{"id":11774,"date":"2025-06-18T10:36:19","date_gmt":"2025-06-18T08:36:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.economiaediritto.it\/?p=11774"},"modified":"2025-06-18T10:36:19","modified_gmt":"2025-06-18T08:36:19","slug":"political-and-legal-challenges-to-enhance-consumer-protection-in-the-fintech-era","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.economiaediritto.it\/es\/political-and-legal-challenges-to-enhance-consumer-protection-in-the-fintech-era\/","title":{"rendered":"Political and legal challenges to enhance consumer protection in the Fintech era"},"content":{"rendered":"

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n

The rapid integration of artificial intelligence and fintech is transforming banking and finance, necessitating substantial updates to existing legal frameworks to manage new market entrants and disintermediation. This paper presents a systematic literature review, employing VOSviewer software and the DoGi database, to analyze fintech\u2019s diffusion, focusing on cryptocurrencies. The analysis highlights extensive academic discussions on fintech\u2019s legal classification and emphasizes the urgent need for clear regulations at both European and national levels to enhance consumer protection. It identifies legislative gaps and significant knowledge asymmetries concerning digital technologies, stressing the importance of aligning new financial practices with traditional consumer safeguards. The paper recommends applying existing legal norms from civil and financial codes as immediate solutions to protect consumers effectively. Ultimately, this research contributes actionable insights for regulating fintech to safeguard consumer interests against emerging risks in digital finance.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Key-words: <\/strong>Fintech regulation, Innovation, Digital transformation, Open innovation, Customers<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Introduction<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The increasing use of technology in socio-economic relations significantly impacts existing legal categories and institutions (Irti, 1998). Technological advancement has consistently accompanied social progress. Artificial intelligence (‘AI’), designed to operate independently using machine learning, deep learning, and neural networks, mimics the human brain’s functioning (Natale, 2022). The transition from automation to autonomy underpins the rapid acceleration these systems have experienced in economic and legal contexts. Artificial intelligence, understood as the “science of making computers do” (Natale, 2022), can interact externally, thus raising new ethical reflections and considerations in economic law analysis (Ruffolo, 2021). The adoption of AI in socio-economic relations notably affects the banking and financial sectors (Quintais et al., 2019), largely due to the rise of Fintech. Fintech broadly applies technology to finance, innovating business models, processes, and products. This phenomenon, characterized by evolving and fluid boundaries, defies fixed operational definitions (Paracampo, 2021). Digital platforms increasingly dominate markets (EBA, 2018), shifting the focus from traditional to digital banks, indicating that technology and science have outpaced economics and law (Alpa, 2019). Fintech encompasses multiple financial activities, including corporate finance, investment management, payment services, insurtech, and cloud technology (Thakor, 2020). New market entrants challenge the bank-centric model, introducing subjective pluralization and requiring revisions of existing legal frameworks (Arner et al., 2022). Global technology firms without traditional banking expertise, such as Amazon, Facebook, Alibaba, Apple, and Samsung (Frost et al., 2019), now offer financial services, intensifying issues around personal data protection and user profiling. AI’s international proliferation necessitates “legal globalization” (Galgano, 2005) and coordinated intervention by Member States. Furthermore, the ongoing technological revolution significantly disrupts contractual practices, prompting new regulatory frameworks and legal categories. The expansion of cryptocurrencies, particularly bitcoin (Nakamoto, 2008), enhances Fintech’s reach (Alpa, 2020; Capaccioli, 2015). The recent MiCA Regulation (European Regulation 2023\/1114) defines cryptocurrency as a digital representation of value or rights electronically transferable via distributed ledger technologies. Yet, cryptocurrency’s legal status remains unclear. Although regulatory frameworks are still evolving, Fintech literature rapidly expands, highlighting the urgent need for systematic knowledge organization to identify future research gaps (Thakor, 2020; Alpa, 2019; Falcone, 2018). Given these changes, this paper provides a systematic literature review (network and content analysis) examining Fintech’s diffusion across its various forms (cryptocurrency, alternative financing, payment services), highlighting disintermediation and decentralization within traditional banking and financial systems (De Stasio, 2020; Howell et al., 2020). The research investigates whether the legal discourse has evolved proportionally with Fintech’s spread and identifies literature gaps. The paper is structured as follows: section 2 (Data collection) describes database usage, data collection methods, and document analysis; section 3 (Methodology) details data analysis approaches; section 4 (Results) presents findings with three graphs (topics, paper focus, keywords); section 5 (Discussion) interprets results, highlighting literature gaps; finally, section 6 (Conclusion) suggests future research directions and customer protection measures.<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Methodology<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      The studies analyzed were extracted from the DoGi (Dottrina Giuridica Italiana) database, containing around 514,495 bibliographic references from major Italian legal journals since 1970. DoGi provides abstracts of printed and electronic articles, selecting journals based on their scientific relevance and practitioner interest (Faro and Peruginelli, 2017; Marinai and Peruginelli, 2015). Keywords used for the extraction \u201cFintech\u201d, \u201cCryptocurrencies\u201d, and \u201cBitcoin\u201d\u2014were connected by the Boolean operator “OR”, resulting in 326 documents retrieved on 28 March 2024. Quality assurance was based on the Italian ANVUR classification, selecting only grade A journals in area 12 (Legal Sciences) (Cicero and Malgarini, 2020). Ultimately, 277 documents were exported with details on authors, titles, publication journals, keywords, publication years, abstracts, and research scope. Subsequently, a two-stage methodological approach involving content analysis and network analysis was applied. Content analysis summarized literature trends, highlighting both prevalent (hot spots) and neglected topics (blind spots) to identify gaps and future research opportunities (Gaur and Kumar, 2018; Sassmannshausen and Volkmann, 2018). Network analysis, employing computational tools, enabled a holistic view of multidisciplinary research trends, mapping publications, forecasting developments, and identifying critical gaps. VOS viewer software was used, focusing on keyword co-occurrence analysis (Van Eck and Waltman, 2008). The co-occurrence analysis applied the ‘full counting’ method, weighing all co-occurrences equally. From 238 initial keywords, 43 with at least five occurrences were selected. Graphically, keywords were represented by circles varying in size based on frequency, connected by lines whose thickness indicated connection strength. Different colors denoted distinct research clusters (Waltmann et al., 2010). The visualization layout was generated using the associative strength normalization method (Van Eck and Waltman, 2009).<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Results<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        3.1. Interdisciplinary phenomenon<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

