Legal Issues for Mobile Servant Robots

  • Eduard Fosch VillarongaEmail author
  • Gurvinder S. Virk
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 540)


This paper identifies key legal issues which are emerging for Mobile Servant Robots (MSRs), a sub-type of Personal Care Robots (PCR) defined in ISO 13482. New cases are likely to be introduced in the market soon even though appropriate and specific binding legal regulations regarding MSRs are missing and several questions need to be carefully considered. The main issues of concern are the need for a concrete and holistic definition of MSR, clarification on the confusion among new emerging ISO/IEC robot categories (especially between boundaries and gaps in machinery with medical device regulations), unclear liability scenarios (avoiding harm, prospective liability, butterfly effect), defining and regulating human-robot collaborations and relationships, ethical issues (mass surveillance, post-monitoring personal data), autonomy (from the robot but also from the user perspective), isolation scenarios, etc. Despite the recent technical advances, there is still a long way ahead and further research is needed to overcome a variety of associated legal and ethical issues which are emerging.


Social robots Legal aspects Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) Personal care robot Mobile servant robots ISO 13482:2014 


  1. 1.
    Power, M.: What Happens When a Software Bot Goes on a Darknet Shopping Spree? The Guardian (2014).
  2. 2.
    Rodić, A., Vujović, M., Stevanović, I., Jovanović, M.: Development of human-centered social robot with embedded personality. In: Wenger, P., Chevallereau, C., Pisla, D., Bleuler, H., Rodić, A. (eds.) New Trends in Medical and Service Robots. Human Centered Analysis, Control and Design. Mechanisms and Machine Science, vol. 39, pp. 223–247. Springer, Switzerland (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Google, Methods and systems for robot personality development, U.S. Patent 8 996 429 B1, 31 March 2015Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Robinson, H., et al.: The role of healthcare robots for older people at home: a review. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 6(4), 575–591 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    BS 8611 Robots and robotic devices — Guide to the ethical design and application of robots and robotic systems.
  6. 6.
    Wang, Y., Kobsa, A.: Privacy enhancing technologies. In: Gupta, M., Sharman, R. (eds.) Handbook of Research on Social and Organizational Liabilities in Information Security, pp. 203–227. IGI Global, Hershey (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Salvini, P.: On ethical, legal and social issues of care robots. In: Mohammed, S., Moreno, Juan C., Kong, K., Amirat, Y. (eds.) Intelligent Assistive Robots. STAR, vol. 106, pp. 431–445. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-12922-8_17 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Palmerini, E., et al.: Guidelines on Regulating Robotics. EU RoboLaw Project, Deliverable 6.2 (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ISO 13482:2014, Robots and Robotics Devices – Safety Requirements for Personal Care Robots (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ISO 8373:2012 Robots and robotic devices – Vocabulary (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Robotics 2020 Multi-Annual Roadmap. For Robotics in Europe. Call 2 ICT 24 Horizon 2020, SPARC, p. 287 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fosch-Villaronga, E.: Personal care robots: between social and non-social robots. In: Casanovas, P., Moreso, J.J. (eds.) Anchoring Institutions. Springer (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Collins, E.C., et al.: Saying it with light: a pilot study of affective communication using the MIRO Robot. In: Biomimetic and Biohybrid Systems, pp. 243–255 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Borenstein, J., Arkin, R.: Robotic nudges: the ethics of engineering a more socially just human being. Sci. Eng. Ethics 22(1), 31–46 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sorell, T., Heather, D.: Robot carers, ethics, and older people. Ethics Inf. Technol. 16(3), 183–195 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McColl, D., et al.: A survey of autonomous human affect detection methods for social robots engaged in natural HRI. J. Intell. Robot. Syst., 1–33 (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Benyon, D., Mival, O.: From human-computer interaction to human-companion relationships. In: IITM 2010, Allahabad, UP, India. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lim, A., Okuno, H.G.: A recipe for empathy. IJSR 7(1), 35–49 (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Salem, M., Lakatos, G., Amirabdollahian, F., Dautenhahn, K.: Towards safe and trustworthy social robots: ethical challenges and practical issues. In: Tapus, A., André, E., Martin, J.-C., Ferland, F., Ammi, M. (eds.) ICSR 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9388, pp. 584–593. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-25554-5_58 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Baddoura, R., Venture, G.: This robot is sociable: close-up on the gestures and measured motion of a human responding to a proactive robot. IJSR 7(4), 489–496 (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devicesGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gamerman, G.E.: Intended use and medical devices: distinguishing nonmedical devices from medical devices under 21 USC 321 (h). Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 6, 806 (1992)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Food and Drug Administration General Wellness: Policy for Low Risk Devices (2015).
  24. 24.
    Calo, R.: Robotics and the lessons of cyberlaw. Cal Law Rev. 103, 101–148 (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Blanke, O., et al.: Neurological and robot-controlled induction of an apparition. Curr. Biol. 24(22), 2681–2686 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Art. 7e) Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective productsGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hartzog, W.: Unfair and Deceptive Robots (2015). We Robot at:
  28. 28.
    Shepardson, D., Lienert, P.: Exclusive: In boost to self-driving cars, U.S. tells Google computers can qualify as drivers. Technology, Reuters (2016).
  29. 29.
    Sharkey, A., Sharkey, N.: Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics Inf. Technol. 14(1), 27–40 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Article 29 Working Party (2013) Opinion 02/2013 on Apps on Smart Devices (2013).
  31. 31.
    Council of Europe 15039/2015 on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Art. 3.
  33. 33.
    Rios-Martinez, J.: From proxemics theory to socially-aware navigation: a survey. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 7, 137–153 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Koschate, M., et al.: Overcoming the uncanny valley: displays of emotions reduce the uncanniness of humanlike robots. In: International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. IEEE/ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Petisca, S., Dias, J., Paiva, A.: More social and emotional behaviour may lead to poorer perceptions of a social robot. In: Tapus, A., André, E., Martin, J.-C., Ferland, F., Ammi, M. (eds.) ICSR 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9388, pp. 522–531. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-25554-5_52 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Joint International Ph.D. Erasmus Mundus in Law, Science and Technology Coordinated by CIRSFIDUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.IDT-UABUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Professor of RoboticsUniversity of Gävle, KTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations