CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR PAID DISINFORMATION IN THE DIGITAL WORLD: A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN UAE LAW AND THE EUROPEAN DIGITAL SERVICES ACT (DSA)
1. Introduction. – 2. Research Methodology. – 3. Misleading Information as a Form of Illegal Content. – 3.1. The Concept of Illegal Content. – 3.2. The Concept of False Information. – 4. The Crime of Receiving Incentives to Publish Illegal Content or False Information. – 4.1. The Material Element (Actus Reus). – 4.1.1. Forms of Criminal Activity. – 4.1.2. Purpose of Criminal Act. – 4.2. The Mental Element (Mens Rea). – 4.2.1. Knowledge. – 4.2.2. Will. – 4.3 The Penalty for the Crime. – 5. Conclusions.
Background: With the rapid digital transformation and the extensive use of social media
platforms, disseminating various forms of harmful digital content—including illegal content
and false or misleading information, particularly when financially incentivised—has become
a pressing global challenge. These practices threaten digital trust and pose significant risks to
societal stability. Despite the growing legal efforts to address these crimes, a unified and
comprehensive legal framework remains lacking. This study examines the criminal liability
associated with paid disinformation in the digital world, comparing the legal approach under
UAE law with the European Digital Services Act (DSA). While the UAE has enacted specific
provisions targeting the monetisation of disinformation, the European framework primarily
focuses on the responsibilities of digital platforms without explicitly addressing individual
actors involved in such activities.
Methods: This study employs a comparative legal analysis, focusing on relevant legislative
provisions in both jurisdictions. The research applies an analytical and comparative
approach, examining Article 55 of the UAE’s Anti-Rumours and Cybercrime Law, which
explicitly criminalises financial incentives for disseminating illegal content. In contrast, the
study assesses the European DSA, which primarily regulates platform accountability but lacks
direct provisions on individual criminal liability for paid disinformation. The analysis also
incorporates doctrinal legal research and case studies to highlight the effectiveness and
limitations of each legal system in combating this issue.
Results and Conclusions: The study finds that UAE law provides a more structured and
detailed legal framework for addressing paid disinformation, offering clear criminal sanctions
for individuals engaged in such acts. Conversely, the European DSA adopts a broader
regulatory approach, focusing on institutional oversight without directly addressing the
criminal liability of individuals involved in monetised disinformation. The research
recommends that European legislation adopt a more specific model to combat these crimes,
integrating direct criminal accountability alongside platform regulation. Additionally, the
study emphasises the need for enhanced international cooperation and regulatory
harmonisation to strengthen digital transparency and mitigate the risks posed by financially
motivated disinformation.
Abstract
Background: With the rapid digital transformation and the extensive use of social media
platforms, disseminating various forms of harmful digital content—including illegal content
and false or misleading information, particularly when financially incentivised—has become
a pressing global challenge. These practices threaten digital trust and pose significant risks to
societal stability. Despite the growing legal efforts to address these crimes, a unified and
comprehensive legal framework remains lacking. This study examines the criminal liability
associated with paid disinformation in the digital world, comparing the legal approach under
UAE law with the European Digital Services Act (DSA). While the UAE has enacted specific
provisions targeting the monetisation of disinformation, the European framework primarily
focuses on the responsibilities of digital platforms without explicitly addressing individual
actors involved in such activities.
Methods: This study employs a comparative legal analysis, focusing on relevant legislative
provisions in both jurisdictions. The research applies an analytical and comparative
approach, examining Article 55 of the UAE’s Anti-Rumours and Cybercrime Law, which
explicitly criminalises financial incentives for disseminating illegal content. In contrast, the
study assesses the European DSA, which primarily regulates platform accountability but lacks
direct provisions on individual criminal liability for paid disinformation. The analysis also
incorporates doctrinal legal research and case studies to highlight the effectiveness and
limitations of each legal system in combating this issue.
Results and Conclusions: The study finds that UAE law provides a more structured and
detailed legal framework for addressing paid disinformation, offering clear criminal sanctions
for individuals engaged in such acts. Conversely, the European DSA adopts a broader
regulatory approach, focusing on institutional oversight without directly addressing the
criminal liability of individuals involved in monetised disinformation. The research
recommends that European legislation adopt a more specific model to combat these crimes,
integrating direct criminal accountability alongside platform regulation. Additionally, the
study emphasises the need for enhanced international cooperation and regulatory
harmonisation to strengthen digital transparency and mitigate the risks posed by financially
motivated disinformation.
About Authors
Dr.Sc. (Law), Full Professor, College of Law, Al Ain University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
mohammad.alkrisheh@aau.ac.ae
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3649-9494
Corresponding author, responsible for research methodology, data collection, writing, and
supervising. Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing and supervising
Fatiha Mohammed Gourari
Dr.Sc. (Law), Full Professor, Dean of the College of Law, United Arab Emirates University,
Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
fgourari@uaeu.ac.ae
https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2458-9502
Co-author, responsible for research methodology, data collection, writing, and
supervising. Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing and supervising
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Disclaimer: The authors declare that their opinion and views expressed in this manuscript
are free of any impact of any organizations.
Copyright: Mohammad Amin Alkrisheh and Fatiha Mohammed Gourari. This is
an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License, (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
References
Legal and Economic Sciences, Ain Shams University 915.
2. Abu Farwa MM, ‘Social Media Platforms and Their Legal Liability for Illegal Content’
(2022) 39 Kuwait International Law School Journal 161.
3. Al-Azmi AM, ‘The Crime of Bribery with Case Studies from Reality’ (2022) 2(1) Middle
East Journal of Legal and Jurisprudential Studies 215.