        The analysis produced several notable results, particularly highlighting the interdisciplinary nature of the phenomenon. Many examined articles covered multiple areas of law, with the analysis focused primarily on identifying the main legal field involved (Frost et al., 2019). European Union Law (14%), Banking Law and Financial Intermediaries (13%), Civil Law, Tax Law, and Commercial Law (each 12%) emerged as predominant. FinTech, inherently global, transcends national borders (Bevivino, 2023; Scipione, 2023). The European Union, influenced by its monetary policy (Marino, 2022; Favaro, 2020; Capriglione, 2018), significantly impacts the harmonization of member state regulations (De Las Hera Ballel, 2017), aiming to ensure competitive, transparent markets (Greco, 2022; Lemma, 2022; Perrone, 2020). Researchers extensively discussed the need for European regulation, particularly emphasizing the MiCA Regulation (2023\/1114), approved by the European Council on 16 May 2023 following the European Parliament\u2019s earlier vote (Zetzsche et al., 2019). Recent research (Lener, 2023; Sannikova, 2023; Piattelli, 2022) has explored its scope, definition, offering methods for crypto-assets, and requirements for cryptocurrency service providers (Cappelli, 2023; Piattelli, 2022). Civil and Commercial Law articles (12% each) focused on defining new legal categories and asset circulation among private entities. Banking law and financial intermediaries extensively analyzed FinTech aspects, such as smart contracts, financing methods, and payment services, including regulations on equity crowdfunding (Valiante, 2018) and PSD 2 (De Stasio, 2020). Securities market research (7%) addressed monetary control and asset circulation regulations. Tax Law (12%) examined taxation frameworks for cryptocurrencies (Pederzini, 2022). International and Comparative Law (7%) and Legal Informatics (7%) highlighted FinTech\u2019s global implications, comparative legal studies (Carriero, 2022), data protection, and electronic documentation (Mezzacapo, 2022). Criminal law studies (5%) investigated cryptocurrency-related crimes, money laundering, and terrorism financing, while Business law articles (2%) focused on sustainability and environmental impacts. Additional legal fields grouped as ‘other’ (8%) include insurance law, ADR, religious law, labor law, economic law, and administrative law, notably excluding supervisory authority discussions categorized under European Union and Securities Market Law. Overall, the findings underline FinTech\u2019s profound interdisciplinary and international character. Future regulatory developments, such as the Italian legislative response and MiCA Regulation implementation, will likely influence the distribution of research topics.<\/p>\n

