[1. Berarducci, Patrick. “Collaborative Approaches to Blockchain Regulation: The Brooklyn Project Example.” Cleveland State Law Review Vol. 67 (2019): 22-30 // https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4022&context=clevstlrev.]Search in Google Scholar
[2. Davidson, Sinclair, Primavera De Filippi, and Jason Potts. “Economics of Blockchain” (March 8, 2016) // http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2744751.10.2139/ssrn.2744751]Search in Google Scholar
[3. EBA. “Report with advice for the European Commission” (9 January 2019) // https://eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/2545547/EBA+Report+on+crypto+assets.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[4. ESMA. “Initial Coin Offerings and Crypto-Assets.” Advice (9 January 2019) // https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/esma50-157-1391_crypto_advice.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[5. European Commission. “Online Platforms, and the Digital Single Market.” Communication, 25.5.2016 COM(2016) 288 final // https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-288-ENF1-1.PDF.]Search in Google Scholar
[6. FATF. “Virtual Currencies Key Definitions and Potential AML/CFT Risks.” FATF Report (June 2014) // https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/Virtual-currency-key-definitions-and-potential-aml-cft-risks.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[7. Fenwick, Mark, Joseph McCahery, and Erik Vermeulen. “The End of ‘Corporate’ Governance: Hello ‘Platform’ Governance.” European Business Organization Law Review Vol. 20 (2019): 171-199 // https://doi.org/10.1007/s40804-019-00137-z.10.1007/s40804-019-00137-z]Search in Google Scholar
[8. Finck, Michele. Blockchain Regulation and Governance in Europe. Cambridge University Press, 2019.10.1017/9781108609708]Search in Google Scholar
[9. Furrer, Andreas, and Luka Müller. “‘Functional equivalence’ of digital legal transactions – A fundamental principle for assessing the legal validity of legal institutions and legal transactions under Swiss law.” Jusletter (18 June 2018): 1-20 // https://www.mme.ch/fileadmin/files/documents/MME_Compact/2018/180619_Funktionale_AEquivalenz.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[10. Gudkov, Aleksei. “Control on Blockchain Network.” Nova Law Review Vol. 42 (2018): 353-374 // https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/novalr42&div=18&id=&page=.]Search in Google Scholar
[11. Hacker, Philipp, Ioannis Lianos, Georgios Dimitropoulos, and Stefan Eich, eds. Regulating Blockchain Techno-Social and Legal Challenges. 1st edition. Oxford University Press, 2019.10.1093/oso/9780198842187.003.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[12. Harvey, David John. Collisions in the Digital Paradigm: Law and Rule Making in the Internet Age. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017.]Search in Google Scholar
[13. Hildebrandt, Mireille, and Laura Tielemans. “Data protection by design and technology neutral law.” Computer Law & Security Review Vol. 29 (2013): 509-521 // https://www.academia.edu/20491832/Data_protection_by_design_and_technology_neutral_law.10.1016/j.clsr.2013.07.004]Search in Google Scholar
[14. Klaris, Edward, and Alexia Bedat. “Copyright liability for linking and embedding: an E.U. versus U.S. comparison and guide” (March 12, 2018): 1-22 // https://klarislaw.com/wp-content/uploads/klarislaw-copyright-liability-for-linking-and-embedding.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[15. Koopman, Christopher, Matthew Mitchell, and Adam Thierer. “The Sharing Economy and Consumer Protection Regulation: The Case for Policy Change.” Journal of Business Entrepreneurship and Law Vol. 8 (2015): 529-545 // https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1130&context=jbel.]Search in Google Scholar
[16. Koops, Bert-Jaap. “Should ICT Regulation Be Technology-Neutral?”: 77-108. In: Bert-Jaap Koops, Miriam Lips, Corien Prins, and Maurice Schellekens, eds. Starting Points for Ict Regulation. Deconstructing Prevalent Policy One-Liners, It & Law Series, Vol. 9. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2006 // https://ssrn.com/abstract=918746.10.1007/978-90-6704-665-7]Search in Google Scholar
[17. Lessig, Lawrence. Code version 2.0. 2nd Revised Edition. Basic Books, 2006 // http://codev2.cc/.]Search in Google Scholar
[18. Lielacher, Alex. “An Introduction to Cryptoeconomics.” BTCMANAGER (June 14, 2017) // https://btcmanager.com/an-introduction-to-cryptoeconomics/.]Search in Google Scholar
[19. Maume, Philipp, and Mathias Fromberger. “Initial Coin Offerings: Are Tokens Securities under EU Law?” Blog, University of Oxford, Faculty of Law (September 7, 2018) // https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2018/09/initial-coin-offerings-are-tokens-securities-under-eu-law.]Search in Google Scholar
[20. Maume, Philipp, and Mathias Fromberger. “Regulation of Initial Coin Offerings: Reconciling US and EU Securities Laws.” Chicago Journal of International Law Vol. 19.2 (2019): 548-585 // http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3200037.10.2139/ssrn.3200037]Search in Google Scholar
[21. Mayer-Schönberger, Viktor. Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age. Princeton University Press, 2009.]Search in Google Scholar
[22. Metjahic, Laila. “Deconstructing the DAO: The Need for Legal Recognition and the Application of Securities Laws to Decentralized Organizations.” Cardozo Law Review Vol. 39 (2018): 1533-1567 // http://cardozolawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/METJAHIC.39.4.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[23. Mik, Eliza. “Smart Contracts: Terminology, Technical Limitations and Real World Complexity.” Law, Innovation and Technology Vol. 9.2 (2017): 269-300 // https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3038406.10.1080/17579961.2017.1378468]Search in Google Scholar
[24. Murray, Andrew. The Regulation of Cyberspace. 1st edition. Routledge-Cavendish, 2006.]Search in Google Scholar
[25. Nakamoto, Satoshi. “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” // https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[26. Oren, Ori. “ICO’s, DAO’S, and the SEC: A Partnership Solution.” Columbia Business Law Review (2018): 617-658 // https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/d8-vc3y-e307.]Search in Google Scholar
[27. Papadaki, Evangelia. “Hyperlinking, making available and copyright infringement: lessons from European national courts.” European Journal of Law and Technology Vol. 8, No. 1 (2017) // http://ejlt.org/article/view/549/732.]Search in Google Scholar
[28. Reed, Chris. Making Laws for Cyberspace. 1st edition. Oxford University Press, 2012.]Search in Google Scholar
[29. Reed, Chris. “Online and Offline Equivalence: Aspiration and Achievement.” International Journal of Law and Information Technology Vol. 18, Issue 3 (2010): 248-273 // https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaq006.10.1093/ijlit/eaq006]Search in Google Scholar
[30. Reed, Chris. “Taking Sides on Technology Neutrality.” SCRIPT-ed Volume 4, Issue 3 (September 2007) // DOI: 10.2966/scrip.040307.263.10.2966/scrip.040307.263]Search in Google Scholar
[31. Reed, Eric. “Equity Tokens vs. Security Tokens: What’s the Difference?” Bitcoin Market Journal [online] (February 13, 2019) // https://www.bitcoinmarketjournal.com/equity-token/.]Search in Google Scholar
[32. Rodrigues, Usha. “Law and the Blockchain.” Iowa Law Review Vol. 104 (2019): 679-729 // https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-104-issue-2/law-and-the-blockchain/.]Search in Google Scholar
[33. Savin, Andrej. “Rule Making in the Digital Economy: Overcoming Functional Equivalence as a Regulatory Principle in the EU.” Journal of Internet Law Vol. 22, Issue 8 (2019) [Copenhagen Business School, CBS LAW Research Paper 19-10]: 1-31 // https://ssrn.com/abstract=3340886.]Search in Google Scholar
[34. SEC. “SEC Issues Investigative Report Concluding DAO Tokens, a Digital Asset, Were Securities.” U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Press Release (July 25, 2017) // https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2017-131.]Search in Google Scholar
[35. SEC. “SEC Orders Blockchain Company to Pay $24 Million Penalty for Unregistered ICO.” Press Release (September 30, 2019) // https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2019-202.]Search in Google Scholar
[36. Sklaroff, Jeremy M. “Smart Contracts and the Cost of Inflexibility.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 166 (2018): 263-303 // https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3008899.]Search in Google Scholar
[37. Walden, Ian. “Press regulation in a converging environment”: 61-82. In: L. Gillies and D. Mangan, eds. Mapping the rule of law for the Internet. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017 // https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2717734.10.4337/9781785364518.00017]Search in Google Scholar
[38. Zetzsche, Dirk A., Ross Buckley, and Douglas Arner. “The Distributed Liability of Distributed Ledgers: Legal Risks of Blockchain.” University of Illinois Law Review (2018): 1361-1407 // https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3018214.10.2139/ssrn.3018214]Search in Google Scholar
[1. Barrick Gold Corp v Lopehandia. (2004) 71 OR 3d 416 (ON CA).]Search in Google Scholar
[2. Crookes v Newton. [2011] 3 SCR 269.]Search in Google Scholar
[3. Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (Recast). PE/52/2018/REV/1 OJ L 321 // https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1575871089458&uri=CELEX:32018L1972.]Search in Google Scholar
[4. Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, and amending Directives 2009/138/EC and 2013/36/EU // https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32018L0843.]Search in Google Scholar
[5. Dow Jones v Gutnik. [2002] 210 CLR 575; [2002] HCA 56.10.1554/0014-3820(2002)056[0210:TSFTSO]2.0.CO;2]Search in Google Scholar
[6. GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV and Others. C-160/15, Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) (2015).]Search in Google Scholar
[7. Kent Pharmaceuticals Limited v Director of Serious Fraud Offences and Others. [2002] EWHC 3023 Admin.]Search in Google Scholar
[8. Metropolitan Schools Ltd v Designtechnica Corporation and Google. [2011] 1 WLR 1743, [2009] MLR 27; [2009] EWHC QB.]Search in Google Scholar
[9. Nils Svensson, Sten Sjögren, Madelaine Sahlman, Pia Gadd v Retriever Sverige AB. C466/12 (2014) OJ C 379/31.10.1007/s40319-014-0210-2]Search in Google Scholar
[10. Pearson Educ., Inc. v. Ishayev. 963 F. Supp. 2d 239, 250 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).]Search in Google Scholar
[11. Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc. 416 F. Supp. 2d 828, 838 n.9 (C.D. Cal. 2006).]Search in Google Scholar
[12. R v Misic. [2001] 3 NZLR 1.]Search in Google Scholar
[13. R(H) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue. (2002) EWHC 2164 Admin.]Search in Google Scholar
[14. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1–88.]Search in Google Scholar
[15. Riley v California. 134 SCt 2473 (2014) 42 Media LR 1925.10.2307/4074330]Search in Google Scholar
[16. Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) v Rafael Hoteles SA. C-306/05 (2006) ECR I-11519.]Search in Google Scholar
[17. Tamiz v Google. [2012] EMLR 24; [2012] EWHC 449 (QB).10.1007/s15014-012-0305-5]Search in Google Scholar
[18. Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.Com, Inc. No. CV 99-7654 HLH(BQRX), 2000 WL 525390, (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2000).]Search in Google Scholar
[19. UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce with Guide to Enactment 1996 with additional article 5 bis as adopted in 1998 // http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/electcom/V1504118_Ebook.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
