- The opacity of algorithms creates risks of economic discrimination and manipulation through dark patterns in digital commerce.
- The Spanish and European legal framework is evolving towards algorithmic transparency, requiring information on personalized pricing and the use of AI.
- The creation of state registries of algorithms is being considered to prevent bias and ensure that technology respects fundamental rights.
The triumphant arrival of artificial intelligence in our daily lives has put the market in a rather delicate situation. On the one hand, we have tools that make our lives easier, personalizing what we buy or resolving doubts in the blink of an eye, but on the other hand, a huge power gap has opened up between the companies that manage the data and us, who simply click "accept."
It's no wonder that organizations like UNCTAD have sounded the alarm, as the pace at which AI is advancing far outpaces the laws that should regulate it. We are at a critical juncture where, if we don't get serious about ethical global governance , we risk technology, instead of helping us, perpetuating social inequalities or deceiving the most vulnerable through digital manipulation.
The labyrinth of algorithms: real risks to your wallet
One of the most talked-about issues is so-called dynamic pricing . Basically, it involves an algorithm analyzing who you are, where you're connecting from, and what you've looked at before to decide how much to charge you. This means two people can see different prices for the same flight or hotel at the same second. This can lead to unfair economic discrimination , where the system detects that you have a higher purchasing power and simply raises the price without you even noticing.
To curb these outrageous practices, the European Union, through the Omnibus Directive and laws transposed into Spanish law, now requires companies to notify consumers when prices have been personalized through automated decision-making . Furthermore, algorithmic price gouging, which occurs when prices rise uncontrollably in emergency or disaster situations, has been prohibited—something that would be ethically unacceptable in any context.
Digital traps and behavior manipulation
You've probably experienced this: you want to unsubscribe from a service and it feels like you're searching for a way out of a maze. These are dark patterns , interface designs specifically created to trick us into making mistakes or buying things we don't want. With AI, these traps are no longer the same for everyone; they adapt to your psychological weaknesses in real time.
- Addictive gamification: Use of variable rewards to keep you from putting down your phone.
- Artificial urgency: Fake timers that pressure you to buy now.
- Confusing consent: Giant accept buttons and rejection options hidden in tiny print.
From a legal standpoint, this is nothing more than an unfair business practice . The Spanish Data Protection Agency has made it clear that consent obtained through manipulation is not freely given, and therefore these tactics could invalidate contracts signed under algorithmic pressure.
Invisible advertising and the danger of deepfakes
Advertising is no longer just an ad interrupting the video; it's now extreme micro-targeting . AI can create ads that look like genuine recommendations from a friend or use deepfakes to have someone who doesn't exist sell you a product. This becomes covert advertising , something that the General Law on Audiovisual Communication and EU regulations are trying to combat by requiring that all paid content be clearly identifiable.
Another serious problem is automated disinformation . The use of bots to generate thousands of fake reviews distorts market reality. Although platforms like Amazon try to filter them, AI makes them increasingly credible, violating consumers' right to truthful information .
Credit scoring: when a machine decides your future
In the financial sector, the use of AI to assess creditworthiness (credit scoring) is common, but dangerous. If an algorithm uses postal code as a variable, it could end up systematically denying loans to people from low-income neighborhoods, perpetuating historical prejudices. This is what we call algorithmic bias , and it's a form of indirect discrimination that can be legally challenged.
The EU's new AI Regulation (AI Act) classifies these systems as high-risk . This means they will have to undergo rigorous audits, ensure that training data is unbiased, and, above all, guarantee genuine human oversight . A "black box" cannot be allowed to decide whether someone qualifies for housing or a loan without someone accountable to explain the reasoning behind the decision.
The legal shield: What laws protect us in Spain and Europe?
In Spain, we have a powerful legal arsenal, although it sometimes seems slow to implement. Article 51 of the Constitution already mandates the protection of consumers' economic interests, and the General Law for the Defense of Consumers and Users (TRLGDCU) is the fundamental law for combating unfair terms . Furthermore, the GDPR grants us the right not to be subject to decisions based solely on automated processes that significantly affect us, allowing us to demand a human explanation and analyze legal and civil liability in the age of artificial intelligence.
At the European level, the Digital Services Act (DSA) is a landmark because it requires large platforms to be transparent about their recommendation systems and prohibits advertising based on sensitive data (religion, health, or sexual orientation). Meanwhile, the EU's AI Act establishes a public register for high-risk systems, aiming to make the technology auditable and accountable.
Looking to the future: the proposal for a State Registry of Algorithms
To ensure transparency isn't just a pretty word on paper, a State Registry of Consumer Algorithms is proposed . The idea is that any company using AI to set prices or filter customers would have to register its system on a public platform. This isn't about revealing secret source code, but rather about submitting a clear technical specification explaining what data it uses and what its main decision criteria are.
This would force companies to exercise self-regulation : if they can't publicly explain how their algorithm works without it seeming discriminatory, it's probably because it is. Furthermore, it would make it easier for consumer associations and authorities to conduct proactive audits instead of waiting for someone to report harm that has already occurred.
The fight for our rights in the digital age depends on us moving from being passive subjects to empowered consumers. The combination of strict laws, mandatory transparency, and constant human oversight is the only way to ensure that artificial intelligence becomes a tool for progress and not a mechanism for exploitation. Ultimately, the goal is for technological innovation to never take precedence over human dignity and autonomy .