        3.2. The qualification issue and other focus areas<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

        The analysis further explored the specific focus of contributions, given FinTech\u2019s interdisciplinary nature. Most researchers (23%) addressed the legal qualification of fintech and cryptocurrency, attempting definitions and clarifications. Due to the absence of specific regulations, detailed studies sought to determine its legal nature and potential inclusion within existing frameworks. Regarding cryptocurrency, particularly bitcoin, debates arose around its comparability to electronic money and payment services regulations (De Stasio, 2020). Researchers highlighted the non-legal status of virtual currencies and the absence of supervision by central banks, suggesting cryptocurrencies serve as alternative payment instruments without obligatory acceptance. Some proposed classifying cryptocurrency as immaterial, fungible assets under art. 810 c.c. (Battelli, 2022), while others recommended applying financial product rules due to their volatility (Caloni, 2019). The ongoing uncertainty implies future debates will increase as regulations evolve. A significant portion of articles (13%) emphasized the need for dedicated regulations, with recent attention on the MiCA Regulation. Another key focus (10%) was the disintermediation enabled by DLT and blockchain technologies, eliminating human intermediaries through cryptographic consensus systems (Arner et al., 2022; Di Ciommo, 2020). This shift allowed technology giants (e.g., Google, Netflix, Uber, Airbnb, Amazon, PayPal) to perform roles traditionally held by banks, raising issues around personal data management (4%), social impacts such as sustainability (4%), and customer protection (7%) (Arner et al., 2022; Frost et al., 2019). Privacy concerns mainly related to new entrants accessing banking information and the risks of cyber fraud. Customer protection, although frequently mentioned (7%), rarely provided detailed solutions. Few studies addressed pre-contractual and contractual protections in fintech contexts, particularly emphasizing the importance of robust pre-contractual information and digital exchange platform security, along with the PSD 2’s strong authentication measures. Liability and consumer recourse in cases involving fintech services were rarely examined, highlighting potential risks arising from minimal oversight and low operational costs. Institutions, despite lower research attention (<4%), were included due to their social significance in FinTech\u2019s ongoing evolution.<\/p>\n

        3.3. Fintech: one genus for four species<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

        As shown in Figure 1, our clusters have been identified, with a split indication of relevant keywords, the results of which are in line with the results of the previous paragraph. The most frequently used keyword was ‘cryptocurrency’ and it is also the term with the strongest connection to the topics of the 4 clusters.<\/p>\n

