evaluation and event studies across a wide variety of contexts, many of which rely on data provided by Professor Kenneth French. Yet these data are beset by a problem that the experts themselves did not understand: Widespread retroactive changes which can materially affect a broad range of estimates. In this episode of the CLE vlog & podcast series, Prof. Adriana Robertson (University of Chicago) discusses the background and findings of the study "Noisy Factors in Law" with Alessandro Tacconnelli (ETH Zurich). In their study, she and her co-authors Mikhail Simutin and Pat Akey (both University of Toronto) show how these retroactive changes, heretofore overlooked by experts, can have enormous impacts in precisely the settings in which experts have pressed for their use. They provide examples of valuations, performance analysis, and event studies in which the retroactive changes have a large—and even dispositive—effect on an expert’s conclusions. Their analysis demonstrates how even the most well accepted expert approaches can be fraught with hidden peril. Paper References: Adriana Robertson - University of Chicago Mikhail Simutin - University of Toronto Pat Akey - University of Toronto Noisy Factors in Law (Please contact the authors for the latest version) Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

Disinformation is proliferating on the internet, and platforms are responding by attaching warnings to content. There is little evidence, however, that these warnings help users identify or avoid disinformation. In this episode of the Center for Law & Economics' vlog & podcast series, Prof. Jonathan Mayer (Princeton) discusses the study "Adapting Security Warnings to Counter Online Disinformation" with Amit Zac (ETH Zurich). In their work, Jonathan Mayer (Princeton) and his co-authors Ben Kaiser, Jerry Wei, Eli Lucherini, Kevin Lee (Princeton), and J. Nathan Matias (Cornell University) adapt methods and results from the information security warning literature in order to design and evaluate effective disinformation warnings. They show a path forward for designing effective warnings, and contribute repeatable methods for evaluating behavioral effects. They also surface a possible dilemma: disinformation warnings might be able to inform users and guide behavior, but the behavioral effects might result from user experience friction, not informed decision making. In this podcast with Amit Zac (ETH Zurich), Jonathan Mayer provides insights into the background of the study and its results. Paper References: Ben Kaiser, Jerry Wei, Eli Lucherini, and Kevin Lee - Princeton University J. Nathan Matias - Cornell University Jonathan Mayer - Princeton University Adapting Security Warnings to Counter Online Disinformation Usenix Security (2021) https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity21/presentation/kaiser Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZawLOcbQZ2w&t=0s

In this episode of the CLE's vlog & podcast series, Prof. Henry E. Smith (Harvard) discusses his essays "Putting the Equity Back into Intellectual Property Remedies" and "Equity as Meta-Law" with Christophe Gösken (ETH Zurich). In his articles, Henry Smith argues that equity and related parts of the law solve complex and uncertain problems — including interdependent behavior and misuses of legal rules by opportunists — and do so in a characteristic fashion: as meta-law.  These problems are rife in intellectual property settings. An attention to meta-law can focus on potential two-sided opportunism in scenarios of possible injunctions, and a more traditional equitable framework can help frame when presumptions for injunctions are appropriate and when they should be overcome. As a result, equity as meta-law could avoid flattening the law of intellectual property remedies.   Paper References:   Henry E. Smith - Harvard University Putting the Equity Back into Intellectual Property Remedies Notre Dame Law Review, 96(4), 1603–1622 (2021) https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol96/iss4/12  Henry E. Smith - Harvard University Equity as Meta-Law The Yale Law Journal, 130(5), 1050–1287 (2021) https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/equity-as-meta-law  Audio Credits for Trailer:   AllttA by AllttA   https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the CLE's vlog series, Luca Baltensperger (ETH Zurich) discusses the study "Environmental Preferences and Technological Choices: Is Market Competition Clean or Dirty?" with Prof. Ralf Martin (Imperial College London).  In their study, Ralf Martin and his co-authors Prof. Philippe Aghion (College de France), Prof. Roland Bénabou (Princeton), and Prof. Alexandra Roulet (INSEAD) investigate the joint effect of consumers' environmental concerns and product-market competition on firms' decisions whether to innovate “clean” or “dirty”. They develop a step-by-step innovation model to capture the basic intuition that socially responsible consumers induce firms to escape competition by pursuing greener innovations. To test and quantify the theory, the authors bring together patent data from the automobile industry, survey data on environmental values, and competition measures. Results suggest that the combination of historically realistic increases in prosocial attitudes and product market competition can have the same effect on green innovation as major increase in fuel prices.   Paper References: Philippe Aghion - College de France   Roland Bénabou - Princeton University Ralf Martin - Imperial College London Alexandra Roulet - INSEAD   Environmental Preferences and Technological Choices: Is Market Competition Clean or Dirty? https://www.nber.org/papers/w26921  Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA  https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the CLE's vlog & podcast series, Prof. Stefan Bechtold (ETH Zurich) talks to Prof. Saul Levmore (Chicago) about "SPACs, PIPEs, and Common Investors", a recent study by Levmore and Prof. Frank Fagan (South Texas). Special Purpose Acquisition Companies, or SPACs, have come to play a large role in bringing together small and large investors in the acquisition and expansion of private companies. A pessimistic version of this relatively recent alternative to conventional initial public offerings (IPOs), and other methods of investing in companies ready to expand, is that clever sharks take advantage of overly optimistic and ill-informed small investors. In their study "SPACs, PIPEs, and Common Investors", Levmore and Fagan offer a very different view. They show that common investors need someone to locate good investment opportunities, and then they often benefit if another well-informed party can credibly vouch for the entity that claims to have found a good target. Fagan's and Levmore's article also suggests the development of other means of vouching for parties that claim to have found worthy targets for investment.   Paper References: Frank Fagan - South Texas College of Law Houston Saul Levmore - University of Chicago   SPACs, PIPEs, and Common Investors   University of Chicago Coase-Sandor Institute for Law & Economics Research Paper 954 https://ssrn.com/abstract=4036767  Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA  https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

