Abstract:In recent years a substantial literature has emerged concerning bias, discrimination, and fairness in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning. Connecting this work to existing legal non-discrimination frameworks is essential to create tools and methods that are practically useful across divergent legal regimes. While much work has been undertaken from an American legal perspective, comparatively little has mapped the effects and requirements of EU law. This Article addresses this critical gap between legal, technical, and organisational notions of algorithmic fairness. Through analysis of EU non-discrimination law and jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and national courts, we identify a critical incompatibility between European notions of discrimination and existing work on algorithmic and automated fairness. A clear gap exists between statistical measures of fairness as embedded in myriad fairness toolkits and governance mechanisms and the context-sensitive, often intuitive and ambiguous discrimination metrics and evidential requirements used by the ECJ; we refer to this approach as "contextual equality."This Article makes three contributions. First, we review the evidential requirements to bring a claim under EU non-discrimination law. Due to the disparate nature of algorithmic and human discrimination, the EU's current requirements are too contextual, reliant on intuition, and open to judicial interpretation to be automated. Many of the concepts fundamental to bringing a claim, such as the composition of the disadvantaged and advantaged group, the severity and type of harm suffered, and requirements for the relevance and admissibility of evidence, require normative or political choices to be made by the judiciary on a case-by-case basis. We show that automating fairness or non-discrimination in Europe may be impossible because the law, by design, does not provide a static or homogenous framework suited to testing for discrimination in AI systems.Second, we show how the legal protection offered by non-discrimination law is challenged when AI, not humans, discriminate. Humans discriminate due to negative attitudes (e.g. stereotypes, prejudice) and unintentional biases (e.g. organisational practices or internalised stereotypes) which can act as a signal to victims that discrimination has occurred. Equivalent signalling mechanisms and agency do not exist in algorithmic systems. Compared to traditional forms of discrimination, automated discrimination is more abstract and unintuitive, subtle, intangible, and difficult to detect. The increasing use of algorithms disrupts traditional legal remedies and procedures for detection, investigation, prevention, and correction of discrimination which have predominantly relied upon intuition. Consistent assessment procedures that define a common standard for statistical evidence to detect and assess prima facie automated discrimination are urgently needed to support judges, regulators, system controllers and developers, and claimants.Finally, we examine how existing work on fairness in machine learning lines up with procedures for assessing cases under EU non-discrimination law. A 'gold standard' for assessment of prima facie discrimination has been advanced by the European Court of Justice but not yet translated into standard assessment procedures for automated discrimination. We propose 'conditional demographic disparity' (CDD) as a standard baseline statistical measurement that aligns with the Court's 'gold standard'. Establishing a standard set of statistical evidence for automated discrimination cases can help ensure consistent procedures for assessment, but not judicial interpretation, of cases involving AI and automated systems. Through this proposal for procedural regularity in the identification and assessment of automated discrimination, we clarify how to build considerations of fairness into automated systems as far as possible while still respecting and enabling the contextual approach to judicial interpretation practiced under EU non-discrimination law.

Investigating the Legality of Bias Mitigation Methods in the United Kingdom

What does it mean to solve the problem of discrimination in hiring? Social, technical and legal perspectives from the UK on automated hiring systems

Bias and Fairness in Computer Vision Applications of the Criminal Justice System

Algorithmic discrimination: examining its types and regulatory measures with emphasis on US legal practices

Formalising Anti-Discrimination Law in Automated Decision Systems

Mitigating Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: Evaluating Claims and Practices

Compatibility of Fairness Metrics with EU Non-Discrimination Laws: Demographic Parity & Conditional Demographic Disparity

A Comprehensive Empirical Study of Bias Mitigation Methods for Machine Learning Classifiers

Bias in Machine Learning Software: Why? How? What to do?

Bias Mitigation Methods for Binary Classification Decision-Making Systems: Survey and Recommendations

Whither Bias Goes, I Will Go: An Integrative, Systematic Review of Algorithmic Bias Mitigation

Bias and Discrimination in Ml-Based Systems of Administrative Decision-Making and Support

Why fairness cannot be automated: Bridging the gap between EU non-discrimination law and AI

AI’s fairness problem: understanding wrongful discrimination in the context of automated decision-making

Analyzing the European institutional response to ethical and regulatory challenges of artificial intelligence in addressing discriminatory bias

Integrating Behavioral, Economic, and Technical Insights to Understand and Address Algorithmic Bias: A Human-Centric Perspective

An Introduction to Artificial Intelligence and Solutions to the Problems of Algorithmic Discrimination

AI Algorithmic Bias: Understanding its Causes, Ethical and Social Implications

Bias Impact Analysis of AI in Consumer Mobile Health Technologies: Legal, Technical, and Policy

Are Bias Mitigation Techniques for Deep Learning Effective?

Fairness and Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: a Multidisciplinary Survey