        Figure 1 \u2013 Co-occurrence analysis<\/strong><\/p>\n

        \"\"<\/p>\n

        Cluster 1 focuses on the diffusion of FinTech, emphasizing artificial intelligence and technological innovation driving disintermediation and decentralization within the banking-financial system through digital platforms and algorithms (Arner et al., 2022; Tertilt and Scholz, 2019). Authors stressed the necessity of clear regulations to ensure transparency and user information, highlighting gaps in existing supervisory mechanisms (Sandei, 2020). Cluster 2, the largest, covers European regulatory measures and smart contracts’ impacts on consumer contracts in banking and financial investments (Annunziata, 2020; Frost et al., 2019). Research addressed the role of supervisory authorities (EBA, ESMA, ECB) in maintaining market integrity and managing privacy concerns related to technology use. Cluster 3 includes commercial law studies, particularly on cryptocurrency (bitcoin) as potential contributions to limited liability companies’ share capital (Cian, 2023; Murino, 2019; De Stasio, 2020). This area, already examined by case law, emphasizes cryptocurrency’s interdisciplinary complexities. Cluster 4 addresses tax-related issues, especially VAT regimes for electronic money and cryptocurrency, and money laundering concerns, often compared with the U.S. legal framework (Schiavone, 2021; Scalia, 2020; Maugeri, 2020). Key terms here are “electronic money” and “cryptocurrency,” extensively analyzed for their similarities and differences.<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. Customer protection: a gap in the literature and regulations <\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          The analyses highlight extensive literature addressing FinTech\u2019s legal classification, particularly cryptocurrencies, and consistently emphasize the urgent need for specific regulations at both European and national levels. Discussions on supervisory authorities, personal data protection, taxation, and corporate participation are well-covered, anticipating further studies upon future regulation. However, customer protection remains inadequately explored. Existing studies underscore the necessity of safeguarding customers but often lack concrete procedural recommendations. Additionally, customer recourse in cases of default or provider liability remains largely unaddressed. Given the current regulatory vacuum, a key question is whether customer-provider relationships can align with existing legal frameworks. Article 47 of the Italian Constitution mandates the protection of savings and customer interests, recognizing customers as the weaker contractual party. This inherent contractual imbalance justified Italy’s adoption of specific banking and financial regulations, namely the “Testo Unico Bancario” and “Testo Unico Finanziario” (Greco, 2009). FinTech\u2019s expansion in banking and finance has driven disintermediation, involving entities outside traditional banking and financial intermediary definitions. Such changes reflect broader economic and social shifts but must not disadvantage users, who engage in contracts comparable to traditional financial transactions. The asymmetry in user knowledge and understanding of digital technologies further accentuates customer vulnerability. Consequently, systematic literature analysis indicates a clear need for legislative intervention and for scholars to propose effective customer protection mechanisms, including remedies for provider liability. Enhanced customer protection supports overall market integrity and strengthens consumer confidence.<\/p>\n

            \n
          1. Conclusion: a remedial solution for customer protection<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            The results highlight the need for future research to focus on customer protection and available remedies within the fintech sector. In the absence of specific regulations, Italian experts should determine which existing provisions in the Civil Code, the Consolidated Law on Banking (TUB), and the Consolidated Law on Finance (TUF) apply to fintech activities. Transparency rules in Articles 115 et seq. of the TUB apply exclusively to banks, and referencing the Consumer Code is not suitable, as it excludes non-consumer users. Therefore, pending new regulation, we suggest applying general principles of good faith, fairness, and diligence outlined in Articles 1175, 1176, 1370, and 1375 of the Civil Code. In cases involving financial investments, TUF regulations remain directly applicable. Regarding cryptocurrency, the MiCA Regulation has addressed the issuing procedures and liability for inaccuracies in white papers but has not established detailed disclosure rules for each transaction. Existing standards from traditional finance\u2014such as KYC (“Know Your Customer”)\u2014should also be consistently applied to crypto-assets. Currently, regulatory interventions are fragmented and insufficient, leading to confusion and regulatory gaps. Thus, a systematic and comprehensive legislative approach is urgently required, along with clear customer protection measures. Academic literature must support a careful and balanced digital transition, placing customer and investor protection at the forefront of regulatory considerations.<\/p>\n

            References<\/strong><\/p>\n

            Alpa, G. (2019). Fintech: un laboratorio per i giuristi. Contratto e Impresa, 2<\/em>,<\/em> 377.<\/p>\n

            Annunziata, F. (2019). Distributed ledger technology e mercato finanziario: dalle prime posizioni ESMA alle ultime proposte. In M. T. Paracampo (Ed.), Fintech. Introduzione ai profili giuridici di un mercato unico tecnologico dei servizi digitali<\/em> (p. 332).<\/p>\n

            Annunziata, F. (2020). Verso una disciplina europea delle cripto-attivit\u00e0. Riflessioni a margine ella recente proposta della Commissione UE. Diritto Bancario<\/em>, Retrieved from https:\/\/www.dirittobancario.it\/art\/verso-una-disciplina-europea-delle-cripto-attivita-riflessioni-margine-recente-proposta-commissione\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n

            Arner, D. W., Castellano, G., & Selga, E. K. (2022). The datafication of finance, the rise of open banking and the end of the data centralization paradigm. Financial Data Governance, 8<\/em>. Retrieved from\u00a0https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=4040604<\/a>.<\/p>\n

            Basel Committe on Banking Supervision (2017). Sound practices: Implications of fintech developments for banks and bank supevisors. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.bis.org\/bcbs\/publ\/d431.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

            Battelli, E. (2022). Epistemologia dei beni immateriali: inquadramento sistematico e spunti critici. Giust. Civ.<\/em>, 1<\/em>, 49-96.<\/p>\n

