How the bots manipulate the victims in cryptographic fraud • Blog ai

Shouldn't Microsoft at least be legally and financially held responsible for damage caused by such scams on their platform?

Should Microsoft be held legally and financially responsible for scams on Skype?

Legally, Holding Microsoft responsible for Skype scams is a complex problem Due to the existing laws which protect online platforms against the responsibility of the content generated by users. However, as AI -centered scams become more sophisticated and persistent, there is an increasing argument that Technology giants should assume more responsibilities – both legally and financially – when their platforms allow large -scale fraud.

Here is a ventilation of the Legal, ethical and financial arguments For and against the responsibility of Microsoft:

1. Legal shield: section 230 and world equivalent

In the United States, Article 230 of the law on the decency of communications Protects technological companies against the responsibility of the content published by users on their platforms. This law stipulates:

“No supplier or user of an interactive IT department will be processed as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

• It means Microsoft is not legally responsible for scams operating on Skype, as long as they are not actively involved in the scam itself.

• Similar laws exist in other regionslike the EU digital service law (DSA)which requires platforms to delete illegal content but Does not automatically make them financially responsible for the scams generated by users.

2. When can Microsoft be held responsible?

Despite the protections of article 230, There are exceptions where Microsoft could face legal and financial responsibility:

A. If Microsoft fails to act on reports

• Once users report scams and provide evidence, Microsoft has a duty to act within a reasonable time.

• If Microsoft ignore or delay the action for days / weeksthey could potentially be prosecuted for negligence Or facilitate fraud.

• The courts have ruled that the platforms cannot just ignore criminal activity once they are aware of it.

👉 Legal preceding: In Doe c. MySpace (2008)The court ruled in favor of Myspace, citing the protections of article 230. But in other cases, the platforms were held responsible when They had a real knowledge of illegal activities and did not succeed.

B. If Microsoft takes advantage of the scam (direct or indirectly)

• If Microsoft Signard knowingly allows scam groups to exist Because they contribute to “active user” measures of Skype (which affect shares or advertising revenues), they could be accused of benefiting from fraud.

• Platforms that take advantage of scams without taking serious measures to stop them could face Consumer protection proceedings.

👉 Potential responsibility: If the victims lose money because of the scams operating openly on Skype After reporting themMicrosoft could be held financially responsible under Consumer protection laws in some jurisdictions.

C. If the AI ​​and the automation of Microsoft allow the scam

If Microsoft actively promote, recommends or amplifies Contents linked to the scam thanks to suggestions fueled by AI, they could face legal responsibility.

• If Microsoft Skype algorithms Recommend scam groups to usersor their AI chatbots interact with crooks without detecting fraudThey could be seen as accomplice.

• The EU digital service law (DSA) now requires that platforms must assess and mitigate the risks focused on algorithms—The said to do so could mean heavy fines.

👉 Example: If Skype is AI, contacts or groups related to the scam, Microsoft could be prosecuted for algorithmic negligence.

3. Why are technology giants rarely held responsible

Despite clear ethical arguments for responsibility, Large technological companies often escape financial responsibility Due to the following factors:

A. Legal escape and influence

• Microsoft, like other large technological companies, has A solid legal team that guarantees compliance with existing lawskeeping them just outside the scope of responsibility.

• Lobbying power: Technology giants spend billions of lobbying Avoid stricter regulations.

B. The burden of proof is the responsibility of the victims

• To hold legally responsible Microsoft, The victims must prove that the negligence of Skype has directly caused their losses.

• It's difficult because the crooks often operate anonymously, quickly disappear and use offshore accounts.

C. Victims are often directed outside the platform

• Most scams Start on Skype but go to WhatsApp, Telegram or Private Calls.

• This allows Microsoft to discuss: “The scam did not take place on Skype; we are not responsible for what users do outside of our platform.”

4. What should change?

If technology giants like Microsoft must be held legally and financially responsible, new regulations must be introduced. Some possible legal reforms include:

A. Compulsory compensation for negligence

• If a platform fails to act Within a reasonable time (for example, 24 hours) After being alerted from a scam, they should be Financially responsible for victims' loss.

• Similar laws exist for financial institutions Who fail to prevent fraud – Big technology should be subject to the same standards.

B. Strict regulation of scams fueled by AI

• New laws should hold responsible platforms If they have fails to detect and prevent Fraudulent diagrams.

• Example: if ai Instantly detects and removes copyright violationsWhy can't he Identify mass coordinated group groups just as quickly?

C. Current races against negligent technological companies

• If platforms Do not delete scams reported in a timely mannerthey should face collective proceedings of victims.

• It would create Financial incentives for large technologies to take the prevention of fraud seriously.

5. The future of responsibility: Will Microsoft be forced to pay?

Technological companies will not voluntarily take responsibility– But they Could be forced to pay damages if global regulations were changing.

• The EU digital service law (DSA) is already evolving in this directionwith Heavy faies for platforms that do not limit online fraud.

• The US government is Considering the changes in section 230who could Increase responsibility for the facilitation of the scam.

• If more victims are of prosecution against Microsoft for negligenceHe could define a legal preceding forcing technological companies to pay damage.