Skip to main content
Log in

Fiduciary requirements for virtual assistants

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Ethics and Information Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Virtual assistants (VAs), like Amazon’s Alexa, Google’s Assistant, and Apple’s Siri, are on the rise. However, despite allegedly being ‘assistants’ to users, they ultimately help firms to maximise profits. With more and more tasks and leeway bestowed upon VAs, the severity as well as the extent of conflicts of interest between firms and users increase. This article builds on the common law field of fiduciary law to argue why and how regulators should address this phenomenon. First, the functions of VAs resemble established fiduciaries, namely mandataries when they perform tasks on behalf of users, and increasingly advisors whenever they provide recommendations or suggestions. Second, users grant firms deploying VAs ever more discretion over their economic, and more and more significant non-economic interests, such as their health or finances. This delegation of power renders users vulnerable to abuse of power and inadequate performance by firms deploying VAs. Moreover, neither specification or monitoring nor market forces are alternatives that can sufficiently protect users. Thus, regulation is needed, departing from the recognition of the relationship between firms deploying VAs and users as a fiduciary relationship. In the EU, this could be realised through fiduciary requirements for VAs. First and foremost, to adequately protect users from abuse of power by firms deploying VAs, the core fiduciary duty of loyalty should be converted into corresponding fiduciary requirements for VAs, obliging firms to align VAs with their users.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This article is only concerned with usage by individuals, not businesses.

  2. The term ‘interests’ is understood broadly to cover anything firms or users may want.

  3. For instance, one of the Google Assistant criteria for choosing a provider is their partnership with Google. The firm admits this, although very cautiously: ‘In limited circumstances, some providers may be ranked higher due to their partnership with Google in order to give high-quality results to users.’ (Google, n.d.-d).

  4. Directive 2014/65/EU on markets in financial instruments (2014) Article 24(1) (‘Member States shall require that, when providing investment services or, where appropriate, ancillary services to clients, an investment firm act honestly, fairly and professionally in accordance with the best interests of its clients (…).’ highlights by the author).

  5. Directive 2016/97/EU on insurance distribution (2016) Article 17(1) (‘Member States shall ensure that, when carrying out insurance distribution, insurance distributors always act honestly, fairly and professionally in accordance with the best interests of their customers.’ highlights by the author).

  6. Shareholder Rights Directive (2017), for example, Recital 35 (‘In particular, in order to prevent the circumvention of the requirements laid down by this Directive by the firm, to avoid any conflicts of interests and to ensure loyalty of the directors to the firm, it is necessary to provide for the disclosure and the publication of the remuneration awarded or due to individual directors not only from the firm itself, but also from any undertaking belonging to the same group. (…)’ highlights by the author).

  7. Such as the European Commission’s Green Paper on Retail Financial Services in the Single Market (2007) Number 33 (‘(…) Specific attention is granted to retail clients for which a specific regime has been established, which entails reinforced fiduciary duties upon the firm. (…)’ highlights by the author).

  8. Article 11(10) (‘the provider offering services to data subjects shall act in the data subjects’ best interest when facilitating the exercise of their rights, in particular by advising data subjects on potential data uses and standard terms and conditions attached to such uses’ highlights by the author) and corresponding Recital 26 (‘(…) Data sharing providers that intermediate the exchange of data between individuals as data holders and legal persons should, in addition, bear fiduciary duty towards the individuals, to ensure that they act in the best interest of the data holders.’ highlights by the author).

  9. In common law jurisdictions, courts and not legislators are the main authority developing the law. This especially holds for equity which fiduciary law is part of. Scholars engage in active discourse with courts about legal concepts.

  10. This term, adopted from Miller (2011, p. 262), is considered a more common synonym for ‘vital’ and ‘substantial’ (see Dictionary.com, n.d.).

  11. §§ 1002 Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch and following.

  12. Articles 1984 Code Civil and following.

  13. §§ 662 Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch and following.

  14. Articles 1703 Codice Civile and following.

  15. In many countries, legal advice is a strictly protected sector (see, e.g., the German Rechtsdienstleistungsgesetz [RDG], 2008).

  16. This article omits the duty to act in good faith since other scholars conceptualise it very differently (see, e.g., Conaglen, 2010, pp. 40–44; Finn, 1977, p. 78; Gold, 2019, pp. 390–391). It also ignores the duty not to delegate fiduciary duties because users do not have personal trust in firms deploying VAs.

  17. The terms ‘factors’ and ‘weights’ as used in this article are distinct from, but may overlap with, the so-called ‘features’ and ‘weights’ of artificial neural networks, the kind of machine learning algorithms employed in VAs (see, e.g., Siri Team, 2017).

  18. More objections have been raised, for example, at the Law and Political Economy Project (2019), but those by Khan and Pozen (2019) are the most central and substantive.

  19. On the economic case for fiduciary law see Cooter and Freedman (1991) as well as Easterbrook and Fischel (1993).

References

US Case Law

  • Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation, HCA 64 (High Court of Australia, 1984).

  • Mothew v Bristol & West Building Society Respondant, EWCA Civ 533 (England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 1996).

EU Bills and Statutes

  • Directive 2005/29/EC concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive), (2005).

  • Directive 2014/65/EU on markets in financial instruments, (2014).

  • Directive 2016/97/EU on insurance distribution, (2016).

  • Directive 2017/828/EU on the encouragement of long-term shareholder engagement (Shareholder Rights Directive), (2017).

  • European Commission. (2021). Proposal for a Regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act).

  • European Commission. (2022). Proposal for a Regulation on harmonised rules on fair access to and use of data (Data Act).

  • Regulation 2016/679/EU on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), (2016).

  • Regulation 2022/868/EU on European data governance (Data Governance Act), (2022).

  • Regulation 2022/1925/EU on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector (Digital Markets Act), (2022).

  • Regulation 2022/2065/EU on a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act), (2022).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article was written as a master’s thesis in law at King’s College London. I am grateful for supervision and support by Mateja Durovic, and helpful discussions with and feedback from Claire Boine, Florian Dorner, Sonder Li, Charlotte Siegmann, Risto Uuk, Anthony Aguirre, Markus Anderljung, Shubhorup Biswas, Marc Kößler, Pınar Özcan, Felicity Reddel, and Rohin Shah. All remaining errors are my own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leonie Koessler.

Ethics declarations

Competing interest

The author has no competing interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Koessler, L. Fiduciary requirements for virtual assistants. Ethics Inf Technol 26, 21 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-023-09741-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-023-09741-7

Keywords

Navigation