            Bevivino, V. (2023). Il rischio sistemico generato dalla “FinTech”. Il nuovo diritto delle societ\u00e0<\/em>, 21<\/em>, 419-455.<\/p>\n

            Caloni, A. (2019). Bitcoin: profili civilistici e tutela dell\u2019investitore. Riv. dir. civ.<\/em>, 1<\/em>, 159-182.<\/p>\n

            Cappelli, I. (2023). La struttura finanziaria delle imprese e gli strumenti finanziari digitali. Prime considerazioni tra decentralizzazione e regolazione nel contesto del DLT Pilot Regime e del Decreto FinTech. Il diritto dell\u2019informazione e dell\u2019informatica giuridica<\/em>, 39(4)<\/em>, 645-677.<\/p>\n

            Capriglione, F. (2018). Considerazioni a margine del volume Il tramonto della banca universale?. Rivista trimestrale di diritto dell\u2019economia, 1<\/em>, 1-23.<\/p>\n

            Carriero, V. (2022). Tecnofinanza e sperimentazioni: primi spunti di comparazione giuridica. Comparazione e diritto civile<\/em>, 2<\/em>.<\/p>\n

            Cian, M. (2023). Noterelle su finanziariet\u00e0 e non finanziariet\u00e0 nei crypto-assets: la Suprema Corte sulla natura del servizio di exchange. Banca, borsa, titoli di credito, 2<\/em>, 3-9.<\/p>\n

            De Las Hera Ballel, T. R. (2017). The Legal Anatomy of Electronic Platforms: A Prior Study to Assess the Need of a Law of Platforms in the EU. Italian Law Journal<\/em>, 3(1)<\/em>, 149-176.<\/p>\n

            De Stasio, V. (2020). Le monete virtuali: natura giuridica e disciplina dei prestatori di servizi connessi. In M. Cian & C. Sandei (Eds.), Diritto del Fintech<\/em> (pp. 240\u2013ss). Padua.<\/p>\n

            Di Ciommo, F. (2020), La conclusione e l\u2019esecuzione automatizzata dei contratti (smart contract), in Cassano, G., Di Ciommo, F., Rubino De Ritis, M. (Ed.), Banche, intermediari e fintech. Nuovi strumenti digitali in ambito finanziario<\/em>, (pp. 85-ss). Milan.<\/p>\n

            European Banking Authority. (2018). EBA report on the impact of fintech on incumbent credit institutions\u2019 business models. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.eba.europa.eu<\/a>.<\/p>\n

            Falcone, G. (2018). Tre idee intorno al c.d. \u201cFintech\u201d. Rivista di Diritto Bancario, 2<\/em>, 353.<\/p>\n

            Faro, S., & Peruginelli, G. (2017). La dottrina giuridica e la sua diffusione. Turin. Giappichelli.<\/p>\n

            Favaro, T. (2020) La valuta digitale della Banca Centrale tra funzione monetaria e tutela del risparmio. Rivista trimestrale diritto dell\u2019economia, 2, <\/em>353.<\/p>\n

            Ferrarini, F. – Giudici, P. (2021) Digital Offerings and Mandatory Disclosure: A Market-Based Critique to MiCA, ECGI Law<\/em>, n. 605, Retrieved from\u00a0https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=3914768<\/a>.<\/p>\n

            Frost, J., Gambacorta L., Huang, Y., Shin, H.S., Zbinden, P. (2019), BigTech and changing structure of financial intermediation. BIS Working Papers<\/em>, 779.<\/p>\n

            Galgano, F. (2005). La globalizzazione nello specchio del diritto<\/em>. Bologna.<\/p>\n

            Gambacorta, L., Huang, Y., Qiu, H., Wang, J. (2019) How do machine learning and non-traditional data effect credit scoring? New evidence from Chinese fintech firm. In BIS Working Papers<\/em>, 834.<\/p>\n

            Gaur, A., & Kumar, M. (2018). A systematic approach to conducting review studies: An assessment of content analysis in 25 years of IB research. Journal of World Business, 53(2)<\/em>, 280-289.<\/p>\n

            Greco, F. (2010). Informazione pre-contrattuale e rimedi nella disciplina dell\u2019intermediazione finanziaria. Milan.<\/p>\n

