Abstract
Abstract
This paper examines what EU transparency obligations achieve in consumer disputes arising from automated billing systems. The problem is not a mere lack of information, but the legal usability of the information disclosed. The fundamental question is whether the automated outcome can be tested for contractual conformity, whether the amount claimed can be reconstructed, and whether the resulting decision is open to meaningful judicial scrutiny. Increment structures, rounding methods, unit conversions, and termination-compensation formulas may appear to be no more than technical details. Yet they can directly determine the scope of the debt. At the same time, the logic of these calculations often remains inaccessible to the consumer and may not become fully visible even once litigation has commenced.The paper argues that this opacity should not be treated solely as a matter of data protection or AI regulation. It must also be addressed as a problem of private law, engaging the law of obligations, the control of standard contract terms, and the requirements of effective judicial protection. The difficulty is twofold: whether the automated output reflects the contractual framework, and whether the consumer and the court can meaningfully test how that output was produced. Accordingly, the paper contends that the current EU transparency regime often yields little more than formal disclosure. What is needed instead is a minimum “transparency threshold” that enables both individuals and courts to examine the basis of automated billing outcomes in a way that makes genuine review possible. By addressing the problems of unfair terms control and judicial reviewability in automated decision-making, the article also aims to offer guidance for Turkish law. In this respect, it further seeks to contribute to ongoing debates in Turkish law on automated calculation and billing mechanisms in digital services.
Direct answer
What can I do from this paper page?
Use this page to scan "When Transparency Is Not Enough: Judicial Reviewability of Automated Billing Decisions in EU Consumer Disputes" quickly: start with the summary and abstract, then check the authors, source, topics, and related papers. From here, open Scollr to follow European and International Contract Law research, save the paper, or map adjacent work.
Research areas
Follow related topics
Citation
BibTeX
@article{ztrk2026When,
title = {When Transparency Is Not Enough: Judicial Reviewability of Automated Billing Decisions in EU Consumer Disputes},
author = {Elif Beyza Akkanat Öztürk and Şehriban İpek Aşıkoğlu},
journal = {İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası / Istanbul Law Review},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.26650/mecmua.2026.84.3.0005},
url = {https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2026.84.3.0005}
}
FAQ
Using this paper in a discovery workflow
How do I find related work for this paper?
Use the related papers and topic links on this page as starting points. In Scollr, you can also open the paper and build a literature map around its references, citing papers, and related work.
How can I keep up with new European and International Contract Law research papers?
Follow European and International Contract Law research in Scollr. New papers from the topic flow into a personalized feed, and you can save useful studies to revisit later.
Can I cite this paper from this page?
This page includes a static BibTeX block for When Transparency Is Not Enough: Judicial Reviewability of Automated Billing Decisions in EU Consumer Disputes. Always verify the DOI, source, and publication details against the publisher record before submitting a manuscript.
Follow this research in Scollr
Follow the topics and authors behind this paper, save useful studies, and build a literature map when you are ready to go deeper.
Get the app