When machine-learning algorithms are deployed in high-stakes decisions, we want to ensure that it leads to fair and equitable outcomes. However, many machine predictions are deployed to assist in decisions where a human decision-maker retains the ultimate decision authority. In this episode of the CLE's podcast series, Prof. Talia Gillis (Columbia) and Prof. Alexander Stremitzer (ETH Zurich) discuss Gillis' study "On the Fairness of Machine-​Assisted Human Decisions" - joint with Bryce McLaughlin (Stanford) and Jann Spiess (Stanford) - on how properties of machine predictions affect the resulting human decisions.  In their study, Gillis, McLaughlin and Spiess show in a formal model that the inclusion of a biased human decision-maker can revert common relationships between the structure of the algorithm and the qualities of resulting decisions. Specifically, they document that excluding information about protected groups from the prediction may fail to reduce disparities. Their results demonstrate more broadly that any study of critical properties of complex decision systems, such as the fairness of machine-assisted human decisions, should go beyond focusing on the underlying algorithmic predictions in isolation.    Paper References: Talia Gillis - Columbia University Bryce McLaughlin - Stanford University Jann Spiess - Stanford University   On the Fairness of Machine-Assisted Human Decisions https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.15310  Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA   https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

Behavioral economics — arising from the insight that people make recognizable, systematic mistakes — has revolutionized policymaking. For example, in governments around the world, including the US, teams of experts have recently arisen to harness these insights, promising to do things like increase retirement savings. But there is a problem: Economic experts do not look or think like the rest of the population. They are deeply unrepresentative demographically and have quite different policy views.  In this episode of the CLE's vlog & podcast series, Prof. Alexander Stremitzer (ETH Zurich) talks to Prof. Daniel Markovits (Yale) about a new approach to behavioral economics called "democratic law and economics", a concept developed by Markovits and Prof. Zachary D. Liscow (Yale). Rather than dictating what the right policy or action is, they suggest that behavioral economists instead inform representative samples of ordinary people about the evidence and let them decide for themselves. Those decisions, rather than experts’ opinions alone, should then inform policymakers.    Paper References: Zachary D. Liscow - Yale Law School Daniel Markovits - Yale Law School   Democratizing Behavioral Economics https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4012996  Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA   https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this podcast of the CLE's vlog & podcast series, Prof. John J. Donohue discusses the study "Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data and a State-Level Synthetic Control Analysis" with Prof. Alexander Stremitzer (ETH Zurich).    In their study, John J. Donohue (Stanford), Abhay Aneja (Berkeley) and Kyle D. Weber (Columbia) use indepth state panel data and new statistical techniques to estimate the impact on violent crime when states adopt right-to-carry (RTC) concealed handgun laws. They find that RTC laws increase overall violent crime and that RTC laws are associated with 13–15 percent higher aggregate violent crime rates 10 years after adoption. Using a consensus estimate of the elasticity of crime with respect to incarceration of 0.15, the average RTC state would need to roughly double its prison population to offset the increase in violent crime caused by RTC adoption.   Paper References: John J. Donohue - Stanford Law School Abhay Aneja - Berkeley Law Kyle D. Weber - Columbia University Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data and a State-Level Synthetic Control Analysis Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Vol. 16(2), p. 198-247 (2019) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jels.12219 Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA   https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the CLE's vlog & podcast series, Prof. Sarath Sanga (Northwestern) talks with Prof. Alexander Stremitzer (ETH Zurich) about his paper "The Origins of the Market for Corporate Law", a study of the market for corporate charters and the emergence of Delaware as the leader of this market.    