            Greco, F. (2021). Smart contract in the financial sector. Diritto bancario\u00b83<\/em> (pp. 599-621).<\/p>\n

            Howell, S. T., Niessner, M., & Yermack, D. (2018). Initial coin offerings: Financing growth with cryptocurrency token sales. ECGI, 564<\/em>. Retrived from\u00a0https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=3201259<\/a>\u00a0or\u00a0http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.2139\/ssrn.3201259<\/a>.<\/p>\n

            Irti, N. (1998). Scambi senza accordo. Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto e Procedura Civile, 2<\/em>, 347-ss.<\/p>\n

            Marinai, E., & Peruginelli, G. (2015). La banca dati DoGi e la condivisione dei dati giuridici: nuovi orizzonti. In O. Bonora et al. (Eds.), Ecosistemi per la ricerca Atti Convegno ACNP\/NILDE<\/em> (pp. 57-74). Trieste.<\/p>\n

            Lemma, V. (2022). Quali controlli per le valute virtuali?. Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto dell\u2019Economia<\/em>. 3(1)<\/em> Retrieved from\u00a0https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=4344913<\/a>.<\/p>\n

            Lener, R. (2022). Cripto-attivit\u00e0 e criptovalute alla luce degli ultimi orientamenti comunitari. In Governance e mercati. Studi in onore di Paolo Montalenti <\/em>(pp. 2109-2119). Turin.<\/p>\n

            Marino, G. (2022). Verso l’Euro digitale: la moneta legale nell’epoca della digitalizzazione. Jus civile<\/em>, 4<\/em>, 917-928.<\/p>\n

            Mattossoglio, F. (2020) La valutazione \u201cinnovativa\u201d del merito creditizio del consumatore e le sfide per il regolatore. Dir. banc. Merc. Fin.<\/em>, 1<\/em>, 187-ss.<\/p>\n

            Maugeri, M. (2021), Smart Contracts e disciplina dei contratti, Bologna.<\/p>\n

            Mezzacapo, S. (2019), Digitalizzazione e semplificazione normativa per la identificazione e “contrattualizzazione” online della clientela in ambito bancario, finanziario e assicurativo, tra stato di emergenza pandemica e accentuata funzionalizzazione dei requisiti di forma. Diritto Bancario, 1,<\/em> 123\u2013176.<\/p>\n

            Murino, F. (2019), Il conferimento di token e criptovalute nelle srl. Societ\u00e0,<\/em> 1<\/em>, 26-ss.<\/p>\n

            Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.bitcoin.org<\/a>.<\/p>\n

            Natale, A. (2022). Intelligenza artificiale e fintech: profili di responsabilit\u00e0. In Fintech<\/em> (p. 39). Milan.<\/p>\n

            Paracampo M. T. (2022), La consulenza su cripto-attivit\u00e0 nella proposta di regolamento europeo MiCA tra presunte equivalenze e distonie normative con Mifid 2. Dir. della banca e del mercato finanziario<\/em>, 1<\/em>, pp. 229-ss..<\/p>\n

            Paracampo, M. T. (Ed.). (2021). Fintech e il mercato unico tecnologico dei servizi finanziari. In Fintech. Introduzione ai profili giuridici di un mercato unico tecnologico dei servizi finanziari<\/em> (pp. 3-4). Turin.<\/p>\n

            Pederzini, E. (2022). La tracciabilit\u00e0 dei movimenti finanziari tra anonimato e pseudonimato: “FinTech”, incorporazione del diritto nella tecnica e paradigma “by design”. Diritto bancario, 1<\/em>, 79-105.<\/p>\n

            Perrone, A. (2020). La nuova vigilanza “RegTech” e capitale umano. Banca, borsa, titoli di credito<\/em>, 4<\/em>, 516-526.<\/p>\n

            Piattelli, U. (2022). Lo sviluppo delle cripto attivit\u00e0 verr\u00e0 messo alla prova delle nuove regole adottate dagli Stati Membri e dal legislatore europeo?. Il nuovo diritto delle societ\u00e0, 20(12)<\/em>, 2397-2448.<\/p>\n

            Quintais, J. P., Bod\u00f3, B., Giannopoulou, A., Ferrari, A. (2019). Blockchain and the law: A critical evaluation. Stanford Journal of Blockchain Law & Policy, 2<\/em>, 1. Retrieved from\u00a0https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=3317404<\/a><\/p>\n

