Dual erosion of equality and remedy in algorithmic decision systems
Identification
- Public canonical key
- radar:r-dff5dfa9edc0d6d5c69b477ca47ade7e
- Authors
- Bhavya Johari
- Reported year
- 2026
- Reported language
- en
- Source type
- article
- First detected
- 2026-11-14T02:04:53.418211+00:00
- Last metadata observation
- 2026-11-14T02:04:53.418211+00:00
- Last HTTP verification
- Not checked
Institutions reported by the source
O. P. Jindal Global University
Reported affiliation countries
IN
Documentary abstract — original language
This article develops a dual erosion framework demonstrating how Artificial Intelligence systems simultaneously undermine equality rights through discriminatory outcomes and obstruct effective remedies through opacity. Through comparative case synthesis spanning criminal justice algorithms in the United States and Canada, welfare eligibility systems in the European Union (EU) and India, credit scoring in Germany, employment screening, and content moderation, the analysis reveals that equality risk and remedy risk operate interdependently rather than in parallel. Biased algorithmic outputs become unreviewable due to opacity, while opacity enables bias to persist undetected. The article examines regulatory responses under the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, the Digital Services Act, and the revised Santa Clara Principles, proposing concrete implementation frameworks that include discovery protocols reconciling trade secrets with due process, burden-shifting standards adapted from employment discrimination law, risk-tiered due diligence requirements, independent audit mechanisms, and participatory governance models. These findings advance algorithmic accountability scholarship by providing adjudicable standards for courts and regulators, while demonstrating that comprehensive governance requires integrated approaches that address both equality and remedy dimensions.
Identifiers
- OPENALEX
- https://openalex.org/W7130361762
- DOI
- 10.1007/s44163-026-01040-6
Documentary context
- Documentary family
- article
- Source-reported types
- article
- Publishers
- Springer Nature
Entity mentions are not evidence of legal recognition. Jurisdiction studied is separate from author affiliation country.
Sources
OpenAlex · Record 1
Cite this reference
Bhavya Johari. Dual erosion of equality and remedy in algorithmic decision systems. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-026-01040-6
JSON · CSL-JSON · BibTeX · RIS · CSV · JSON-LD ·
APA, Chicago, ISO 690: bibliographic formats using available fields. OSCOLA / Bluebook: structured data only; full legal citation compliance is not claimed without verification of required elements.
- APA
- Bhavya Johari. (2026). Dual erosion of equality and remedy in algorithmic decision systems. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-026-01040-6
- Chicago
- Bhavya Johari. Dual erosion of equality and remedy in algorithmic decision systems. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-026-01040-6
- ISO 690
- Bhavya Johari. Dual erosion of equality and remedy in algorithmic decision systems. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-026-01040-6
Warning: Undefined array key "last_link_verified" in /home/clients/e27d81e12f04d2bfd747aa264540ac56/sites/_UDTR_APP/legal_library_reference.php on line 31
UDTR Global Rights of Nature Legal Library. Dual erosion of equality and remedy in algorithmic decision systems. Documentary record: https://www.declarationuniverselledesdroitsdelarbre.org/global-rights-of-nature-radar/reference/r-dff5dfa9edc0d6d5c69b477ca47ade7e/ · Last HTTP verification: not performed
Research dossiers and documentary relations
Source roles
Bibliographic / original publication source · https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-026-01040-6
An authority link alone does not verify a legal claim. Abstracts and full texts remain subject to their source terms.
Documentary status
Relevance pending
Library
This identity is not yet included in the Legal Library.