In his paper, Prof. Sanga assembles new data on 19th and 20th-century corporations to evaluate two widely-held beliefs: (1) the U.S. Supreme Court is responsible for enabling a national market for corporate charters in the 19th century and (2) Delaware became the leader in this market only because New Jersey (the initial leader) repealed its extremely liberal corporate laws in 1913. In the discussion with Prof. Stremitzer he explains why he argues against both claims.    Paper Reference:   Sarath Sanga – Northwestern University, Pritzker School of Law   The Origins of the Market for Corporate Law https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3503628  Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA   https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the vlog & podcast series of ETH's Center for Law & Economics, Professor Erina Ytsma from Carnegie Mellon discusses her study “Effort and Selection Effects of Performance Pay in Knowledge Creation” with Dr. Amit Zac (Postdoc at ETH Zurich). It is well-documented that performance pay has positive effort and selection effects in routine tasks, while its effect in knowledge creation is much less understood. In her study, Ytsma analyses the effects of explicit and implicit career concerns incentives common in knowledge work in a multi-tasking model, and estimates the causal effort and selection effects of performance incentives in knowledge creation, using the introduction of performance pay in German academia as a natural experiment.  Paper Reference:   Erina Ytsma – Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business   Effort and Selection Effects of Performance Pay in Knowledge Creation https://gitlab.com/eytsma/research_papers/raw/master/Effort+Selection_Effects-KnowledgeCreation_ErinaYtsma_latest.pdf Audio Credits for Trailer: AllttA by AllttA   https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the vlog & podcast series of ETH's Center for Law & Economics, Prof. Laura Pedraza-Fariña (Northwestern) discusses her paper "A Network Theory of Patentability" with PhD student Margaritha Windisch (ETH Zurich).   Patent law is built upon a fundamental premise: only significant inventions receive patent protection while minor improvements remain in the public domain. Despite its importance, the doctrine that performs this gate keeping role — non-obviousness — has long remained indeterminate and vague. In their article, Laura Pedraza-Fariña and her co-author Prof. Ryan Whalen (University of Hongkong) draw on network theory, a novel approach answering the questions what non-obvious inventions are and how to determine non-obviousness in specific cases.    Paper References:   Laura Pedraza-Fariña - Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Ryan Whalen - University of Hong Kong, Faculty of Law   A Network Theory of Patentability University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 87, No. 1, (2020) https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/publication/network-theory-patentability  Audio Credits:   Trailer music: AllttA by AllttA    https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the vlog and podcast series of ETH's Center for Law & Economics, Professor Alessandro Acquisti (Carnegie Mellon) and Dr. Naman Goel (ETH Zurich) discuss Prof. Acquisti's study "Secrets and Likes: The Drive for Privacy and the Difficulty of Achieving it in the Digital Age".   Paper References     Alessandro Acquisti - Carnegie Mellon University Laura Brandimarte - University of Arizona George Loewenstein - Carnegie Mellon University    Secrets and Likes: The Drive for Privacy and the Difficulty of Achieving it in the Digital Age https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3688497  Audio Credits     Trailer music: AllttA by AllttA    https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of ETH's Center for Law & Economics vlog and podcast series, Professor Melissa Wasserman (University of Texas) talks to Gabriel Gertsch (ETH Zurich) about her study "A Prescription for Rising Drug Prices: Patent Office Reform".   Paper References:   Michael Frakes - Duke University Melissa Wasserman - University of Texas   "A Prescription for Rising Drug Prices: Patent Office Reform" https://www.law.umich.edu/centersandprograms/lawandeconomics/workshops/Documents/Paper10.Wasserman.Rising%20Drug%20Prices%20Reform%20(2).pdf Audio Credits: Trailer music: AllttA by AllttA    https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of ETH's Center for Law & Economics vlog and podcast series, Professor Stefan Bechtold (ETH Zurich) talks with Professor Luis Aguiar (UZH) about his recent assessment of Spotify's market power by measuring the impact of its promotion decisions via platform-operated playlists.  