            Ruffolo, U. (2021). Le responsabilit\u00e0 della produzione e gestione di intelligenza artificiale self-learning. In XXVI lezioni di diritto dell\u2019intelligenza artificiale<\/em> (p. 121). Turin.<\/p>\n

            Sandei, C. (2020). La regolazione dei servizi finanziari di comunicazione dati in Europa e negli Stati Uniti: problemi e prospettive di riforma a confronto. Banca, borsa, titoli di credito, 6, <\/em>835-849.<\/p>\n

            Sannikova, L. (2023) ESG vs Cryptoassets: Pros and Contras. Giurisprudenza commerciale, 1 <\/em>pp. 156. Retrieved from\u00a0https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=4359861<\/a>.<\/p>\n

            Sassmannshausen, S. P., & Volkmann, C. (2018). The scientometrics of social entrepreneurship and its establishment as an academic field. Journal of Small Business Management, 56(2)<\/em>, 251-273.<\/p>\n

            Scalia, R. (2020). Riflessioni su alcuni temi controversi sulla disciplina IVA delle c.d. criptovalute. Giur. delle imposte<\/em>, 1<\/em>, 1-57.<\/p>\n

            Schiavone, F.P. (2021). La rivoluzione della criptosfera ed il suo impatto sulla finanza globale: Riflessioni sulla disciplina fiscale dei “crypto-assets”. Riv. dir. trib. int<\/em>., 3<\/em>., 207-ss.<\/p>\n

            Scipione, L. (2023). Il “framework” legale e di “governance” dell’euro digitale. Implicazioni giuridiche, tecnologiche e geopolitiche. Dir. merc. Ass. fin.<\/em>, 1<\/em>.<\/p>\n

            Tertilt, M., Scholz, P. (2018). To advice, or Not to Advice \u2013 How Robo-Advisor Evaluate the Risk Preferences of Private Investors. The Journal of Weath Management<\/em>, 21. Retrieved from\u00a0https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=2913178<\/a>.<\/p>\n

            Thakor, A. V. (2020). Fintech and banking: What do we know. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 41<\/em>. Retrieved from\u00a0https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=3429223<\/a>.<\/p>\n

            Valiante, D. (2018), Il crowdfunding e la nuova proposta di regolamento UE. Rivista di Diritto Societario, 4<\/em>, 959\u2013ss.<\/p>\n

            Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2008). Appropriate similarity measures for author co-citation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(10)<\/em>, 1653-1661.<\/p>\n

            Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2009). How to normalize cooccurrence data? An analysis of some well-known similarity measures. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8)<\/em>, 1635-1651.<\/p>\n

            Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2)<\/em>, 523-538.<\/p>\n

            Waltman, L., et al. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4)<\/em>, 629-635.<\/p>\n

            Zetzsche, A., Annunziata, F., Arner, D. W., Buckley, R. P. (2020), The Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MICA) and the EU Digital Finance Strategy. EBI<\/em>, 59<\/em>. Retrieved from\u00a0https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=3725395<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

            Abstract The rapid integration of artificial intelligence and fintech is transforming banking and finance, necessitating substantial updates to existing legal frameworks to manage new market entrants and disintermediation. This paper <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6129,"featured_media":11777,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[789,2615,2699,5,2696,1,2652,2700],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11774","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-banche-accordi-e-convenzioni","category-diritto-bancario-2","category-innovazione","category-fascicoli","category-n-143-06-2025","category-news","category-progresso","category-trasformazione-digitale"],"translation":{"provider":"WPGlobus","version":"3.0.2","language":"es","enabled_languages":["it","en","es"],"languages":{"it":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":false},"en":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false},"es":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false}}},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.economiaediritto.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/mondo-binario-scaled.jpg?fit=2560%2C1600&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9CRXF-33U","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.economiaediritto.it\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11774","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.economiaediritto.it\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.economiaediritto.it\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.economiaediritto.it\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6129"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.economiaediritto.it\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11774"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.economiaediritto.it\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11774\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11779,"href":"https:\/\/www.economiaediritto.it\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11774\/revisions\/11779"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.economiaediritto.it\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11777"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.economiaediritto.it\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11774"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.economiaediritto.it\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11774"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.economiaediritto.it\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11774"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}