This document provides an overview of robotics law and discusses various legal issues related to robotics and drones. It discusses how lawyers should get involved in shaping robotics regulation to help develop rules for areas like employment, patents, privacy and more. It also summarizes some key points from various articles in the issue, including how drones may challenge trespassing laws and how regulating AI raises questions around liability. The document aims to help lawyers and regulators address the legal challenges of emerging robotics technologies.

1. Analysisandinsightfortheindustry–lawyers,regulators,manufacturersandusers
Volume 1, No. 1 July 2015
Why lawyersshould care about robotics
by Neasa MacErlean
Now is the time for lawyers to
become involved in the robotics
sector. In aviation law, a small
number of people – including
a founder of Rolls-Royce and a
ballooning organisation called
the Royal Aero Club – had a
disproportionate effect on the
creation of international aviation
agreements a century back. A
similar phenomenon could happen
now.
One of the main aims of
Robotics Law Journal is to help
regulators, governments, lawyers
and judges to develop a new
legal and regulatory framework
which will enable us to unleash
the commercial opportunities of
robotics and AI while keeping
us safe, preserving our privacy
and improving our employment
prospects. Drones and driverless
cars – entering air and road
space on a commercial basis
this year – are the harbingers;
and they require the design and
implementation of a wide range
of new rules throughout the 200
countries of the world.
Challengestothelegalsystem
Drones “challenge the very
principle of a legal system,”
writes one of the first contributors
to Robotics Law Journal. Peter
Birkett, a property specialist at
Howard Kennedy in the UK, is
looking at the issue of trespass
by a drone – something that both
Barack Obama and Shinzo Abe
were victim to in early 2015 when
one of these vehicles crashed on
the White House lawn and another
landed on the roof of the Japanese
prime minister’s office.
Beyondthescopeoflegalremedies
Searching for effective remedies
to drone trespass, Peter Birkett
concludes: “Technology is taking
us beyond the scope of legal
remedies and into realms where
identification of the wrongdoer is
difficult, the time required to obtain
a remedy can never match the
speed at which trespass can benefit
the perpetrator and the calculation
of damages may be influenced by
the interaction with the rights of
large groups of owners who have
no practical means of securing
collective action.” (The article is
to be published in the August
update.)
Drones–followingmobilephones
Most lawyers can expect their
law firms to have to deal with
the implications of drone law in
some form of another within the
next few years. For a start, drone
use will be very widespread. “I
personally believe that it will be
like the mobile phone market,”
says another of our contributors,
Joe Urli from Australia. “This
is a huge, huge industry that
is waiting to realise itself.”
Regarding robots, there are over
1m involved in industry now,
according to the Japanese Robot
Association which predicts a
robot sector worth £1.5 trillion
within the next five years.
But drones and other forms
of robotics will require new
rules and approaches in many
different areas of the law –
including employment, patents,
privacy, road and air traffic,
property, insurance, litigation,
personal injury, licensing and
business start-up. We examine
many of these subjects in this
first issue.
Which industry sectors will
robotics touch? Writing of
the drones sector, contributor
Peter Lee of Taylor Vinters
lists these as current areas of
activity: ‘journalism (dubbed
‘dronalism’), facilitating
internet and telecommunication
platforms in inaccessible or
hostile environments, fire and
rescue, policing, marketing,
precision farming, crop
dusting, fire detection, flood
monitoring, inspection of oil
and gas rigs, pipeline security
surveillance and geo-physical
surveys’. Looking at particular
jurisdictions, Peter Lee puts
Sweden, Japan, France and the
UK at the forefront.
Cautiousregulators?
Some of the issues that relate
to drones could look simple,
however, in comparison with those
that will emerge – as AI becomes
far more widely used through
the ‘internet of things’, domestic
robots and virtual reality. How
will we apportion liability, for
instance, when losses or damage
occurs while robots are making
the decisions? “I would not be
surprised if regulators become
too cautious,” warns Luis France
of Perez-Llorca in an article on
AI. “After all, there will always
be those that distrust new
technologies and will therefore
try to limit their use (consider for
example the reactionaries of the
19th century after the industrial
revolution).”
GLOBAL:PETER LEE:
‘Thebestcompaniesintheworld
aretrulyglobalandwillmove
tojurisdictionswithpermissive
regulationsthatallowthemto
proveconceptsanddeploythe
technology.’ Page4
DRIVERLESS CARS:
CLAIRE TEMPLE:
‘Anareaofincreasedcomplexity
forinsurancecompaniestodeal
withwillbeworkingoutwhois
liableindriverless
situations.’ Page15
ROBOTSWITH
PERSONALITY:
‘Personalityrobotdevelopmentis
goingtobeahugeareaofbusiness,
forcustomerinterfacessuchas
airlines,hotels,andforrobot
receptionists.’ Page12
SENTIENT ROBOTS: LUIS FRANCO:
‘Ibelievethattheroleoflawyersand
regulatorsintheeventofsentientmachines
beingdevelopedshouldinvolveconsidering
thelegalstatusofsuchmachines,inorderto
promoteintegrationandcooperationinstead
ofconflict.’ Page9
Continued on page 2
Contents
Australiaprivacy2,SouthAfrica3,Manufacturing3,USlawfirms3,AI4,Robots5,Worldoverview6,US7,UK8,
Australia9,NewZealandCAAprivacy10,Employment11,USstateandfederallaws12,Driverlesscars14,Insurance15

2. 2 www.roboticslawjournal.com
Lawyers will play a crucial
role in the development of these
markets – not just in advising
clients but also in shaping the
regulation itself. As we know
from the worlds of tax and
banking, the world is a global
marketplace where regulators
compete to make their own
jurisdictions more attractive to
international businesses. The
same is happening here. Amazon,
for instance, has been delayed
in trailing its drone delivery
vehicles by the slow development
of US regulations. But, in Canada
and Mexico it can find a far
warmer welcome for its pilot
runs. In all territories, lawyers
will be among the best-informed
people to comment on how
regulation should develop.
Influencethroughcodesofpractice
Regulation can also take many
different forms. Lawyers which
inform themselves now will be
well-placed to help industries set
up their own codes of practices
– moves which put industry
players in a much more powerful
place when negotiating with
governments and regulators.
Theendofthehumanrace?
Some lawyers will become
involved in trying to stop the
mis-use of this new technology
– such as the use of robotics
(particularly drones) by
terrorists, the unexpected ‘flash
crash’ vulnerabilities caused by
ultra-fast share trading and the
potential for accidents caused
by irresponsible drone-owners.
There is also, long-term, that dire
warning from Professor Stephen
Hawking to consider – that “The
development of full artificial
intelligence could spell the end of
the human race”.
Robotics is surprisingly similar
to the discipline of law in certain
respects. The cybernetics aspect
of robotics – the part that lifts it
above electronics – is the study
of communication, rule-giving
and feedback, an area that is not
a million miles away from the
law. And the electronics aspects
can be very simple: even the
robotic arm (Canadarm2) on the
International Space Station is far
less complicated than a layman
might expect. Since half of the
growth of robotics is expected to
take place in the services sector
– through personal robots, for
example – over the next 20 years,
it seems that robots are entering
everyday life.
NeasaMacErlean,formerlyajournaliston
TheObserverandtheCityEditorofThe
Lawyer,istheeditorofRoboticsLawJournal
Drone News: New Zealand and Australia
New Zealand RPA rules pave way for BVLOS
New Zealand is taking a different
approach to many other CAAs
(civil aviation authorities) by
making no distinction between
commercial and private users –
and by preparing for BVLOS.
The new regulations take
effect on 1 August. They reflect
the outcome of a consultation
and a shift away from plans to
distinguish between commercial
and private use. In an interview
with Robotics Law Journal,
the CAA says: ‘New Zealand’s
Civil Aviation Authority is
committed to developing risk-
based regulation, to ensure that
any rules we develop address
the safety risks of a particular
activity, rather than considering
the purpose of the activity, which
may have little bearing on its risk
profile.’
Explaining the rules themselves,
the CAA said in an announcement:
‘The focus was shifted from the
intent of the flight (ie, whether
or not it was for payment) to the
nature of the activity itself (ie, in
what airspace; carrying hazardous
materials; proximity to people or
property, etc).’
The New Zealand approach
is expected to make it easier for
users who want to fly drones
beyond visual line of sight
(BVLOS) but – as explained in the
interview – BVLOS is expected to
take place in segregated airspace
at first.
Australia urged to revampsurveillance rules on back of drone concerns
As Australia’s privacy
commissioner and others lament
the lack of effective rules, some
Australians are asking for a
quantum leap to put ‘Australian
surveillance law a step ahead of
the technology horizon’.
Privacy commissioner Timothy
Pilgrim has said: ‘The Privacy
Act does not cover the actions
of individuals in their private
capacity, including any use of
drones by individuals. I have
expressed my concern about
whether current laws, both State
and Federal, provide sufficient
regulatory protection, including
appropriate restrictions on
unreasonable uses.’
Following his comments, a
report has been published – ‘The
Use of Drones in Australia – An
Agenda for Reform’ – by Liberty
Victoria (a group campaigning for
human rights) and the Australian
Association for Unmanned
Systems (AAUS). Stating that the
‘Australian privacy law regulating
the use of drones and surveillance
is not fit for purpose’, the authors
say that their proposals would
‘encourage the development of
Australia’s unmanned systems
industry and ensure that
valuable commercial and social
use of unmanned systems can
be undertaken without fear of
breaking the law’.
Lack of certainty over the rules
is holding back the development
of technology, claims the report.
This means that surveillance,
where needed, does not work as
efficiently as it could. It also means
that commercial opportunities
are being missed. Drones used
for surveillance range between
insect-size technology to systems
which look like commercial
aircraft. Drones have also been
flown for as long as 48 hours in
the US. The smaller systems could
be of particular use to the private
investigations sector.
The proposal suggests the
‘extension, consolidation and
harmonisation of Australia’s
existing state and territory
based surveillance devices
laws’ alongside two general
prohibitions on:
l the installation or use of
surveillance devices; and
l the communication or
publication of private records
obtained through the prohibited
installation
l or use of surveillance devices.
There would be many
exceptions to the two general
prohibitions – with the aim
of protecting legitimate and
beneficial surveillance.
Thereportwaspublishedwiththehelpof
theKingWoodMallesonsHumanRights
LawGroup.
1AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER OCTOBER BY END2105 2016 2015 2015-18 2016 FEBRUARY2017
NewZealand Arizona,US EU Nevada,US USA Canada Australia USA Europe USA
UpdatedUAO
rules
ParadiseValleyto
decideonpossible
droneban
EPParliament
discussionon
safeuseof
drones
Regsondrones FAAregs Lighterregsfor
smalldrones
Lighterregs
forcommercial
dronesunder
2kg
FAA RPAS
framework
Closureof
experimentalsite
program
Significantsmall
townbattleon
conflictinghuman
rightsondrones
Basedon
reportbyMEP
Jacqueline
Foster
Governsuseby
policeandpublic
Droneflying
permitted
Fordrones
under25kg
FromCivil
AviationSafety
Authority
Approve
GroundBased
SenseAvoid
systems
Toimplement
March2015
Rigaaccord
Relatesto6sites
nowinuse
Globaltimeline:whattoexpectondroneregulation
Continued from page 1

