ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND ADVERTISING – PART 2.

In the current era of rapid artificial intelligence advancement, its applications are diversifying at an exponential rate. Beyond its prominent role in the realm of the internet, AI is making significant strides in advertising and numerous other domains. From tailored social media ads to the burgeoning popularity of outdoor advertising, the pervasive presence of AI underscores both its potential and the pressing need for legal frameworks to govern its use. In this article, we delve into strategies for effectively implementing legal regulations that address the intersection of artificial intelligence and advertising.

In its early stages, AI has already significantly transformed the digital advertising landscape. By 2019, 80% of the digital media market utilized AI in advertising, with 40% of sales and marketing teams recognizing its essential role in their department’s success. Programmatic advertising, which involves companies employing algorithms to purchase and position ads across various online platforms, stands out as the prevailing form of AI-powered digital advertising. Behind the scenes of the majority of ads seen by users are AI technologies driving real-time delivery systems. While AI enables brands to advertise at a larger scale, merely scaling alone is inadequate for competing with major data companies. Brands face mounting pressure to deliver ads that are more relevant, contextual, and personalized, tailored to individual consumer preferences. AI-powered tools provide advertisers with the means to create ads that are "smarter" and more human-like on a larger scale.

Neurotechnology and advertising

Another booming field these days is neuroscience. Neurotechnology-based interference with brain activity can be very effective, allowing for successful treatment of brain disorders. This approach complements traditional (mostly pharmaceutical) treatment methods, and it often leads to a substantial improvement in quality of life. However, one has to understand that these interventions change the brain and its functions—either as a desired result of therapy, or as an unwanted side effect. In extreme cases, interventions in the brain can transiently or irreversibly alter a patient's personality and character. Neurotechnology allows us to as- sess human behavior, brain activity, schemes and patterns of choice of goods and services. Using neurotechnology, a person’s views and intentions are analyzed. Such information is especially important for creating an effective marketing strategy and successful promotion of goods and services. ??

The use of such technologies should be supported from a legal point of view. Thus, these technologies study the reactions of the human mind and, based on such reactions, evaluate the needs of the person and determine the advertisements that should appear in front of him. Although it is valuable in terms of closely understanding human actions, it is necessary to understand that the use of such technologies certainly endangers it in terms of protecting privacy. The question of who will use the collected data and in what circumstances is still in question. Some authors argue that it is appropriate for social media platforms to be generally free of charge and for such media platforms to sell users' data to third parties. However, the fact that the platform is free of charge does not mean that personal information is transferred to third parties without the consent of the people who use it. The use of such devices has been a topic of discussion for a long time. Although many authors support these devices to help understand human behavior and aim to meet their needs, others think otherwise. So, according to Ienca and Andorno “Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology” - the emerging field of 'neurolaw' suggests that a deeper understanding of the brain could lead to more effective legal frameworks and fairer legal processes. Brain imaging technologies, for example, hold promise for improving decision-making in criminal justice, ranging from determining criminal responsibility to assessing the risk of reoffending. Additionally, neuroscience tools could play a role in civil law cases, such as evaluating a person's contractual capacity or assessing the severity of pain in compensation claims. New lie detection technologies based on brain functioning and the potential for memory manipulation also present significant possibilities.

One notable study by Aharoni et al. (2013) demonstrated the potential of using fMRI scans to predict recidivism among released prisoners based on brain activity patterns. This research suggests that individuals with low activity in specific brain regions related to decision-making are more likely to reoffend within a certain timeframe. While this prospect raises echoes of science fiction, such as Philip Dick's "The Minority Report," it also poses ethical and human rights concerns. Questions arise about the reliability of using brain scans as predictive tools, the generalizability of research findings, and the need for further validation before considering their use in legal contexts. In addition to brain imaging, other neurotechnologies like lie detectors and mental decoders are being explored for their potential relevance in legal proceedings. Despite their current limitations, these technologies may offer valuable insights when used alongside existing methods for assessing risk and truthfulness in legal settings. These authors, while calling such programs useful, also express their opinion about the impact of such mechanisms on human rights. According to them, Neurotechnology presents profound implications for human rights, yet international law lacks explicit references to neuroscience. Unlike genetic advancements, which prompted the development of standards like the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights and the International Declaration on Human Genetic Data, neurotechnology remains largely unaddressed. However, the historical adaptation of human rights law to genetic technology suggests a similar evolution may occur with neurotechnology. As neurodevices become more sensitive and accessible, new rights may emerge or existing ones may evolve to address ethical and legal challenges. This parallels the historical development of human rights in response to emerging societal issues.

Although the arguments presented by the authors are accepted, there are issues that should be noted. According to us, while the argument that neurotechnology presents profound implications for human rights is valid, it overlooks the potential benefits that advancements in this field could bring to legal frameworks. The emerging field of neurolaw suggests that a deeper understanding of the brain could lead to more effective legal processes and fairer outcomes. For example, brain imaging technologies offer promise for improving decision-making in criminal justice by aiding in determining criminal responsibility and assessing the risk of reoffending. Similarly, these technologies could be valuable in civil law cases, such as evaluating contractual capacity or assessing the severity of pain in compensation claims.

Research, such as the study by Aharoni et al. (2013), demonstrates the potential of using fMRI scans to predict recidivism among released prisoners based on brain activity patterns. While concerns about reliability and generalizability exist, the ongoing development and refinement of these technologies may address these issues over time. Additionally, other neurotechnologies like lie detectors and mental decoders, despite their current limitations, may offer valuable insights when used alongside existing methods for assessing risk and truthfulness in legal settings.

