Cover photo

💥 Web3 & Legal Causality ⚖️

Who caused what?

Hey there, Web3 pioneers 🕵️‍♂️ and legal eagles 🦅

Welcome back to "You Probably Need a Web3 Lawyer," where we unravel the mysteries of law & the decentralized frontier.

Today, let's get straight to the heart of the matter.

🕵️ Law: The Quest for Causality

Law is all about figuring out who caused what. When disputes arise, we dig deep to uncover the truth behind the events, to balance the scales and set things right. And causality is the process of establishing a link between a party's actions and the harm suffered by another.

Predictability in the legal system hinges on causality. It ensures that outcomes are based on a rational understanding of cause and effect, which encourages responsible behavior and brings certainty to legal proceedings. But in the decentralized realm of Web3, reconciling causality isn't always straightforward. Trustless and autonomous systems pose unique challenges—sometimes, it appears that nobody did the thing!

Determining causality in Web3 requires a deep understanding of the underlying technology and how events unfold without direct human intervention.

For instance, smart contracts.

Traditional contract privity takes a back seat as smart contracts revolutionize the way parties interact. Within automated marketplaces, parties connect through predefined rules encoded in self-executing agreements. Code becomes the driving force, replacing the need for human intermediaries. Parties don't need to trust one another. They rely on the predictable and deterministic nature of the blockchain to enforce immutable contractual terms.

This blurring of privity brings both opportunities and challenges. While code-based automation can boost efficiency, reduce costs, and increase accessibility, it also raises questions about accountability and dispute resolution when conflicts arise.

Parties navigating this landscape must be capable of grasping the terms encoded in a smart contract to ensure clear and unambiguous language. Moreover, parties must be capable of assessing technological risks, recognizing that smart contracts typically lack built-in mechanisms for dispute resolution or traditional legal remedies.

So how would this work?

How would technology service providers pass on terms of service to their end users, particularly in relation to representations, warranties & indemnification?

👟 The Nike & RTFKT NFT Offering ⚡

An illustrative example of this challenge can be seen in the recent NFT offering by Nike and RTFKT Studios.

In their terms of service, RTFKT seeks to indemnify itself against any losses arising from vulnerabilities, failures, or abnormal behavior of software, the underlying blockchain, or other third-party services or infrastructure.

Its terms of service explicitly state, "We are not responsible for sustained losses due to vulnerability or any kind of failure, abnormal behavior of software (e.g., wallet, smart contract), the applicable blockchain or other third party service or infrastructure, including Supported Wallets and Supported Wallet Providers, or any other features of Digital Collectibles. We are not responsible for sustained losses due to late reports by developers or representatives (or no report at all) of any issues with the applicable blockchain supporting Digital Collectibles including forks, technical node issues or any other issues having fund losses as a result."

This indemnification clause raises some important questions about the allocation of risks and responsibilities within the Web3 ecosystem and the implications it has for Web3 businesses & end users.

  • Does the indemnification clause strike a fair balance between the risks borne by technology service providers and those imposed on end users?

  • How can we ensure that users are adequately protected and empowered within the Web3 ecosystem?

  • How does the indemnification clause impact users' trust and confidence in engaging with Web3 technologies?

  • Are there legal frameworks that could be developed or enhanced to address the challenges of risk allocation and indemnification in Web3?

These thought-provoking questions do not have simple answers; they require a delicate balance to be struck.

⚖️ Balancing User Protection and Web3 Technology 🔐

While it is understandable that technology service providers may seek to protect themselves from potential risks and liabilities, it is crucial to strike a balance between user protection and the integration of new technology.

While vulnerabilities, software failures, or issues with the underlying blockchain can result in financial losses, completely shifting the burden of these risks onto users through broad indemnification clauses leaves customers vulnerable and disadvantaged in the event of unforeseen circumstances.

To ensure a fair and transparent indemnification framework in the Web3 space, collaboration between technology service providers, legal experts, and user communities is vital. Some considerations for developing such a framework include:

  1. Clear Communication: Service providers should clearly communicate the risks involved and any limitations of their services to users, without burdening them with excessive indemnification clauses.

  2. Reasonable Liability: Indemnification clauses should be balanced and take into account the reasonable expectations and rights of users. Service providers should assume a certain level of responsibility for the services they offer.

  3. User Education: Providing educational resources to users about the risks and best practices of engaging with Web3 technologies can empower them to make informed decisions and take necessary precautions.

  4. Continuous Improvement: Technology service providers should actively work towards enhancing the security, reliability, and robustness of their offerings to minimize risks and protect user interests.

By fostering an environment that prioritizes user protection while acknowledging the limitations of any technology, the Web3 community can build trust and drive the broader adoption of blockchain-based solutions.

By addressing these challenges collaboratively and transparently, we can establish a more equitable framework that promotes responsible innovation and protects users in the dynamic landscape of Web3.

Of course, having a Web3 lawyer who understands the legal intricacies and technical aspects is essential. They can help shape the future of Web3 while safeguarding the rights and interests of all parties involved 💪⚖️🌐

Subscribe to "You Probably Need a Web3 Lawyer" to stay ahead of these issues!

Also feel free to join the Telegram to engage with other like-minded lawyers & technologists interested in these topics!

As always, thanks for reading ⚡

⚖️ 🌐 ⚡