3. www.roboticslawjournal.com3
One in five of the world’s UAV
425 manufacturers is located
in the US – a clear sign of the
frustrated demand building up in
the sector.
Boeing, Honeywell, Lockhead
Martin, NASA and Northrop
Grumman are among the 86
USA-based organisations listed
by UAV Global as serving the
commercial and military markets.
Not surprisingly, the UK
comes second – with a list of
29 manufacturers (including
BAE Systems and Cobham).
More surprising is that Russia
(24) comes equal third. Some
15 (nearly two-thirds) of the
organisations listed are based
in Moscow. Russia ties with
France and China. Beijing is a
major centre (8). Manufacturers
include the Chinese Academy of
Surveying Mapping and the
People’s Liberation Army Air
Force.
The next countries are Israel
and Germany (13 each); Brazil
(12); Canada, Australia and Japan
(11 each); Italy (10); and India,
Norway, Poland and Spain (nine
each).
One apparently surprising
element of the listing is the
common mismatch between
the readiness of regulation and
the number of manufacturers.
UK-based lawyer Peter Lee says
that the leading countries in
regulation are France, Japan,
UK and Sweden. Meanwhile Joe
Urli of the Australian Certified
UAV Operators Association says
that New Zealand is particularly
advanced. However, Sweden
and New Zealand have just four
manufacturers each. Joe Urli
gives an explanation as to why
this might be: ‘Every country
has a different level of maturity.
Smaller countries with more
mature regulation are probably
better positioned to introduce
drone corridors and drone
delivery systems. It’s probably
easier for second world countries.
In first world countries there are
lots of issues around.’
Drone News: USA andSouth Africa
Prisonsentencesofupto10yearstocomeinforRPAviolationsinSAfrica
South Africa’s drone rules – which
took effect on 1 July – contain
some surprises, including
regulations for BVLOS flying
and jail sanctions for private and
commercial pilots.
The rules are being
incorporated into the existing
Civil Aviation Act – as a way
of getting them in to place fast.
Introducing them, The South
Africa Civil Aviation Authority
(CAA) said: ‘The SACAA
acknowledges the urgent need and
demand for RPAS usage and has
allocated the necessary resources
to ensure that the need is met
within the shortest time possible.’
Any operation carried out before
1 July would have been illegal. The
director of the organisation, Poppy
Khoza, called the development ‘a
momentous occasion in the local
aviation industry; and to some
extent the world’.
The rules contain a range of
prohibitions – for instance, no
flying near or next to nuclear
plants, courts and police stations;
and no flying within 50m laterally
of other people. Flying Beyond
Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) is
envisaged – and a special rule
here requires a special (class
four) medical certificate for such
flying. An alternative is offered for
BVLOS – a restricted certificate
of proficiency in aeronautical
radiotelephony and a particular
standard (proficiency level four) in
the English language.
Allowing BVLOS is a major
step for any country – as the
safety implications are far more
complicated when the pilot can no
longer see the drone.
Speaking of the rush involved
in introducing the rules, CAA
Director Poppy Khoza said: ‘Under
normal circumstances ICAO
[the International Civil Aviation
Organisation] would take the lead
in terms of developing Standards
and Recommended Practices; and
Regulators would then transliterate
the prescribed Standards and
Recommended Practices into
legally-enforceable local civil
aviation regulations. In the absence
of guiding documents from ICAO,
Regulators such as ourselves have
had to swiftly derive measures to
address the regulation deficiency in
response to a growing demand to
regulate this sector.’
The regulations were signed
by Dipuo Peters, Minister of
Transport, in May.
Argentina 4
Australia 11
Austria 4
Azerbaijan 1
Belarus 3
Belgium 2
Brazil 12
Bulgaria 2
Canada 11
Chile 2
China 24
Colombia 1
Croatia 1
CzechRepublic3
Denmark 3
Egypt 1
Estonia 1
Finland 4
France 24
Germany 13
Greece 2
HongKongv1
Hungary 2
India 9
Indonesia 2
Iran 4
Israel 13
Italy 10
Japan 11
Latvia 1
Malaysia 5
Mexico 2
Netherlands 4
NewZealand 4
Norway 9
Pakistan 6
Philippines 2
Poland 9
Portugal 6
Romania 3
Russia 24
SaudiArabia 2
Serbia 1
Singapore 3
Slovenia 1
SouthAfrica 3
SouthKorea 7
Spain 9
Sweden 4
Switzerland 7
Taiwan 3
Thailand 1
Tunisia 1
Turkey 5
UAE 2
UK 29
Ukraine 2
USA 86
Vietnam 1
US leads world on pent-up
UAV demand
Manufacturernumbers–bycountry
At least 17 US law firms have
set up specialist drone law teams –
many including lawyers who also
have pilot licences.
There is some scepticism
about the size of teams – and
their experiences with clients. For
instance, Michael Drobac, senior
policy adviser at Akin Gump, said:
‘Almost every firm has a drone
practice. I’m not sure every firm
has a drone client.’
Lewis Roca Rothgerber says
it has 14 people in its team.
Antonelli Law says it has eight,
including Kate Fletcher, an ‘active
commercial pilot with American
Airlines’. Tim Edelman, a certified
flight instructor, believes that
LeClairRyan in Annapolis,
Maryland, became the first
law firm with a specialist team
when he launched it for them in
February 2014.
Law firms with teams are: Akin
Gump Strauss Hauer Feld,
Antonelli Law, Cooley, Diaz, Reus
Targ, Hogan Lovells, Holland
Knight, Hunton Williams,
Jones Day, Kramer Levin Naftalis
Frankel, LeClairRyan, Lewis
Roca Rothgerber, McKenna Long
Aldridge (now in the process of
merging with Dentons), Morrison
Foerster, Pillsbury Winthrop
Shaw Pittman, Reed Smith and
Wiley Rein.
Speaking of the range of
issues, Kenneth Quinn, head of
the Pillsbury drone focus team,
said: ‘Our clients now range
across dozens of industries, with
both civilian and governmental
applications, and they face
significant challenges not only from
a regulatory, insurance, and liability
perspective, but also are dealing
with enforcement, safety, security,
privacy, financing, contractual, and
intellectual property issues.’
Regarding the readiness of
US rules in the area, Brant
Hadaway, of Diaz, Reus
Targsays believes that some
communications from the Federal
Aviation Authority have been
over-interpreted and says : ‘we are,
unfortunately, probably still years
away from autonomous drone
deliveries.’
US law firms reach ‘dozens of
industries’ through drone teams

4. 4 www.roboticslawjournal.com
AI: A new area of law
10%
offlightsexpected
tobeunmannedby
2025(Source:EU
Commission)
Artificial intelligence
Howwillthelawbegintodeveloptoprovideaframeworkfor
thisfast-developingarea?LuisFrancoofPerez-Llorcagives
someanswers.
Doyouthinktheapparentlyimminentarrivalofdriverlesscarswill
hastenthedevelopmentofthenecessaryregulatory,legalandinsurance
framework?
Without a doubt. In fact, several countries have already started to take
on the topic of autonomous vehicles: in Europe, Germany and the
UK are working towards legislation for driverless cars and in the US,
several states (Nevada, Florida, California, and Michigan) have already
passed laws to allow the use of driverless cars.
It is important to consider that, up until now, automated machines
have only been present in a limited number of scenarios, in which
the environment has been controllable and access has been relatively
restricted (for example in scientific labs and factories). However, in the
case of driverless cars, the legislator will be faced with an automated
machine present in the public domain. Moreover, far from simply
performing a given set of specific and predesigned tasks (like, for
example, an assembly robot in a car factory), driverless cars will be
evaluating and reacting with their environment and, in a way, acting
upon their own decisions.
Furthermore, road transport, in all of its manifestations (freighters,
public transport, private cars, etc.), is affected by a wide range of laws
and regulations, which will all have to be reviewed and amended, such
as, for example, driving licenses, vehicle registration certificates, traffic
regulation, insurance policies and liability in the event of damages or
injury.
In short, I believe that driverless cars present a superb opportunity
and a test ground for developing the necessary regulation for AI.
Howdoyouexpectregulationtodevelopaswemovetogreaterrelianceon
robotsandAI?
As already mentioned, I believe that road and air traffic regulations will
likely be among the first regulations to be amended to take into account
driverless cars and drones, given their imminent arrival. In addition to
legalising the use of such vehicles, legislators will be handed the task
of considering the implications of accident liability and, in accordance
with these new terms, insurance regulations will also have to be
adapted.
With regard to insurance regulations (already under review in the
UK in order to take into account driverless cars), I believe that the most
significant matter in hand will be determining who exactly should bear
the cost of covering damages caused by autonomous vehicles when no
malfunctioning was involved; that is to say, when damage occurs as
a result of current technological advances not being able to predict or
avoid the damage. In these cases, I believe that a reasonable solution
would be for the manufacturer and owner to share the cost of insuring
that risk ‒ although perhaps not in equal proportion, given that they
are both assuming said risk and profiting from the vehicle. Another
possibility would be to regulate this risk in the same way in which
natural disasters are insured (given that there would be no one to blame
for causing the damage), either through reinsurance policies or through
publicly funded coverage.
Personal data protection regulations will most likely need to be
reviewed in the short term, considering the increasing capabilities of
technological systems in automatically managing and learning from
information, as well as the ever expanding amount of information
available on the Internet. In relation to these points, there are a number
of closely related issues that I believe that regulators should take into
careful consideration, along with the questions that they pose, namely
the sharing of information between systems (Is this possible? Under
what circumstances and or conditions may the information be shared?
To what end may that shared information be used?) and the access to
information by the system itself (How can systems access information?
Which kind of information can they manage?).
Isthereadangerthatregulatorswillbecometoocautious?
I would not be surprised if regulators become too cautious. After all,
there will always be those that distrust new technologies and will
therefore try to limit their use (consider for example the reactionaries of
the 19th century after the industrial revolution).
I personally believe that AI has the potential to bring about great
advances in science and, therefore, be instrumental in moving
humankind forward. For this reason, it is important that we facilitate
the development of AI with open minded regulations. However, as
several renowned scientists have pointed out, AI also brings with it
certain risks. Therefore, I believe that regulators should promote steady,
but careful, development of AI, especially in certain areas.
One such area is the establishment of safety standards for driverless
cars, to ensure that the vehicles have been thoroughly tested before
these vehicles are allowed to drive on public roads.
Another field in which legislators should be extremely careful is
within the arms industry. A number of associations and individuals
currently demand a complete ban on the development of fully
automated weapons (for example, the International Committee for
Robot Arms Control, Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School’s
International Human Rights Clinic). I do not believe that we should
completely dismiss the notion, given that AI weapons may be able to
significantly reduce the number of collateral and civil casualties that we