Moreover, the integration of neurotechnology into legal processes could lead to more equitable outcomes by providing objective measures of cognitive function or emotional state, potentially reducing biases inherent in traditional legal decision-making. While it is crucial to address ethical and human rights concerns associated with the use of neurotechnology in legal contexts, dismissing its potential benefits outright overlooks opportunities for enhancing the fairness and effectiveness of the legal system. Therefore, rather than solely focusing on the potential risks, it is essential to consider how neurotechnology can be ethically and responsibly integrated into legal frameworks to promote justice and uphold human rights.

The relationship between data obtained using neurotechnology and the personal rights and freedoms of citizens need further research and clarification (Rainey et al., 2019). ?The legal regulation of research and dissemination of such information at the legislative level varies across different jurisdictions, each taking a different stance. In general, although the use of the concept of neurolawv is a little early, as mentioned above, we are currently witnessing its development within various legal fields - intellectual property law, criminal law, etc. In order to protect individuals from such cases, the use of such information should be considered as an action against information security. According to the Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Information, informatization and information protection “13-2.3.9. information that is insulting or slanderous, as well as information that violates privacy;” The owner of the Internet information resource and its domain name or the user of the information-telecommunication network shall not allow the placement of information that is prohibited to be disseminated in that information resource (information-telecommunication network). For advertising only, according to the Advertising Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan , the purpose of the control of advertising activity is to ensure the interests of advertising subjects and the fulfillment of the requirements of this Law, including stopping the broadcast of advertising that does not meet the requirements of this Law, instructions to the subjects of advertising activity that must be implemented in relation to the requirements of this Law is to give. In the Republic of Azerbaijan, state control over advertising (except outdoor advertising) is carried out by the relevant executive power body, and control in the field of outdoor advertising is carried out by the institution created by the relevant executive power body. If we look at another country, ?In the United States, there is the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a state authority that oversees advertising activities, and is responsible for inter- preting misleading advertising, surreptitious ad- vertising, and regulating unfair competition practices.

In conclusion, the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence has led to its pervasive integration into advertising, transforming the landscape of digital marketing. As AI continues to evolve, it presents both opportunities and challenges that necessitate robust legal frameworks to ensure responsible use and protect individual rights.

Moreover, the emergence of neurotechnology in advertising raises complex ethical and legal questions regarding privacy, consent, and human rights. While these technologies offer insights into consumer behavior, their use must be carefully regulated to safeguard against potential abuses and infringement of personal liberties.

Moving forward, it is imperative for lawmakers to stay abreast of technological developments and enact legislation that balances innovation with ethical considerations. Collaborative efforts between governments, industry stakeholders, and advocacy groups are essential to establish clear guidelines for the responsible implementation of AI and neurotechnology in advertising.

Next week, we will delve deeper into the legal implications of these emerging technologies and explore strategies for ensuring transparency, accountability, and protection of individual rights in the ever-evolving landscape of digital advertising.

References :

1. An overview of the legal aspects of outdoor advertising Osrin-Karp, L. URI:?https://hdl.handle.net/2263/8068 Date:?2001-07
2. Czarnecki, P. (2016). Dilemmas of ethics of advertising-economic, legal and social aspects.?Humanum. Mi?dzynarodowe Studia Spo?eczno-Humanistyczne, (2 (21), 41-48.
3. Skriabin, O. M., Sanakoiev, D. B., Sanakoieva, N. D., Berezenko, V. V., & Liubchenko, Y. V. (2021). Neurotechnologies in the advertising industry: Legal and ethical aspects.?Innovative Marketing,?17(2), 189.
4. Brown Jr, R. S. (1947). Advertising and the public interest: legal protection of trade symbols.?Yale LJ,?57, 1165.
5. Gerlick, J. A., & Liozu, S. M. (2020). Ethical and legal considerations of artificial intelligence and algorithmic decision-making in personalized pricing.?Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management,?19, 85-98.
6. Rodgers, S. (2021). Themed issue introduction: Promises and perils of artificial intelligence and advertising.?Journal of Advertising,?50(1), 1-10.
7. Enache, M. C. (2020). AI for Advertising. Annals of “Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati. Fascicle I. Economics and Applied Informatics, XXVI(1), ISSN-L 1584-0409, ISSN-Online 2344-441X. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35219/eai1584040978 . Available at: www.eia.feaa.ugal.ro
8. Demetrios?Vakratsas?&?Xin (Shane)?Wang?(2021)?Artificial Intelligence in Advertising Creativity,?Journal of Advertising,?50:1,?39-51,?DOI:?10.1080/00913367.2020.1843090
9. Ienca M, Andorno R. Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sci Soc Policy. 2017 Dec;13(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1. Epub 2017 Apr 26. PMID: 28444626; PMCID: PMC5447561.
10. Petoft A. Neurolaw: A brief introduction. Iran J Neurol. 2015 Jan 5;14(1):53-8. PMID: 25874060; PMCID: PMC4395810.
11. Republic of Azerbaijan. (2015). Advertising Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan, May 15, 2015. https://e-qanun.az/framework/30348
12. Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Information, Information Exchange, and Information Protection, April 3, 1998. https://e-qanun.az/framework/3525