Paper References   Luis Aguiar - University of Zurich Joel Waldfogel - University of Minnesota and NBER Platforms, Power, and Promotion: Evidence from Spotify Playlists http://www.luis-aguiar.com/research Audio Credits   Trailer music: AllttA by AllttA   https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of ETH's Center for Law & Economics vlog and podcast series, Professor Stefan Bechtold (ETH Zurich) talks with Professor Tobias Salz (MIT) about his recent study on the effects of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), using a novel dataset from an online travel intermediary. Paper References   Guy Aridor - Columbia Yeon-Koo Che - Columbia Tobias Salz - MIT The Effect of Privacy Regulation on the Data Industry: Empirical Evidence from GDPR https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/1548288/privacycon-2020-guy_aridor.pdf  Audio Credits   Trailer music: AllttA by AllttA   https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of ETH's Center for Law & Economics vlog and podcast series, Professors Christian Peukert (HEC Lausanne) and Stefan Bechtold (ETH Zurich) discuss how privacy law interacts with competition and trade policy in the context of the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).  Paper References   Christian Peukert - University of Lausanne (HEC) Stefan Bechtold - ETH Zurich Michail Batikas - ESC Rennes School of Business Tobias Kretschmer - Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich   European Privacy Law & Global Markets for Data   https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3560392  Audio Credits   Trailer music: AllttA by AllttA   https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of ETH's Center for Law & Economics Vlog/Podcast Series, Daniela Sele talks to Professor Saul Levmore from the University of Chicago Law School about his paper "Competing Algorithms for Law: Sentencing, Admissions, and Employment".   Paper Reference   Saul Levmore - University of Chicago Law School Frank Fagan - EDHEC Business   Competing Algorithms for Law: Sentencing, Admissions, and Employment https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3668616 Audio Credits   Trailer music: AllttA by AllttA   https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the Center for Law & Economics @ ETH Zurich, we are exploring what being innovative in the 21st Century means with Prof. Benjamin Jones from Northwestern Kellogg School of Management. Paper References: Age and Great Invention: https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/jones-ben/htm/AgeAndGreatInvention.pdf Decoding team and individual impact in science and invention: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/28/13885.full.pdf Audio Credits: Trailer music: AllttA by AllttA  https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the Center for Law & Economics @ ETH Zurich, Daniela Sele is discussing copyright and creative incentives with Prof. Christopher Sprigman from NYU School of Law. Paper References: Copyright and Creative Incentives: What We Know (and Don't)  https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3095740 Audio Credits: Trailer music: AllttA by AllttA  https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the Center for Law & Economics @ ETH Zurich, Erasmus Elsner and Prof. Adam Badawi is taking a deep dive into the paper "Contractual Complexity in Debt Agreements: The Case of EBITDA" with Professor Adam Badawi from the Berkeley Law. Paper References: Contractual Complexity in Debt Agreements: The Case of EBITDA, joint work with Elisabeth de Fontenay  https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3455497 Audio Credits: Trailer music: AllttA by AllttA  https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w

In this episode of the Center for Law & Economics @ ETH Zurich, Christian Peukert is exploring " 3D Challenges: Ensuring Competition and Innovation in 3D Printing" with Professor Michal Gal from Haifa University.

In this episode of the Center for Law & Economics @ ETH Zurich, Gabriel Gertsch is exploring the book chapter " Intellectual Property and the Promotion of Happiness" with Professor Christopher Buccafusco from Cardozo School of Law

In this episode of the Center for Law & Economics @ETH Zurich, Erasmus Elsner is exploring biometric privacy with Prof. Matthew Kugler from Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law.   Paper References: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3289850 Audio Credits: Trailer music: AllttA by AllttA https://youtu.be/ZawLOcbQZ2w