5. www.roboticslawjournal.com5
AI: A new area of law
see in armed conflicts today. However, I believe that weaponry is most
definitively not the best testing ground for AI. Actually, it is quite the
opposite, considering the dire consequences of any mistake made in
this. Therefore, I believe that the development of autonomous weapons
should be left until AI is sufficiently mature and reliable enough to
avoid accidents.
DoyousharetheconcernsthatProfessorStephenHawking(“The
developmentoffullartificialintelligencecouldspelltheendofthehuman
race”)andITentrepreneurElonMuskhaveexpressedoverAI?Whyorwhy
not?Howcanlawyersandregulatorsplayaroleinreducingthesedangers?
I do not think that we can fully disregard these prospects, but my
approach is quite different to that of Professor Hawking and Elon
Musk; I believe that such a risk is highly remote.
Both Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk have addressed the
matter from the perspective of Darwin’s theory of evolution (i.e. the
survival of the fittest). Indeed, during the same interview as that
quoted above, Professor Hawking also states that “Humans, who
are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete [with AI],
and would be superseded”.
Such an approach from their perspective is logical, as they are
both scientists, however, I do not consider this to be the most
appropriate way of comprehending this matter. We must be aware
that the dangers to which Professor Hawking refers (the extinction
of humankind before a more evolved species) can only come to pass
in the event that truly sentient machines can be developed.
Whether sentient robots can be developed or not is a highly
controversial issue within the scientific community. Mark Bishop,
Professor of Cognitive Computing at Goldsmiths, University
of London, for instance, is against the idea, as he believes that
“there are some key human abilities, such as understanding and
consciousness which are fundamentally lacking in so-called
“intelligent” computers”. I am certainly not qualified to offer an
opinion on this matter from a technical point of view, however I am
inclined to think that sentient robots are a possibility.
Consider the human brain: we know how it is built and, more
or less, from a biomechanical point of view, how it works (electric
impulses pass from neuron to neuron to specific areas in the brain,
which control specific functions) but, ultimately, we do not know
what makes us sentient (and, therefore, human), nor, concretely,
what gives us our own personalities. Taking this into account, it is
not inconceivable that someone may be able to create a synthetic
brain which may be able to develop sentiency. In fact, recent
investigation on AI involves working on artificial neural networks).
However, even if we assume that the creation of sentient
machines may be possible, I still believe that the risk of being
superseded by them is extremely unlikely. As a matter of fact,
I believe that in such an event, Darwin’s theory would become
obsolete, and that the matter should be approached from a
sociological point of view. Darwin’s theory is primarily applicable
to nature, where the fittest survive and the weak do not (even
amongst the same species). However, the development of human
society has completely changed the rules of evolution, at least
amongst humans, and there is no longer the problem of evolution
or extinction (even if, of course, there has been and, regrettably,
still are, wars and conflicts in human history). Therefore, I believe
that if sentient machines were to be created, there would not be a
conflict between the evolution of both species.
In view of the above, I believe that the role of lawyers and
regulators in the event of sentient machines being developed should
involve considering the legal status of such machines, in order to
promote integration and cooperation instead of conflict.
LuisFrancoisaLitigationandArbitrationLawyeratPérez-Llorca
Inthepipeline–nextissue:
lRobots:arethethreerulesofAsimovagoodstartingpointforalawonrobots?
lAlgorithms:aretheydangerous?dotheyneedtoberegulated?Responses
frommathematicians
Robots: personality
By Nick Gillies
Google X’s patent for robots with
adjustable personalities ‘prevents
competition’, says MIT-based
robot ethicist Dr Kate Darling. She
asks if it is in line with the US
Supreme Court’s decision in Alice.
Personality robot development
is going to be a huge area of
business, for customer interfaces
such as airlines, hotels, and for
robot receptionists (the first of
which was installed in a Tokyo
department store this April). And
Japan, with an ageing population,
has been in the vanguard of
creating ‘caring’ robots for
healthcare. Darling says: “It’s hard
to imagine that anyone in the field
of robotics has not envisaged this.
Patents are supposed to support
innovations not obvious to anyone
skilled in the field.”
Patent 8,996,429 granted by
the (US) Patent Trade Marks
Office on March 31 this year, is for
robots that change personalities
based on circumstances and user
information. This information can
be taken from other devices or the
cloud. Examples given are how
the user is known to react to bad
weather or the time of day. The
patent suggests that personalities
could be customised or tuned
to give certain in-character
responses, for example “perplexed
(the Woody Allen robot)”.
In the announcement of the
patent, Sebastian Thrun, founder
of Google X (the laboratory of
Google), suggested it might “get to
the point where we can outsource
our own personal experiences
entirely into a computer, possibly
our own personalities.”
God may have something
to say about a monopoly on
human immortality, and also it is
something Google may struggle
to reach in the 20-year life of
a US patent. The Chair of the
American Bar Association’s AI
and Robotics Committee, Matt
Henshon, of Boston law firm
Henshon Klein, counsels calm.
“From the inventor’s point of
view you try to carve out as much
[protection] as you realistically
can.” And he points out that,
although the patent was first
applied for in 2011, the Examiner
would have assessed it in the light
of Alice. He says that Google will
have to reach accommodations
with other inventors.
Alice Corps –v- CLS Bank,
decided unanimously by the
Supreme Court in June 2012,
brought US patent law closer to
the EU’s practice, which has been
much more hostile to business-
method and software patent
applications. It gave two hurdles
for an application to leap: is it
about something well-known, and
is the kernel of the application
something novel? The case itself
was about escrow (a familiar
thing) by the use of nothing more
than a bit of software. At the
time practitioners criticised Alice
as “Google Friendly”, but it has
led to a marked decline in patent
troll claims, according to the ABA
Journal.
NickGilliesisalegalandbusinessjournalist
withaspecialinterestinhightechandAI
Will God need a
licence from Google?

6. 6 www.roboticslawjournal.com
The world
On a global basis, the Convention on
International Civil Aviation is the main
instrument for establishing rules for the
aviation industry. Also known as the Chicago
Convention – where the document was signed
in 1944 – the Convention sets rules for air
safety, airspace, aircraft registration and other
related issues.
The Convention created the International
Civil Aviation Organization as a special agency
of the United Nations. And the Organization,
based in Montreal, maintains and updates the
Convention.
Drones were something of a challenge for
the Organization – as they have not been
transporting goods or people, and so have
not fallen into the strict remit of the body.
However, in March this year, it published
its ‘Manual on Remotely Piloted Aircraft
Systems’. ‘We’re on the road,’ says Peter van
Blyenburgh. ‘It’s moving.’
A second global initiative is JARUS, a body
which seeks to ‘recommend a single set of
technical, safety and operational requirements
for the certification and safe integration
of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into
airspace and at aerodromes’.
JARUS (Joint Authorities for Rulemaking
on Unmanned Systems) consists of
representatives of national aviation authorities
from around the world and has as an aim to
save them all from inventing the wheel for
themselves. (UVS International hosts the
JARUS web site).
World: Overview
UAV laws delay drone boom
Camel racing in Qatar, this year’s Tour de France cycling race,
the mapping of land by Network Rail in the UK… drones are
involved in all of these activities. And they will be involved in
millions of others once the regulators of the world catch up
with this fast-developing technology.
So what is the potential for the sector? The EU sees it as
‘truly transformational technology’. It could produce a market
worth ‘billions of dollars’, according to US law firm Keller and
Heckman. Amazon – which had 10m of its customers using
its Prime delivery service over last Christmas – is ‘committed
to making Prime Air [drone delivery service] available to
customers worldwide as soon as we are permitted to do so’.
The BBC, the UK’s state broadcaster, has a drone journalism
team. Drone manufacturer Parrot says that ‘the commercial use
of drones is going to create a futuristic industry that most of
us can’t yet imagine.’
The 1m-strong US National Association of Realtors sees
‘the potential of using UAV [Unmanned Aerial Vehicle]
technology to collect images for use in real estate’ as ‘a game-
changer for the real estate industry’. And the view from
inside the regulatory part of the drone industry? ‘It’s going
to be gigantic,’ says Peter van Blyenburgh, president of UVS
International*.
He adds: ‘It’s going to be multiples of manned aviation.’ And
the air transport sector currently accounts for 1% of world
revenue – about US$746b – according to the International
Air Transport Association. It employs 58m staff to carry 3b
passengers in aircraft worth over US$1.3t, according to the Air
Transport Action Group.
Europe
A considerable amount of activity has been
taking place throughout the European Union
(EU). This is partly because so many police
forces, environmental protection authorities
and other similar bodies have recognised the
potential of drones and are starting to use
them. The European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) is handling all certification issues – on
behalf of EU countries as well as Norway and
Switzerland – for larger drones (over 150kg by
MTOM, Maximum Take-Off Mass).
At the moment, smaller drones – which
are expected to be the more widely used ones
initially – are the remit of national aviation
authorities. These national authorities can
develop their own regulations or they could
wait until JARUS comes out with its rules.
In the longer run, EASA will also regulate
smaller drones – going right down to those of
virtually zero weight and mass.
Europe currently has the advantage on
the US in that some European states – such
as the Czech Rep., France, Ireland, Italy, The
Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK –
permit commercial drone usage for ‘Visual Line
of Sight’ drones operations. Countries which are
well advanced on ‘Beyond Visual Line of Sight’
drones, as well as those within sight, include the
Czech Republic, France and Norway.
USA
The US has been criticised for being slow to
develop regulation. Commercial use of drones
is currently banned, subject to exceptions.
Amazon has been a fierce critic, saying in
March 2015 that it got permission to test a
drone from the body responsible, the FAA
(Federal Aviation Administration) only after
that particular model was ‘already obsolete’.
Paul Misener, Amazon vice president for global
public policy, told Senators at the time: ‘We’ve
moved on to more advanced designs that we
already are testing abroad.’
But it looks as if the FAA will have
regulations ready by the end of this year. It
received 4,400 comments during a consultation
process on its proposals earlier this year. States
and cities are also setting up their own rules
on drones. An interesting example recently
was Ferndale, a suburb of Detroit, which
seemed in April to be gearing up to make it
a criminal misdemeanour to fly drones. But
City Councillors decided not to introduce a
ban after hearing from local businesses and
hobbyists. By contrast, concern has been
mounting about the number of drones flying
around San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge –
identified as a potential target for terrorists. At
least one drone has crash-landed on the bridge,
according to the local transport authority.

7. www.roboticslawjournal.com7
World: Overview US: Overview
TimAdelman,shareholderinLeClairRyaninAnnapolis,Maryland,
believesheopenedthefirstdronelawdepartmentinaUSlawfirm–
inMarch2014.Aninstrument-ratedcertificatedflightinstructor,he
hasworkedwithregulatorsandmanufacturersandoperators.Heis
alsoanexpertinhealthcarelaw.
Whatareyouadvisingclientswhowanttouse
dronesnow?
Right now there are a number of ways to
access the airspace in the US while we wait for
the FAA [Federal Aviation Authority] to issue
final regulations later this year. A number
of companies are using Section 333 petitions
for exemption, while others are applying for
an experimental airworthiness certificate.
Which path they choose really depends on the
type of client. A large company could go for
a Section 333 exemption or the experimental
airworthiness certificate. But if you are a
smaller company – a sole photographer or
a real estate company – there’s probably not
a good return on investment in obtaining
a Section 333 exemption or experimental
airworthiness certificate. Those companies
would probably be better suited to wait for the
new rules or ‘proceed at your peril’ now.
WereyousurprisedthatAmazondecidedtotest
outsidetheUS?
I’m not surprised. The Amazon concept is a
very interesting concept. But I don’t see how
their product is going to work in our current
environment for the next two to three years.
Maybe it will in ten to 15 years. There are
other countries whose airspace may be less
regulated that will permit the testing of their
technology. Amazon could use these less
restrictive airspaces to develop an operational
model and, when it is ready, take it to the FAA
[whose regulatory authority covers drones]
and show them how it would work.
My understanding of what Amazon
wants to do is to have aircraft with relatively
short flight duration – less than an hour.
That means they would have to have local
distribution centres with a dense population to
make the necessary volume of deliveries. So
they would be flying in populated areas and
cities. To fly over a city, you have to address
various technical problems. For instance, there
has to be ‘sense and avoid’ in order to avoid
people and other aircraft. Then there is the
frequency interference issue. There are some
pretty challenging obstacles.
Most operators are now ‘Line of Sight’.
Until we figure out the radar and the ‘Beyond
Line of Sight’ issues, the kind of flight that
Amazon wants to perform is going to be a
challenge. And then there are the FAA risk
tolerance percentages which have to be met,
for example, on take-off, flying and landing.
While these are all hurdles, they are no
necessarily insurmountable. Amazon can
use airspace outside of the US to test the
technology, develop its operating procedures
and then present the FAA with a safety case. I
believe to accomplish those tasks with suitable
technology and appropriate infrastructure in
the US, it will take more than a few years.
Whereaboutsareyourclientsgoingoutsidethe
USinordertotestdronetechnology?
A number of my clients are doing testing
overseas. Most of this work is going to South
America. Some have gone to Mexico.
HowwilltheissuingofregulationsintheUS
affecttheregulationsinothercountries?
The US has always been a leader in aviation
safety. Knowing the civil aviation authorities
of the world, I think that many will follow the
US lead because many countries don’t have the
resources to research and create regulations
applicable to drones – so they will rely on other
countries, such as the US.
HavesomeofyourclientsgonetoCanadatotest
dronetechnology?
A couple of clients have gone to Canada.
Canada still has a better regulatory structure
for drone operations than the US but it’s
not as easy as going to Canada, turning on
the battery and launching it. While Canada
has been far ahead of the US, you still need
some level of permission in Canada . But my
impression is that, once the US has finalized its
rules, a lot of civil aviation authorities will use
the US model as a way to regulate. It would
not surprise me if Canada started using the
US rules.
HowaretheUSproposedrulesviewed?
The Advisory Rulemaking Committees
(ARC) came up with proposed regulations,
The ‘Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
ARC Recommendation Report (2012)’, a few
years ago. The actual final product of the
FAA was far more lenient than what the ARC
recommended. Many in the industry were
surprised by how favourable the rules were.
Wherewillwebeinfiveyearstime?
Once the rules are in place – probably this
year – we’ll see growth in companies that offer
services to others – such as drone companies
that would contract with a real estate business
to film properties for them. There would
probably be a pretty big explosion in that kind
of consultancy market.
And then railroad companies are interested.
So are mining companies, pipeline businesses,
gas lines, power plants and others.
InthePipeline–NextIssue:Thedevelopment
ofprivacylawsacrosstheUS,militaryandthe
developmentofcodesofconduct
Once the regulation is in place, Tim Adelman,
shareholder in LeClairRyan (which believes
it was the first law firm to set up a drone
team), expects to see a ‘pretty big explosion’ in
consultancies which offer aerial photography
and other services to business clients.
Other jurisdictions
Similar activity is taking place in many
countries around the world. Singapore, for
instance, introduced drone rules in June. New
Zealand, Japan, Canada and Qatar are among
the locations where smaller drones are now
in operation. New Zealand is to allow Beyond
Line of Sight drones from 1 April – although
such flights are expected to start in segregated
airspace.
Regulation and
commercial markets
Lack of regulation ‘is holding the market
back’, says Peter van Blyenburgh. This is
because insurance will not be provided for
the commercial sector on a broad basis until
national aviation authorities start authorising
and approving pilots and operators in a
systematic way.
Development of regulation
and other laws
The main regulatory areas driving the sector
now are in the fields of manufacturing
standards, infrastructure issues and licensing
for pilots and operators. But many other
sectors are developing too. Privacy and data
protection will become a busy area, as will
drone flight schools. The commercial insurance
sector is starting to see much greater usage of
drones by insureds – and a review of practices
can be expected in the wake of a significant
accident. Industry sectors might also set up
their own codes of conduct for issues that are
specific to them. The International Association
of Chiefs of Police issued its guidance in 2012.
Growth of legal expertise
In March 2014, LeClairRyan in Maryland set
up what it believed was the first drone team
in a US law firm. A year later there were at
least 13 law firms promoting similar teams.
Races of that kind can be expected in many
countries around the world. Lawyers will take
the lead in pressing for effective regulation
in many countries – but the aviation sector
is still playing an important lobbying role.
In Australia, for instance, an association
of operators (the association of Australian
Certified UAV Operators Association) published
in February 2014 a blueprint for privacy rules.
*UVSInternationalisaninternationalnon-profitassociation
andthe‘internationalremotelypilotedsystemsinformation
source’,whichworks,inco-ordinationwithregionaland
internationalaviationregulatorsandstakeholdergroups,to
developandco-ordinatedroneregulationworldwide.

8. 8 www.roboticslawjournal.com
UK view: QA
PeterLeeisadronelawexpertbasedinthe
UKlawfirmofTaylorVinters
Whatisthecommercialpotentialofdrones?
All predictions are that the commercial and
civil market is going to boom over the next
decade and there has already been significant
investment made by the likes of Facebook,
Google and Venture Capital funds. This growth
will be due in part to a large variety of uses for the technology that
includes journalism (dubbed ‘dronalism’), facilitating internet and
telecommunication platforms in inaccessible or hostile environments,
fire and rescue, policing, marketing, precision farming, crop dusting,
fire detection, flood monitoring, inspection of oil and gas rigs, pipeline
security surveillance and geo-physical surveys.
Howlongwillittakebeforedronelicencesareascommonplace
asdrivinglicences?
Many countries are working on integrating drones into their airspace.
The UK has a progressive approach to integration; there are already
about 8 00 drone operators with a permission to conduct aerial work
from the UK CAA [Civil Aviation Authority]. Other countries, such
as the US, have been slower to permit this new technology. The latest
US FAA [Federal Aviation Authority] proposals, that are expected
to be law next year, offer safety rules for small drones conducting
non-recreational operations. The rules would limit flights to daylight
and visual-line-of-sight [VLOS] operations, they also address height
restrictions, operator certification, optional use of a visual observer,
aircraft registration and marking, and other operational limits.
Howmuchofanadvantagewilljurisdictionshavewhichdevelopeffective
droneregulationsbeforeothers?(Forinstance,Amazonshiftingitspiloting
outoftheUSmightnotseemtobodewellfortheUSgettinganearly
advantage.)
There are a few countries around the world where regulations for
commercial drone use are now either in place or in preparation. To
my mind, Sweden, Japan, France and the UK are leading the way
when it comes to integrating drone technologies into
their airspace. The UK’s Civil Aviation Authority
is an example of a sensible and pragmatic drone
regulator. In contrast, many other countries are either
not engaging with the drone industry or seem to be
approaching the process in a rigidly bureaucratic way.
For years now the US had been dragging behind the
UK, Europe and other parts of the world because it did
not have recognisable, nationwide drone regulations in
place and had produced a wide variation of drone-
related laws across its states. The best companies in the world are
truly global and will move to jurisdictions with permissive regulations
that allow them to prove concepts and deploy the technology. This
means a country and its people can miss out on jobs, innovation
and investment if it does not address the commercial use of drone
technology and airspace integration.
HowdoyouexpecttoseethebasicregulationsintheUKdevelopasregards
licencesfordronepilotsandsafetyingeneral?
The concern for delivery companies like Amazon is that, for the
foreseeable future at least, drone operations will generally have to
be conducted within visual-line-of-sight of the operator and away
from large groups of people. Beyond visual line of sight [BVLOS]
operations and more work in busy, congested areas like cities is where
regulations need to evolve in the coming years.
HowdoyouexpecttoseetheoverallinfrastructureondroneuseintheUK
todevelop?
The key legal concerns around the commercial use of drones focus on
safety, security, privacy, data protection, insurance and liability.
Privacy impact and management is an issue that various
stakeholders are very concerned about and the UK Information
Commissioner’s Office has recently issued guidance in this area.
Airspace and airworthiness regulations continue to evolve around
the globe. Spectrum availability issues around the already congested
2.4Ghz that most drone operators currently use is set to become a
challenge for operators and this will require engagement by telecoms
regulators (such as Ofcom in the UK). As drones become more
automated and a human pilot is less involved in flight,
complex issues of liability and responsibility will
challenge lawyers and insurers. Also, the spectres of a
serious drone accident, espionage, a terrorist incident
or protestors using the technology are recognised as
threats to our society.
The UK has a good mix of technology,
entrepreneurs, permissive regulation and venture
capital. I think the single biggest influencer in the drone
boom in the UK has been the Civil Aviation Authority.
They have been relatively progressive, open to new technology in the
skies and in working with other stakeholders like pilots, the privacy
regulator, specialist interest organisations and campaigner groups.
They have done all this with a keen eye on safety. The CAA pioneered
a risk based approach to drone integration into the airspace and it’s
turning out to be the model of choice for much of the developed
world. The UK has also been quite active in prosecuting people who
break the rules with drones; this is important because it helps to
protect professional drone operators, keep things safe and give the
public confidence in the application of the technology.
HowdoyouexpecttoseethebasicregulationsintheEUdevelopasregards
licencesfordronepilotsandsafetyingeneral?
Pan-European coordination for drone regulation is fragmented
– basic national safety rules apply but the rules differ across the
“A COUNTRY AND ITS PEOPLE CAN MISS OUT ON JOBS, INNOVATION
AND INVESTMENT IF IT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE COMMERCIAL USE
OF DRONE TECHNOLOGY AND AIRSPACE INTEGRATION”
Thekeylegalconcerns
focusonsafety,
security,privacy,data
protection,insurance
andliability
Challengesrangefromspectrumtospying

9. www.roboticslawjournal.com9
UK view: QA
EU and a number of key safeguards are not
addressed in a coherent way. Currently in
Europe drones less than 150kg in weight
come under the regulation of the relevant
national aviation authority – above that
weight European regulations apply. A more
complex matrix of laws governs flights
between states globally, and these include
the Chicago Convention provisions and the
International Civil Aviation Organisation rules.
There are many efforts to move a coordinated
European approach forward – for instance
under the relatively recent ‘Remotely Piloted
Air Systems (RPAS) Roadmap’ that proposes
a series of actions to be taken for achieving
drone integration into the European air system
from 2016. The risk of not adopting or slowly
developing drone rules is that some people
will simply fly anyway, with no certification or
training pathway (as seen in Spain in 2014 and
the US).
The EU needs to accelerate harmonisation
of drone laws and permission to fly procedures
across all Member States. The sooner it does
this, the faster companies can take advantage
of the Union’s free trade economy. At present if
you are a professionally qualified drone operator
and want to work in another EU country, there
is too much bureaucracy.
Enforcement–howdoyouexpectenforcement
todevelop?Howimportantwilltheparticipation
ofpolicebe?Howimportantisitthatstrong
enforcementisseentobehappeningearlyon?
The law should not be seen as a barrier to the
drone industry, it’s about achieving a balance
between safety (both physical and privacy)
on the one hand and too much red tape on
the other. If the rules are too prohibitive or
complex, then, as we have seen in the US, folks
will just break them and promising businesses
could be driven away. To keep competitive
we need to be creative, safe and consider all
the different ways law and ethics touches
drone use. The challenge is for regulators
and international bodies to adapt quickly and
also to work out who should be responsible
for drone activities. For instance, just because
small drones fly, are aviation authorities
necessarily best placed to regulate them – or
are the police or others better suited and
resourced?
There are some big legal challenges to be
tackled as the industry continues to develop.
Key battlegrounds will probably include liability
challenges (especially as machines become
more automated), privacy and data protection
concerns, airspace integration and insurance
matters.
About Peter Lee: Peter Lee has one of the world’s leading
unmanned system legal practices and advises many drone
operators, manufacturers and end users of unmanned
systems on a wide variety of regulatory and legal matters.
He writes, keeps a blog, often speaks at conferences and has
appeared as drone law subject matter expert in the national
and international press. He has also appeared as an expert
witness at the UK House of Lords’ Select Committee enquiry
into the civil use of unmanned systems.
Australia: operator’s view
JoeUrliischairoftheAustralianCertifiedUAVOperators
Association(ACUO).Heisanon-executivedirectoroftheRPAS
CoordinationCouncilofUVSInternationaland,aqualified
pilotanddronepilot,wasformerlyanAirTransportSafety
InspectorfortheAustralianFederalGovernment.
Howdifficultwillitbetocreateregulations
thatwillcaterforthedeliveringofparcelsby
Amazonandothersandevenpizzadelivery?
It’s a question of testing the technology in
terms of introducing it to the community.
Technically it can be done. It’s just a question
of the regulatory framework being confident
that it can support such services.
Whichindustriesdoyouseeasbigusersof
drones?
Lots of industries are looking at drone
technology to expand their networks and
to save costs. A big driver in organisations
now is cost efficiency and the elimination
of waste. Examples are mining and oil and
gas, as well as law enforcement (through
surveillance) and bio-security in the area of
environmental control.
Willmanylawyersbecomeinvolvedinadvising
ontheuseofdronesinparticularsectorsand
forstart-updronecompanies?
Most definitely. There is definitely an
opportunity for the law faculty to interface
with emerging behaviours here. The main
three areas of impact are privacy, security
and safety.
QWillhavingadronelicencebecomeas
commonplaceashavingadrivinglicence?
Possibly. I anticipate that it will because
it opens up the market to non-aerospace
professionals. I personally believe that it will
be like the mobile phone market. The minute
that you start interfacing with national
airspace, the licensing system becomes
mandatory. This is a huge, huge industry
that is waiting to realise itself.
Whenwilldroneswhichcanbepilotedbeyond
visuallineofsight(BVLOS)becomeabigissue?
VLOS (Visual line of sight) is the first step
They are stepping stones that regulators
are trying to get comfortable with. BVLOS
extend the number of variables: they extend
the risks. For instance, there is the issue
of electronic hijacking – and we have to
understand that risk.
New Zealand has leap-frogged Australia
on this. I see legislation being passed there
before the end of the year [August 1]. When
that happens it will have a knock-on effect on
other jurisdictions.
WereyousurprisedatAmazondecidingtotest
itsdronedeliveryserviceoutsidetheUS?
Every country has a different level of
maturity. Smaller countries with more mature
regulation are probably better positioned to
introduce drone corridors and drone delivery
systems. It’s probably easier for second world
countries. In first world countries there are
lots of issues around.
Willactivitystartfirstatthesmallerendofthe
market?
I suspect that the sub-2 kg class will
probably become widespread – because
of affordability. I see nano-drones being
manufactured at very low cost.
Howimportantisitthatregulatorsgetthe
regulationright?
It’s of the utmost importance. This is laying
the foundation on which the future will be
built. VLOS is the first step. If we can then
move on to BVLOS that will be a great
enabler. Technology is fast superseding
regulatory reform. Regulatory reform
needs to be speeded up. We need to get the
enforcement strategy bedded down. There
are so many recreational drones out there
that we can’t really account for.
HowimportantistheRPASCoordinationCouncil
ofUVSInternational?
It’s paramount in terms of creating a
network in order to harmonise regulations.
It is imperative for us to have a common
platform. Even harmonising the terminology
is important. Our preference at ACUO is to
speak of RPASs [Remotely Piloted Aircraft
Systems].
Inthepipeline–Nextissue:BradMason,oneofthe
mostexperienceddronepilotsintheworld,talks
aboutthedevelopmentofprivacyregulationin
Australia.
Willdronesbecomeas
commonassmartphones?

