Shifting Liability from Users to Online Service Provider Platforms
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59022/iijcl.4Keywords:
Platform Liability, Algorithmic Accountability, Online Service Providers, Content Moderation, Digital Governance, Intermediary Immunity, Transparency RequirementsAbstract
Online platforms increasingly shape public discourse through sophisticated algorithmic content curation systems. Legal frameworks still treat platforms as neutral intermediaries despite substantial algorithmic influence. This research examines how liability could shift from users to online service providers. Current laws lack clear criteria distinguishing passive hosting from active content promotion. Victims face limited remedies challenging platforms for algorithmically amplified harmful content spread. Regulatory divergence across countries complicates achieving consistent global platform accountability standards. This study analyzes existing legal frameworks, identifying significant gaps in algorithmic accountability. Findings reveal outdated immunity standards, insufficient transparency, and disproportionate impacts on smaller platforms. This research proposes reallocating liability based on demonstrated algorithmic curation and amplification behavior. Such reallocation would strengthen victim protection, transparency, and proportionate platform accountability standards. The study offers practical recommendations for policymakers, courts, and platform companies. This framework connects fragmented legal and regulatory domains, addressing modern digital governance challenges comprehensively.
References
Allah Rakha, N. (2022, June). Legal regulation of digital economy in EU and implementation of EU experience in Uzbekistan. Paper presented at the 3rd TECH-FEST-2022 International Multidisciplinary Conference, Manchester, England, 71–75.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365627186_LEGAL_REGULATION_OF_DIGITAL_ECONOMY_IN_EU_AND_IMPLEMENTATION_OF_EU_EXPERIENCE_IN_UZBEKISTAN
Allakuliev, M. (2025). Tort liability of digital platforms for user-generated content. Uzbek Journal of Law and Digital Policy, 3(5), 20–35. https://doi.org/10.59022/ujldp.376
Anjum, R., Jatoi, A. A., & Shaikh, E. (2026). Algorithmic accountability in Pakistan: Constitutional challenges to automated decision-making and the preservation of due process. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18490338
Chawki, M. (2026). Legal foundations and future directions of AI-enabled cybersecurity: A cross-jurisdictional analysis. Cogent Social Sciences, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2026.2614015
Conti, M., De Cristofaro, E., Galeazzi, A., & Paudel, P. (2024). Revealing the secret power: How algorithms can influence content visibility on social media. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.17390
Darma, M., Gisymar, N. A., Purwadi, A., Zubaedah, P. A., & Judijanto, L. (2025). Legal implications of deepfake technology misuse in digital content on social media. Science of Law, 2025(3), 98–103. https://doi.org/10.55284/eqazc148
Del Real, M. (2024). Breaking algorithmic immunity: Why Section 230 immunity may not extend to recommendation algorithms. Washington Law Review Online, 99, 1–35. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlro/vol99/iss1/1
Dini, L. (2025). Redefining Section 230 immunity. Seattle University Law Review, 49(1), 211–245. https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sulr/vol49/iss1/7
Foss-Solbrekk, K. (2023). Searchlights across the black box: Trade secrecy versus access to information. Computer Law & Security Review, 50, 105811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105811
Gleiß, A., Degen, K., & Pousttchi, K. (2023). Identifying the patterns: Towards a systematic approach to digital platform regulation. Journal of Information Technology, 38(2), 180–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962221146803
Grad-Gyenge, A. (2024). Evolution of liability of content sharing platform providers and other intermediary service providers for copyright infringement. Public Governance, Administration and Finances Law Review, 9(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.53116/pgaflr.7151
Hohmann, B. (2025). The interplay between user awareness and transparency requirements in the context of European platform regulation. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 30(8), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-3008052433
Idrees, R. Q., Hussain, N., & Shahid, A. (2022). Copyright protection in the age of digital reproduction and streaming. Lex Localis – Journal of Local Self-Government. https://doi.org/10.52152/3fvw9f30
Idris, M. F., & Kossay, M. (2025). Legal accountability of algorithmic bias: Examining the role of law in preventing discriminatory AI decisions. International Journal of Law and Society, 2(2), 244–256. https://doi.org/10.62951/ijls.v2i2.521
Kaya, M., & Shahid, H. (2025). Cross-border data flows and digital sovereignty: Legal dilemmas in transnational governance. Interdisciplinary Studies in Society, Law, and Politics, 4(2), 219–233. https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.isslp.4.2.20
Lendvai, G. F., Papp, J. T., & Gosztonyi, G. (2025). Mitigating harmful content on social media via platform regulation: The Digital Services Act and content assessment. Információs Társadalom, 25(2), 59–77. https://doi.org/10.22503/inftars.XXV.2025.2.4
Lu, S. (2024). Regulating algorithmic harms (Law & Economics Working Paper No. 277). University of Michigan Law School.https://repository.law.umich.edu/law_econ_current/277
Marsoof, A., Luco, A., Tan, H., & Joty, S. (2023). Content-filtering AI systems: Limitations, challenges and regulatory approaches. Information & Communications Technology Law, 32(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2022.2078395
Melian Pérez, G. E. (2025). From curators to creators: Navigating regulatory challenges for general-purpose generative AI in Europe. Journal of Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law (JIPIT), 16(2), 201–228.
Moustapha, A. (2025). The challenges of digital platforms’ algorithms and their impact on the freedom of expression: A normative assessment of the Digital Services Act. Erasmus Law Review, 18(1), 32–50. https://doi.org/10.5553/ELR.000291
Pate, S. (2025). Platform liability for platform manipulation. Columbia Law Review, 125(4), 873–924. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27390077
Plante, N. A. (2026). Find my friends, lose my privacy? Responding to third-party doctrine's failure in the digital age. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 44(2). https://jolt.law.harvard.edu
Pua, M. (2026). Algorithmic accountability in global frameworks: A comparative discourse analysis of legal constructs. International Journal of Digital Law and Governance, 3(1), 33–64. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijdlg-2025-0020
Rakha, N. A. (2023). The role of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in sports: The integration of IT in sports and the future of online gaming. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 26(Special Issue 4), 1–9. https://www.abacademies.org/articles/the-role-of-the-international-olympic-committee-ioc-in-sports-the-integration-of-it-in-sports-and-the-future-of-online-gaming-15962.html
Schlick, K. (2024, August). Legal frameworks for data governance: Tackling algorithmic bias and discrimination in the digital economy.
Sinaga, O., Erinaldi, E., Swastiwi, A. W., Rosari, R., & Suacana, I. W. G. (2024). The role of international organizations in global governance: Challenges and opportunities. Global International Journal of Innovative Research, 2(2), 539–545. https://doi.org/10.59613/global.v2i2.98
van Hoboken, J., Quintais, J. P., Poort, J., & van Eijk, N. (2019). Hosting intermediary services and illegal content online: An analysis of the scope of Article 14 ECD in light of developments in the online service landscape: Final report – Study. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2759/284542
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Sukron Ma’mun (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
