Et Tu, Android? Regulating Dangerous and Dishonest Robots
Assessment outcome
total 1/4 (actionability 0 + authority 1); currency unscored, so pro-rated to 1.5/6
Authorship & scope
Named author Woodrow Hartzog is clearly identified at the beginning of the article.
Level 1 (capped): the quote establishes a journal venue but does not establish the peer-review status required for Level 2.
Issuers, who it governs, legal force and content are on the full record.
Eligibility gates
HTTP 200, 8188 words of full text extracted
The source is entirely about consumer robots and their regulatory challenges.
Discusses legal regulation, consumer protection rules, and policy implications for robots.
Named author Woodrow Hartzog is clearly identified at the beginning of the article.
No evidence on the page indicating that this published academic journal article has been superseded or retracted.
Scored criteria
Actionability
0/2Level 0: Description and analysis only, discussing how the FTC's existing framework applies to robots without establishing new binding obligations.
The FTC’s existing framework for protecting consumers from fraud, data breaches, privacy harms, and exploitation is robust enough to adequately protect consumers and clear enough to notify commercial entities of their obligations when designing, selling, and using robots that interact with consumers.
Authority
1/2Level 1 (capped): the quote establishes a journal venue but does not establish the peer-review status required for Level 2.
Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2016, Pages 70-81, DOI 10.5898/JHRI.5.3.Hartzog Et Tu, Android? Regulating Dangerous and Dishonest Robots Woodrow Hartzog Cumberland School of Law, Samford University
Currency
—computed: no publish/modified date found on the page (never guessed)