10. 10 www.roboticslawjournal.com
New Zealand: CAA
NewZealandisoneofthemostadvancedcountries
intheworldregardingdroneregulation.TheCivil
AviationAuthorityofNewZealandexplainstheeffect
ofthenewrulesthattakeeffectfrom1August.
Doyouexpectthattheintroductionofthenewruleswillhelp
creategreateruseofdrones?
The new rules are designed to more effectively regulate
drones. They will enable some flights to be conducted outside
the bounds of the current rules, which could lead to an
increase in the use of these aircraft.
WhatdoyouthinkisthepotentialfordroneuseinNewZealand?
AretherecharacteristicsofNewZealand(suchasthelargerural
spaces)thatmakeitparticularlysuitablefordrones?Whatthe
aremainareasofinterestamongNewZealanddrone-owners?
There is significant potential for increased drone use in New
Zealand. Particular areas of interest include agriculture,
search and rescue, real estate, film and video production, and
scientific research.
Doyouexpecttoupdatetherulesasandwhentheactual
practicesofflyingdronesdevelop?
Yes, the new rules are part of our interim approach. We are
developing strategy for the integration of drones into the New
Zealand aviation system over the long term.
Howwillyoukeepintouchwiththeviewsandexperienceofthe
droneindustry?Howimportantisittodothis?
We have very close links with industry, in particular through
industry body UAVNZ, whom we have consulted with during
the recent rule development process. It is very important that
industry are consulted so we can ensure any rules we develop
are fit for purpose.
Whydidyoudecidenottomakethedistinctionbetween
commercialandprivateusagein yourrules?Whydidyoufocus
insteadontheactivitybeingcarriedout?
New Zealand’s Civil Aviation Authority is committed to
developing risk-based regulation, to ensure that any rules we
develop address the safety risks of a particular activity, rather
than considering the purpose of the activity, which may have
little bearing on its risk profile.
TowhatextentdoyourrulesallowforBVLOS[BeyondVisual
LineofSight]?WhendoyouexpectBVLOSflyingtostart?
A Beyond Visual Line of Sight is not specifically considered
by the new rules, although it would be possible if an
applicant could satisfy the CAA that the activity is safe. Given
current technology the most likely scenario where BVLOS
would be allowed would be in segregated airspace.
Areyoufeedinginyourapproachtootherregulatorsinother
partsoftheworld?
As a member state of the International Civil Aviation
Organization the CAA is internationally connected to
regulators in other jurisdictions. We share our knowledge
regarding the development of rules for drones with the
international aviation community on a regular basis.
NewZealandis7thintheworld(intermsofPurchasing-Power-Parity)interms
ofGDPperhead(US$36,152);and123rdwhenrankedbypopulation(4.59m).
Sources:IMFandWikipediaranking
NewZealandhasnewrules
comingintoplaceon1Augustto
regulatetheuseofdrones.The
country’sOfficeofthePrivacy
Commissionergivesitsviewon
theprivacyissuesofdroneusage.
Howmanyenquiriesandcomplaintsare
youreceivinginrelationtodroneuse?
We have received one complaint about
drone use and that’s currently under
investigation. We do regularly receive
enquiries from the public and the news
media. For example, we received 18
media enquiries on the topic of drones
in the past two years.
Doyouthinkthatyouwillneedtoissue
moredetailedguidanceasthenumbers
ofprivateandcommercialusersincrease?
We refer people to our CCTV guidelines
and to our blog post on the topic. We
also refer people to the Civil Aviation
Authorities rules on flying Remotely
Piloted Aircraft Systems (or RPAS
– as it prefers to call them). We have
no plans for creating a more detailed
guidance solely about drones.
One of the CAA rule changes that
will take effect on 1 August means
that a person operating a remotely
piloted aircraft must avoid operating
in airspace above persons who have
not given consent for the aircraft to
operate in that airspace, and above
property unless prior consent has been
obtained from any persons occupying
that property or the property owner.
From our perspective, this has positive
privacy implications.
Howmuchareyoumonitoringtheissue
–asthetechnologyisadvancingfast,
aswellasusageandactivitiesofother
regulators?
We are monitoring what other
jurisdictions are doing to accommodate
drones and it is informing our
discussions on dealing with drones.
Areyouliaisingwithotherregulators?
New Zealand is part of the Asia Pacific
Privacy Authorities (APPA), Global
Privacy Enforcement Network (GPEN)
and the International Conference
of Data Protection and Privacy
Commissioners (ICDPPC). Drones are
subject to discussion at these forums
and we are playing a part in those
conversations.
Doyouenvisagethatyouwillneedto
talktodifferentsectors(egthemedia
intheiruseofdronesforfilming;sports
organisationsastheyusedronestofilm;
estateagentswhentheyusedrones
tofilmcertainlargeproperties;the
securityforcesastheyusedronesfor
surveillance…etc)toestablishparticular
codesofconductinparticularsectors?
Areyoudoingthisalready?
We are fortunate that the Civil Aviation
Authority [CAA] has taken a leading
role in informing different sectors
about its rules around using drones.
We have been in discussions with the
CAA about the development of its new
guidelines and we are pleased with the
privacy component that is implicit in
the rules around obtaining the consent
of property owners and occupants
when wanting to fly over a property.
In addition, under the Privacy
Act, there are clear rules around the
use of cameras on drones to filming
people. These align with our CCTV
guidelines. Failure to comply can lead
to a complaint to us which we will
investigate. Our blog post about drones
is a direct response to the public and
media enquiries we have received about
drones. We also held a Technology
Privacy Forum (a regular feature
of our outreach programme) during
Privacy Week that was devoted to the
topic of drones.
Anythingelseyouwouldliketoadd?
While drones are a new and emerging
technology, the threat they pose to
privacy is consistent with the use of
any camera, including mobile phones
or automated CCTV systems. The
Privacy Act applies to information
gathered by an agency about an
identifiable individual, and it concerns
how that information is collected,
handled and disclosed.
But it should be noted there are
also other laws in New Zealand that
are relevant to using drones to film or
record. For example, it is against the
law to make covert intimate recordings
of people without their consent or
knowledge, and to publish them.
NEXTISSUE:TheInformation
Commissioner’sOfficeintheUK
New Zealand: Privacy
Cutting edge regulation Can the privacy rules keep up
with the high-tech advances?

11. www.roboticslawjournal.com11
Employment: Drivers of change
JamesDaviesisjointheadofemploymentat
LewisSilkinintheUK
Doyouexpectachangeintheworkingenvironment
becauseofthepredictedgreateruseofdronesand
othertypesofrobots?Willthisleadtojoblosses?
Yes. The world of work has always and continues
to change. One key driver of change is technology.
Many jobs appear, even on the basis of what
we now know, to be vulnerable. Even, say, mine
as an employment lawyer which may not be the first you think of as
being vulnerable. People are already working on “avatars” who will
be programmed to respond to huge numbers of variables in providing
legal advice. No doubt, transport jobs will be vulnerable to new
ways of getting goods from A to B – whether 3D printing, drones or
developments we can’t yet imagine.
We cannot know what the job market will look like in, say, twenty
years. At first glance one fears as current jobs become redundant.
However, that has always been the case. Many of the jobs that people go
into today did not exist merely several decades ago and, no doubt, new
jobs, many of which we cannot imagine will replace them.
Doyouexpectthearrivalofdronestoaffectmainlythemanufacturing
sector–orotherindustries(egpostdelivery,retaildelivery,IT,law
enforcement…)?
This is very difficult to predict. I wonder whether the physical delivery
of stuff won’t actually decline in time.
Whenmovingintoaneraofgreatermechanisation,suchasdrones,do
employersstartdoingthingsdifferently–egmakeemploymentcontracts
moreflexibleandlesslong-termorplantotrainstaffintotheappropriate
technology?
The world of work is changing quickly and employers are adapting.
Going back only a few decades, employment terms were more commonly
collectively agreed with trade unions. Individual employment contracts
have become much more common since then. With globalisation and
increased competitiveness as well as technological and social changes, the
9 to 5 permanent full time employee has become much rarer. Flexibility
has become much more important. I wonder if we aren’t beginning to
see a move from employment contracts as we know them to a system
based less on job security and more on a set of basic rights all workers
hold which provides a degree of protection but facilitates flexibility and
acknowledges the need for workers to embrace change.
Areyouseeingemployersbegintotakethesestepsyet?
We are beginning to see a move away from traditional 9 to 5 permanent
full time contracts. Part-time contracts, even zero –hours contracts
(even though they can, at times but not always, be exploitative) and
self-employed arrangements provide for increased flexibility. I think
the way forward is to recognise the importance of these flexible
arrangements but move away from seeing them as methods to avoid
social security payments or deprive workers of basic rights.
Dodronesraiseprivacyorsurveillanceissuesintheworkplace?
Yes. I predict that privacy issues will become an increasingly topical
and important aspect of the employment relationship. Data protection
and privacy issues have already become a staple part of an employment
lawyer’s diet.
Howwouldyouexpecttheemploymentlawinthisareatobuildup?
Case law builds up employment law where laws already exist. New laws
can become necessary where law don’t cover developments. These can
come from the EU (assuming we stay members) though there has been
little in the way of new EU employment law over the last few years. In
the field of data protection and privacy, the Information Commissioner
has enforcement powers as well as powers to issue codes of practice
and the like. As this is an area impacted greatly by new technology
developments in this field are perhaps the most likely. You would expect
some guidance on the use of drones and privacy (not only in the field of
employment) to follow quite quickly upon increased usage.
Anythingelseyouwouldliketoadd?
Can I refer you to the Future of Work Hub which my firm, Lewis Silkin,
has established. This contains information about the changing face of
the workplace and we’d welcome comment or contribution of this or
other relevant areas (www.futureofworkhub.info).
Inthepipeline–Nextissue:
lRichardLynch,advisertolow-paidworkersandaformernegotiatorfor
leadingUKtradeunions,looksattheroleoftradeunionsasmechanisation
develops
lInterviewwith RichardSission,seniorpolicyadvisorattheUK’s
InformationCommissioner’sOffice
Employersstarttoprepareforroboticworld
WORLD ROBOT MARKET EXPECTED TO DOUBLE
TO US$20B IN NEXT FIVE YEARS, ACCORDING
TO JAPANESE ROBOT ASSOCIATION

