header-logo header-logo

AI, algorithmic discrimination & population bias

169508
Algorithmic discrimination is causing real harm to people across the globe. We need to work towards a cross-jurisdictional solution, writes Dr Sebastian Smart
  • Decision-making responsibilities once entrusted to humans are now often delegated to automated systems. This may improve efficiency, but algorithmic discrimination is on the rise, leading to global concerns about fairness, equality and justice.
  • This complex area is complicated further by the diverse approaches taken by jurisdictions around the world. There is an urgent need for universally accepted definitions and frameworks.

Algorithmic discrimination has become increasingly prevalent. It is growingly common to observe cases of bias and disparity arising from algorithmic decision-making. These processes often rely on complex algorithms found in systems that impact aspects of our lives, ranging from social media algorithms to credit scoring methods, job recruitment procedures and even law enforcement practices.

The significance of understanding algorithmic discrimination is amplified in today’s digital age; decision-making responsibilities, once entrusted solely to humans, are now frequently delegated to automated systems. While algorithms offer advantages,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll