The Inadmissibility of Digital Misuse as a Type of Negation of Unfair Conduct in the Law
( Pp. 297-304)

Abstract: Objective. The reason for writing this article is the existing problems in the jurisprudence of digital rights infringement cases due to the lack of (1) clear procedural rules on the forms of seeking evidence of digital rights infringement; (2) types of interim measures applicable; (3) rules on the mandatory participation of an IT specialist in such cases. The purpose of the article is to study some types of unfair behavior in cyberspace in order to develop legal means to negate such behavior. The author, through the prism of the requirements of the principle of good faith, examines the features of legal protection against misuse of electronic signatures and abuses in the operation of digital platforms, based on the opinions of a number of Russian scientists and foreign jurists (G.A. Mann and J.D. Wright).
Model. The methodological basis of the article is the analysis of Russian and foreign jurisprudence on cases of digital rights violation, synthesis and generalization in the form of formulation of general legal means of negation of bad faith behavior in cyberspace as a method of legal regulation inherent to the principle of good faith. The area of research is the violating digital rights bad faith behavior, which develops the principle of good faith through conflict, because in the absence of a dispute (conflict) good faith is assumed and not noticeable. Law develops in conflict.
Conclusions. Denial of bad faith behavior is a new method of legal regulation based on the principle of good faith. This method evolved in two ways: (1) first there appeared norms in practice (in civil law contract, internal corporate regulation, judicial positions of courts); (2) then there appeared written norms in law. The inadmissibility of digital misuse is a type of negation of bad faith in the law. As digital technologies evolve, modern jurisprudence regularly reveals new violations of digital rights, which is the basis for the formation of norms in the law prohibiting such unconscionable behavior due to the requirements of the principle of good faith. The article highlights new legal remedies necessary to protect against bad faith in cyberspace.
Scope of research/probability of further use of the results of scientific work. The results of the study are part of a new comprehensive approach to the study of «bad faith behavior» as an independent legal concept, as well as to the substantiation of a new method of legal regulation - the negation of bad faith, on the basis of which can be allocated and systematized types of negation of bad faith and related legal means for protection against bad faith in various fields of international law.
Practical value. Тhe author considers it necessary to identify and systematize the known in judicial practice in the current historical period types of denial of unfair behavior in cyberspace in order to enable the legislator to fix norms-prohibitions of these types of unfair practices in the law already now. The law, not having enough time to regulate rapidly developing commercial relations in the digital environment, can promptly buy out the types of unfairness revealed by the courts.
Originality/value. The article is addressed to the legal scientific community, legal practitioners, may be useful to law students at universities.

Zhanna I.S., (2023), THE INADMISSIBILITY OF DIGITAL MISUSE AS A TYPE OF NEGATION OF UNFAIR CONDUCT IN THE LAW. Gaps in Russian Legislation, 2 => 297-304.

Alekseenko A.P. Chinese approach to countering anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominance of e-commerce platforms // Lawyer, 2021, No. 8. P. 72 - 77.
Antimonopoly Guidelines on the Platform Economy of the Antimonopoly Committee of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China dated 02/07/2021. // URL: http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2021-02/07/content_5585764.htm.
Bakhimova L.A., Latypova L.A., Miftakhova L.Kh., Methods of protection against falsification of electronic signature, Kazan National Research Technological University, ISSN: 1998-7072, 2016, pp. 123-125.
Vartaev R.S., Garaev R.Z., Kovalenko A.I. Abuse of the dominance of digital platforms (on the example of the Google case in Russia). // Modern competition. 2016. Volume 10. No. 5(59). pp. 89 – 141.
Dotsenko A.V., Ivanov A.Yu. Antimonopoly regulation, digital platforms and innovations: the Google case and the development of approaches to protecting competition in the digital environment // Law. 2016. No. 2. P. 31 – 45.
Kovyazina N.M. On the issue of digital rights protection. // Lawyer. 2022. No. 1. p. 49 - 54.
Kravtsova A.A. Electronic digital signature and protection of citizens from dishonest actions. // Collection: Research, systematization, cooperation, development, analysis of socio-economic systems in the field of economics and management (ISKRA - 2019). Proceedings of the II All-Russian school-symposium of young scientists. Scientific editing V.M. Barley. 2019. p. 174 - 178.
The main directions for the development of the financial market of the Russian Federation for 2022 and the period of 2023 and 2024» (developed by the Bank of Russia) // SPS «Consultant Plus».
Decision of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia dated September 18, 2015 in case No. 1-14-21/00-11-15 // URL: http://solutions.fas.gov.ru/ca/upravlenie-regulirovaniyasvyazi-i-informatsionnyh-tehnologiy/ad -54066 - 15.
Tsyrendashieva V.Ts. The problem of ensuring the protection of electronic signatures from forgery. // Collection of abstracts on the results of the round table. Saratov, Crimea, 2021, pp. 12 - 15.
Arizona Revised Statutes Title 44 - Trade and Commerce § 44-7007 Legal recognition of electronic records, signatures and contracts. AZ Rev Stat § 44-7007 (2016).
Berkson v. Gogo LLC - 97 F. Supp. 3d 359 (E.D.N.Y. 2015). // URL: https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-berkson-v-gogo-llc.
Electronic Signatures In Global And National Commerce Act // Public Law. June 30, 2000. // URL: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-106publ229/pdf/PLAW-106publ229.pdf.
Manne G. A., Wright J. D. Google and the Limits of Antitrust: The Case Against Google // Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. 2011 Vol. 34. No. 1. URL: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1577556.
R. v Pusey, 2016 ONSC 635 (CanLII) // URL: https://canlii.ca/t/gn6cr.

principle of good faith, denial of bad faith conduct, digital rights, digital bad faith conduct, legal remedies..