12. 12 www.roboticslawjournal.com
US:state and federal laws
By: Zachary D. Ludens
Over the last several years, the
unmanned aerial system (“UAS” or
more colloquially “drone”) industry
has begun to blossom while U.S.
regulators have fought to keep pace
with its development. With increasing
pressure from the private sector, a
few key regulatory steps give hope
that commercial drone use in the U.S.
will finally take off. The last few
months have brought a proposed
regulation from the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), the streamlining
of the FAA’s exemption process, and
proposed legislation that would further
expedite the process and serve as a gap
filler in the interim. In short, it is an
Ready for takeoff?
exciting time for those interested in the
U.S. drone industry.
The FAA’s proposed regulations,
released on February 15 this year,
would apply to small commercial
drones – i.e. those weighing 55
pounds or less. Under the proposal,
the drones would not be permitted
to fly past the line of sight of their
operator, could
not fly higher than
500 feet, could not
operate above people
outdoors, and could
not operate in certain
airspace surrounding
airports. The
proposal came at the
same time that the
AmericanFederalandStategovernmentshaveaflurryoflegislativeandregulatory
actionsondrones—butquestionsstillexist
Zachary D. Ludens, an attorney in the Miami office
of the law firm Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, practices
in the area of complex commercial litigation and
has particular experience in the finance, insurance,
intellectual property, and technology sectors.
FAA reported that it had received
hundreds of requests for exemption
from the ban on commercial drone
usage – with the total number of
publicly available applications
breaching 500 in June.
While the FAA’s eventual
regulation of small commercial
drones may take months to a year to
be finalized and there is no guarantee
that U.S. Senators Booker and
Hoeven’s introduced Commercial UAS
Modernization Act will pass the U.S.
Congress, the federal government is
not the only governmental body in
the U.S. that is paying close attention
to the drone industry. The American
states have been very active looking
to place limits on surveillance by
drones.
In calendar year
2014, at least 35 states
considered or enacted
legislation related to
drones. This legislation
largely focused around
the requirements for
state agencies to use
drones for surveillance.
...theFAA’seventual
regulationofsmall
commercialdrones
maytakemonthstoa
yeartobefinalized

13. www.roboticslawjournal.com13
Whathashappenedsofarondroneregulation
2014 2015
CHRISTMAS DAY DECEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MAR18 MARCH APRIL MAY MAY MAY 30JUNE
US Kenya US UK US US US Florida,USA Singapore Global US SouthAfrica
1st4licences
(s333)givenfor
drone-flying-all
forclosed-set
filming
Blanketban
ondrones
Yearopens
with9
(s333)
licencesin
placefor
droneflying
Highway
Code
review
promised
Experimental
dronetest
flights
allowed
Amazongets
experimental
licence
Amazon
patent
application
published
Extension
ofFreedom
From
Unwarranted
Surveillance
Acttocover
drones
Dronerules
tookeffect
Dronesand
driverless
carswillbe
2of5new
technologies
affecting
buildings
500thlicence
(s333)given
fordrone
flying
PRAregs
Theseare
exemption
licencestothe
generalban
operatedbythe
FAA
Theseare
exemption
licences
tothe
generalban
operatedby
theFAA
Moveto
enable
testingof
driverless
cars
FAAgives
permission
FAApermit Patent
includes‘Bring
ittome’option
ofdelivery
torecipient’s
current
location-as
wellashome
deliveryoption
Permit
system
comesinfor
commercial
dronesand
othersover
7kg
Prediction
fromKnight
Frank‘Global
Cities2015’
report
Theseare
exemption
licencesto
thegeneral
banoperated
bytheFAA
Droneflying
becomeslegal
In late May 2015, the U.S. Department
of Justice issued guidelines applicable
to its own law enforcement agencies,
including the Federal Bureau of
Investigations and the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives.
But, later in 2014 and continuing
in to 2015, the focus has shifted
away from a lone, shining light on
government agencies
to what privacy
protections individual
citizens have from one
another when it comes
to drones. Two great
examples are laws
enacted in the states of
Florida and Texas.
Ahead of the pack,
Texas enacted the Texas Privacy Act,
which went into effect on September
1, 2013. Under the Texas Privacy
Act, it is unlawful to use a drone to
capture an image of things “existing
on or about real property . . . or an
individual located on that property”
with the intent to be conducting
surveillance on the property or
person in the image. The Texas
Privacy Act creates a laundry list
of exemptions from the underlying
assumption of unlawfulness. Many
of these deal with specific industries
such as the oil industry; some are
larger, such as surveillance done for
professional or scholarly research.
On May 14, 2015, Florida’s
governor signed an act into law
that expanded the state’s Freedom
From Unwarranted Surveillance
Act. Under the act, it is unlawful for
any person to take an image using
a drone that violates an individual’s
reasonable expectation of privacy.
In addition, there is an exemption
for those licensed by the state if the
surveillance is related to their license.
Under the Florida law, an individual
that prevails at trial on a claim for
violation of the statute can recover
double their attorneys’ fees as well as
damages and injunctive relief.
But, even with the federal and
individual state governments taking
action in this arena, there are many
questions that remain unanswered.
For instance, how
high must a drone fly
above privately owned
real property before
it is not committing
a trespass? As far
back as the time of
the Romans, there
was a principle that
cuius est solum, eius
est usque ad coelom et ad inferos
(“whoever’s is the soil, it is theirs all
the way to Heaven and all the way to
Hell.”). However, as modern aviation
has developed, that tenet of property
law regarding air rights has been
cut down in the U.S. For instance,
one would not prevail against an
airline for flying a commercial jet
25,000 feet above his or her home nor
against a hospital for flying a medical
helicopter a 500 feet above his or her
home.
With drones, though, the line is
not as clear-cut. Small commercial
drones will be limited to a maximum
ceiling of 500 feet above surface
level, but what will their floor be
before a trespass action is risked?
Absent a legal certainty of where
the property right terminates and
open airspace begins, there is always
the risk of not knowing. Some
states, including Nevada, have taken
legislative action setting a maximum
height of real property rights in
this arena – with Nevada setting the
ceiling for trespass actions against
drones at 250 feet above real property.
However, Nevada’s statute gives
drones one liability-free incident, with
a precursor to a trespass action being
notification to the drone of a trespass
prior to a second incident.
Additionally, as the American
commercial drone industry comes
into full bloom, there will be a
tremendous need for commercial
drone liability insurance. With
stories like that in late May 2015
where a passenger jet in New York
claimed to have swerved to avoid a
drone, it is obvious that there could be
very large losses as a result of drone
usage. Some have criticized the FAA
for being too cautious introducing
commercial drones into the U.S.
aerospace, but the FAA’s empowering
act calls upon them to do so without
endangering the rest of that space. In
the Commercial UAS Modernization
Act pending before Congress, there
is a requirement for an attestation of
insurance coverage for drones that do
not otherwise qualify under existing
laws.
In the near future, there will
continue to be great developments
in the area of American drone law.
From additional privacy statutes to
developments regarding specialty
drone insurance policies and further
requirements of drone manufacturers
and operators to so-far-yet-unforeseen
areas of the law, there has never been
a better time to be in the drone field.
But, the technology will continue to
develop at breakneck speeds, and we
can only hope that the regulations
and law will do the same.
Comingsoon:Howthelawsoftrespass,
privacyandpropertyarestrugglingto
caterfordronesbyPeterBirkettofHoward
KennedyintheUK
thetechnologywill...
developatbreakneck
speeds,andwecan
onlyhopethatthe
regulations...willdo
thesame
US:state and federal laws NEXT ISSUE: THE SWEDISH TRANSPORT
AGENCY DISCUSSES ITS SIX YEARS
EXPERIENCE OF REGULATING DRONES

14. 14 www.roboticslawjournal.com
Driverless cars: legal changes
Rinspeed Budii
Concept driverless
car, as shown at
Geneva Motor
Show
Yauhen_D/Shutterstock.com
2015 is going to be the year in which
driverless cars will start appearing on
roads on both sides of the Atlantic.
Germany, eager to be a pioneer in the
auto sector, is working on new laws
to allow these vehicles to travel on
autobahns. But it will follow behind
the US and the UK where Tampa,
Florida and Greenwich, near London,
will be among the first locations to be
regularly ferrying passengers around –
probably by autumn.
Insurers and lawyers are among the
consortia working on these projects –
including insurers AXA and RSA in
the UK, for instance, as well as Wragge
Lawrence Graham. Wragge is part
of a consortium – with Ford, Jaguar
Land Rover, Tata and others – that
is planning to put three self-driving
vehicles on the footpaths of Milton
Keynes next year.
The fact that human error is now
involved in some 90%
of motor collisions
will create waves of
change for the whole
of the industry –
perhaps involving
the emergence of ‘a
complex and rapidly
shifting legal position’,
according to Stuart Young, head of
the auto group at Wragge. How will
the personal injury sector be affected?
Responding to Google’s plans for its
prototype driverless car, Eric Turkewitz
of New York personal injury firm
Turkewitz has blogged: ‘The issue
of lawsuits regarding the cars will,
I think, be vastly overwhelmed by a
huge reduction in collisions that result
from the most common forms of
human error’. And he concludes that
‘the need for my services as a personal
injury attorney will be reduced’.
But the developments will take a
while for the legal implications to be
worked out – perhaps as long as the
decade or so before driverless cars
are expected to be widely seen on
our highways. ‘On legal expenses
insurance, I wouldn’t touch it for a
while,’ says Steve Manton, formerly
chief executive of RSA’s legal expenses
subsidiary in the UK.
‘For driverless cars in a
driverless environment
it would be fine – but,
while you are mixing
it up, I can see it being
a nightmare.’ Stuart
Young of Wragge has
written: ‘The mixed use
Self-driving cars will lead to legal overhaul
world is probably the most difficult to
legislate for.’
All sorts of legal areas will need to
change. The Vienna Convention on
Road Traffic, on which most countries
base their laws governing transport
vehicles, is being changed to update
its requirement that ‘every moving
vehicle…shall have a driver’. There
are also concerns about cyber security
– particularly, the shock or terrorist
scenario of hackers taking over the
controls. The vehicles will create ‘a
lot of data’, according to Wragge –
making data protection a ‘live issue’ for
‘manufacturers, distributors, operators
and owners of connected vehicles’.
The whole approach to the law
on accidents might need to change
if courts struggle to decide who is
responsible for collisions in driverless
cars. Stuart Young says: ‘If that
becomes too difficult then the UK may
need to adopt a new way of dealing
with society’s collective risk in the
transport infrastructure, for example
with strict liability and a revised
approach to insurance.’
The launches of the first vehicles
will be joyous events – whether they
are taking visitors around the Science
Museum in Tampa, shuttling concert-
goers to Greenwich’s O2 Arena or
taking soldiers around in pod cars on
the Fort Bragg army hospital base in
North Carolina. Many law firms will
become involved in various different
ways as different legal issues emerge.
For instance, UK-based, international
firm Osborne Clarke is coming at the
issue more from a digital expertise and
smart cities angle.
Wragge, however, is the only law firm
involved in one of the three consortia
developing the first four pilots in the
UK – in Bristol and Coventry as well
as Milton Keynes and Greenwich. It
will be at the heart of the development
of new laws for a new transport
era. Stuart Young says: ‘While this
consortium is addressing the technical
issue of whether we can put driverless
cars on the public roads, it is also
considering how we should do that
to ensure society’s broader concerns
are addressed. Wragge Lawrence
Graham Co will be reviewing the
legal and ethical roadmap, as it were,
with a view to issuing White Papers
on subjects including data privacy and
the development of the law to allow
driverless cars.’
‘...theneedformy
servicesasapersonal
injuryattorneywillbe
reduced.’
NeasaMacErleanexplainssomeoftheprofoundimplicationsforlawyers
90%
Theproportionof
caraccidentscaused
byhumanerror

