Legislation in the age of innovation: regulating AI-driven child sexual abuse material in the European Union. Fact or fiction?

Abstract

This thesis, titled ‘Legislation in the Age of Innovation: Regulating AIDriven Child Sexual Abuse Material (AI CSAM) in the European Union (EU) – Fact or Fiction?’, sheds light on the complexity of regulating AI CSAM in the EU – a minefield of legal, ethical, and practical deficiencies. It reveals the imperative to address these intertwined conundrums, which are essential to achieve effective EU regulation of AI CSAM. This material, comprising digitally manipulated content of real children and AI-generated fictitious CSAM, perpetuates real CSAM through Generative AI (GenAI) models’ training data and weights. This blurring line between real and AI CSAM compels the EU to deepen its understanding and develop more effective legal strategies. The current EU legislative landscape, including the CSA Directive, the proposed CSAM Regulation, and the AI Act, overlooks the intricacies of AI CSAM, rendering it ill-equipped to combat its creation and dissemination. Additionally, regulating AI CSAM aligns poorly with general EU principles and key criminal law requisites, such as criminal intent, identifiable victims, and causation of real harm. Extending the criminal focus to GenAI models and their owners further complicates the fit within the traditional framework. These legislative impediments pose grave ethical hazards, normalising child sexual abuse, obstructing criminal investigations, (re-)victimising children, and escalating financial sextortion. Given the severe infringement upon child dignity, integrity, privacy, wellbeing, and protection, as well as their best interests, effective practical legal solutions are urgently needed. Yet, current regulatory obligations for GenAI models and online platforms are practically limited, given their circumvention and ineffectiveness in detecting AI CSAM. Therefore, a more intrusive, paradigm-shifting approach, including expanded criminal accountability, could enhance practical effectiveness. However, its authoritarian implications, conflicting with EU human rights and democratic values, undermine its practical feasibility. This spurs further research to explore innovative ways to combat these legal, ethical, and practical hurdles impeding effective EU regulation, while maintaining a pragmatic outlook.