Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 25 - Securities Regulation and AI

  • from Part III - Corporate and Commercial Law
  • Edited by Ernest Lim, National University of Singapore, Phillip Morgan, University of York
  • Book:
    The Cambridge Handbook of Private Law and Artificial Intelligence
    Published online:
    21 March 2024
    Print publication:
    28 March 2024, pp 557-575

  • Summary

    Because the use of robo-advisers creates significant risks in addition to the rewards that their use offers, the question of how they ought to be regulated has been and continues to be a subject of substantial debate. The various models for regulating the robo-adviser industry are examined. The best model for regulating the robo-adviser industry is a mix of mandatory disclosure; fiduciary duties for those developing, marketing, and operating robo-advisers; investor education; and regulation by litigation. Further, robo-advisers ought to be regulated by the regular standardised surveying of the investors who are using them and the release of that data to the general public.