15. www.roboticslawjournal.com15
Driverless: insurance
will be desired in terms of the level
and range of cover e.g. compensation
in case of personal injury suffered in
an accident, repairs or replacement of
the damaged vehicle, legal fees cover
and so on. Although, we might see
some extensions to the range of cover
to accommodate new risks posed by
advancing technology. The type of risk
that springs immediately to mind is
personal data theft – with the driverless
cars of the future looking set to rely
on frequent and sometimes permanent
internet connection, this opens up the
potential for personal data theft.
However, I think we can expect to
see a change in the way premiums
are calculated – with a very different
factual basis being used to assess
the level of risk. With the owner
becoming less involved in driving the
vehicle, because technology is taking
their place, previously determinative
facts such as age, driving experience,
previous convictions will become less
relevant (although not totally irrelevant
for highly autonomous as opposed to
fully autonomous vehicles) in deciding
what level of risk an owner presents in
driving their vehicle. Human error is
currently thought to account for around
90% of the UK’s road accidents – so if
human error is removed, there will need
to be another way of calculating risk.
Instead, there will be a stronger focus
on the technology that is incorporated
into the vehicle to make it driverless,
and whether or not it is proven as
reliable or not. The causes of road
accidents for driverless vehicles are
more likely to be system malfunctions,
so reliability of technology becomes
especially relevant.
An area of increased complexity
for insurance companies to deal with
will be working out who is liable in
driverless situations. Legally, the law
works on the assumption that there
is a human driver, someone who
is in control of the car. But as the
control of the car starts to migrate
from traditional human driver to
computers, then we will see a change
from humans being held responsible,
to products – so a move from personal
liability to product liability. But then,
which product is to blame? As these
cars become increasingly complex
and sophisticated, so to we may see
an increase in the number of different
products being placed into a car as a
single unit – leading to complex liability
claims perhaps with multiple parties
responsible for accidents.
Doyouthinkthattheinsurancewillneed
todevelopworldwideorcoulditjust
developasandwhenneededcountryby
country?
As this is such a new area, I anticipate
that insurers will evaluate each country
on a case by case basis. If the law and
regulations are evolving relatively
uniformly worldwide (although Europe
wide is more relevant as you are more
likely to drive between European
countries as opposed to between UK and
US or India and Australia in the same
vehicle) then the insurance industry
can consider policies which apply cross
jurisdiction. But if different countries
take very different approaches – having
more stringent rules, or roads less suited
to driverless cars – then I anticipate
that insurers would take a different
approach. Perhaps adjusting premiums
accordingly – relating to increased risk
– or policies will be limited to certain
countries, or owners will have to accept
different levels of cover in different
countries. As such, different rules could
definitely make a difference to how
vehicles are currently insured.
Howfastwilldriverlesscarstakeoff/
wherewillwebein5years?Doyouthink
thatmorepeoplewilleventuallyend
upbuyingcarsiftheyaredriverless(as,
presumably,somepeople–suchasmyself
–areworriedabouttheirdrivingskills)?
I think it is useful to distinguish here
between highly and fully autonomous
vehicles here. Highly autonomous
vehicles, which will still have a driver
present to take control, are currently
being tested in the UK and I think we
could see them on the roads commercially
by late 2016 / early 2017. Currently,
they are very expensive but, as they
become more commercially available,
we can expect to see that price drop.
As such, we should probably see there
being a noticeable interest in buying
these vehicles over the next 18 – 24
months. However, bearing in mind that
new cars typically make up 10% of the
cars on the road at any one time, and not
everyone will want to buy a driverless
car, we shouldn’t expect a dramatic sea
change overnight to driverless vehicles.
Also, we can’t forget that some people
actually really enjoy driving!
Fully autonomous vehicles are much
further off. My view is that society
isn’t fully ready for the “living room
on wheels” concept from a safety
perspective, and also the law doesn’t
currently provide for vehicles with no
driver.
Howimportantisittodevelop
insurancefordriverlesscars?(Iewillthe
developmentofthembesloweddownif
theinsurancedoesnotdevelopwell?)
Very important – anyone wanting to
own a driverless car will need and most
likely want insurance. (And when I use
the term “driverless” I would tend to
focus more on highly autonomous as
opposed to fully autonomous vehicles
– the former are being tested in the
UK now and will reach our streets
commercially pretty soon, the latter
are, in my view, some way off.) Firstly,
it is illegal to drive a car on UK roads
without at least third party insurance
(and I can’t see that law being waived for
driverless cars). Secondly, we are very
much a culture which wants to protect
ourselves against risk. We know that
driving a car holds inherent risks, both
for us, passengers and other road users,
but insurance gives us protection against
the financial elements of those risks.
But, if insurance hasn’t developed
sufficiently to accommodate the
different liability positions that
driverless cars present, and so
doesn’t provide the level of insurance
protection that potential owners of
driverless cars need and expect, that
may act as a blocker to the uptake
of people purchasing these types of
vehicles. One of the first things many
people do when buying a car is obtain
an insurance quote: if insurance is
unobtainable for a car, then it is unlikely
to be an appealing investment.
That said, my view is the insurance
industry is very attuned to this issue
and has already invested a lot of
thought and energy in understanding
the risks so that it can properly insure
– both in terms of setting the correct
premiums and ensuring adequacy of
cover whilst limiting financial exposure.
Whatkindoflegalissueswouldbe
involved?(i.e.justthenormalissues
formotorinsuranceoristheremore–a
higherlevelofliabilityifthingsgowrong,
alongerchainofpeopletoblameif,for
instance,adriverlesscar’ssystemswent
wrong;municipalinsuranceforthetowns
involvedinthedriverlesscartrials….etc?)
I don’t believe that the way an
insurance policy looks to an owner of a
driverless car will change dramatically
from how existing motor insurance
policies look. Largely similar outcomes
A revamp of laws for robotsstarts on the roads
ClaireTempleofOsborneClarkeexplainswhythe
insuranceissuesmustberesolvedbeforethesector
takesoff
Wecould
expectto
seehighly
autonomous
carsonthe
roadsbylate
2016orearly
2017
CHILDREN BORN TODAY MIGHT BE THE LAST
GENERATION WHICH LEARNS TO DRIVE

16. 16 www.roboticslawjournal.com
NEXT ISSUE - SEPTEMBER Features include: AI: Are the three rules of Isaac Asimov
a good start? Algorithms: Are they potentially dangerous? Do we need to regulate
them? Employment: Can trade unions protect human jobs? Privacy: QA with the
UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office US: The best way to develop privacy rules on
drones Pilot: A view from one of the world’s first drone pilots COMING SOON Update :
UK-Property,trespassandprivacy-PeterBirkettofHowardKennedy
www.roboticslawjournal.comEditor:NeasaMacErlean,neasamacerlean@globalcitymedia.com.Editor-in-Chief:MaryHeaney,maryheaney@globalcitymedia.com.Chief
OperationsOfficer:BenMartin,benmartin@globalcitymedia.com. CommercialandEventsDirector:MariaSunderland,mariasunderland@globalcitymedia.com.HeadofAsia:
ClaudiaTan,claudiatan@globalcitymedia.com.HeadofDigital:ElanganathapillaiSivakanthan,siva@globalcitymedia.com.Design:PaulCarpenter,StimulusDesign.paul@stimul.us
Subscriptions:T:+44(0)2071935801subscriptions@globalcitymedia.com.Whileallreasonablecarehasbeentakeninthepreparationofthispublication,noliabilityisaccepted
bythepublishernorbyanyoftheauthorsofthecontentofthepublicationforanylossordamagecausedtoanypersonrelyingonanystatementoromissioninthepublication.All
rightsreserved,nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystemortransmittedinanyformorbyanymeans,electrical,mechanical,digital,photocopying,
recordingorotherwisewithoutthepriorwrittenpermissionofthepublisher.
Publishedby:GCMPublishing,GlobalCityMediaLtd,86-90PaulStreet,London,EC2A4NE,UnitedKingdom.T:+44(0)02071935801
©2015GlobalCityMediaLtdAllrightsreserved.
SUBSCRIPTIONINFORMATION
TheRoboticsLawJournalwillprovidelawyersandothersworkingintheindustrywitha
clearunderstandingoftheincreasingopportunitiesthatarenowpresentingthemselves
tomanufacturersandusersofroboticsandAI–andalltheregulationthatthisneedsandentails.
Centraltothejournalwillbethefocusonthedronesector–predictedtobecomeanindustrywhichwill
bebiggerthanthatofmannedaviation.
YOURANNUALSUBSCRIPTIONTOTHEROBOTICSLAWJOURNALWILLBRINGYOU:
TheRoboticsLawJournaldeliveredtoyoubi-monthly(6peryear)inadigitalpdfformatviaemail.
FirstissueJuly2015. Apaper(hardcopy)editionmailedtoyou(optional)
FullaccesstotheRoboticsLawJournalonlineservice(launchingSeptember)whichwillinclude:
lLatestissuesandarchivedissues
lAllpremiumeditorialcontent
lRegulationupdate
lNewsalertsbringingyouthelatestbreakingnews
lTimelineofkeyindustryregulatoryandothermilestones
lDronesFocus
lSubscriptionmoneybackguaranteeforthefirsttwoissues
LAUNCHSUBSCRIPTIONOFFER–SAVINGYOUUPTO50%
Formoreinformationonrates,thelaunchofferandtosubscribepleasecontact
subscriptions@globalcitymedia.comorcall+44(0)2071935801
Analysisandinsightfortheindustry–lawyers,regulators,manufacturersandusers