4. Ali NH and Manajid ZA, ‘The Crime of Sexual Bribery’ (2022) 33(2) Journal of
Al-Maaref University College 93, doi:10.51345/.v33i2.496.g269.
5. Alkrisheh MA, Al-Katbi SO and Al-Tkhayneh KM, ‘The Criminal Confrontation for
Crimes of Discrimination and Hate Speech: A Comparative Study’ (2024) 7(2) Access
to Justice in Eastern Europe 138, doi:10.33327/AJEE-18-7.2-a000210.
6. Al-Mansouri A, ‘Publishing and Promoting Fake News between the Criminal Law and
the Press and Publishing Law’ (2024) 13 Electronic Journal of Legal Research 258
<https://revues.imist.ma/index.php/RERJ/article/view/47387> accessed 25 February 2025.
7. Alneyadi MS and others, ‘The Crime of Electronic Blackmail in the Emirati Law’ (2022
International Arab Conference on Information Technology (ACIT), Abu Dhabi, UAE,
November 2022) doi:10.1109/ACIT57182.2022.9994165.
8. Al-Nuaimi SA, Alkrisheh MA and Al-Tkhayneh KM, ‘The Crime of Sexual Harassment:
A Comparative Study Between UAE & French Law’ (2023) 13(3) Journal of Educational
and Social Research 241, doi:10.36941/jesr-2023-0073.
9. AL-Tkhayneh KM, Olowoselu A and Alkrisheh MA, ‘The Crime in Metaverse (The
Future Scenarios for Crime Patterns and the Prospective Legal Challenges)’ (2023 Tenth
International Conference on Social Networks Analysis, Management and Security
(SNAMS), Abu Dhabi, UAE, November 2023) doi:10.1109/SNAMS60348.2023.10375402.
10. Crawford GE and others, The Digital Services Act: Practical Implications for Online
Services and Platforms (Latham & Watkins LLP, 14 March 2023)
<https://www.latham.london/2023/03/digital-services-act-practical-implications-for-
online-services-and-platforms/> accessed 25 February 2025.
11. Hassan HMA, ‘Media Publication Crimes: A Comparative Jurisprudential Study with
Positive Law – The Crime of Incitement as a Model’ (2024) 47 Journal of Jurisprudential
and Legal Research 487.
12. Hoffmann A and Gasparotti A, Liability for Illegal Content Online: Weaknesses of the
EU Legal Framework and Possible Plans of the EU Commission to Address them in a
“Digital Services Act” (CEP 2020).
13. Hosni MN, Explanation of the Penal Code: Special Section According to the Latest
Legislative Amendments (6th edn, University Publications House 2019).
14. Kameel TAR, Kandeel ME and Alkrisheh MA, ‘Consumer Protection from Misleading
Online Advertisements “An Analytical Study in UAE Law”’ (2022 International Arab
Conference on Information Technology (ACIT), Abu Dhabi, UAE, November 2022)
doi:10.1109/ACIT57182.2022.9994108.
15. Kaur A and others, ‘Deepfake Video Detection: Challenges and Opportunities’ (2024)
57(6) Artificial Intelligence Review 159, doi:10.1007/s10462-024-10810-6.
16. Kertysova K, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Disinformation: How AI Changes the Way
Disinformation is Produced, Disseminated, and Can Be Countered’ (2018) 29(1-4)
Security and Human Rights 55, doi:10.1163/18750230-02901005.
17. Khadija C, ‘Mechanisms for Monitoring the Crime of Bribery and the Penalties
Prescribed for It in Algerian Legislation’ (2021) 3(2) Journal of Law and Local
Development 58.
18. Khan I, ‘Disinformation and Freedom of Opinion and Expression: Report of the Special
Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and
Expression’ (UN, 13 April 2021) <https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3925306?ln=en>
accessed 25 February 2025.
19. Mohamed AAR, ‘Civil Responsibility For Providers Of Illicit Content Circulating On
The Internet (A Comparative Study Between French Law And Egyptian Law)’ (2020)
35(3) Journal of the Faculty of Sharia and Law, Tanta University 1074,
doi:10.21608/mksq.2020.111506.
20. Mohammed AGH, ‘Mechanisms of the Egyptian Public in Verifying Fake News and its
Relationship their Interactive Patterns on Social Networking Sites’ (2021) 59(2) Journal
of Media Research 1003, doi:10.21608/jsb.2021.199620.
21. Raman R and others, ‘Fake News Research Trends, Linkages to Generative Artificial
Intelligence and Sustainable Development Goals’ (2024) 10(3) Heliyon e24727,
doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24727.
22. Saeed WS, ‘The Role of Regulatory Bodies and Legislative Measures in Combating
Corruption Crimes’ (2024) 20(4) The Legal Journal 1489, jlaw.2024.354476.
doi:10.21608/
23. Tiernan M and Sluiter G, ‘The European Union’s Digital Services Act and Secondary
Criminal Liability for Online Platform Providers: A Missed Opportunity for Fair
Criminal Accountability?’ (SSRN, 18 March 2024) doi:10.2139/ssrn.4731220.
24. Vecchietti G, Liyanaarachchi G and Viglia G, ‘Managing Deepfakes with Artificial
Intelligence: Introducing the Business Privacy Calculus’ (2025) 186 Journal of Business
Research 115010, doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.115010.
25. Yar M, ‘A Failure to Regulate? The Demands and Dilemmas of Tackling Illegal Content
and Behaviour on Social Media’ (2018) 1(1) International Journal of Cybersecurity
Intelligence & Cybercrime 5, doi:10.52306/01010318RVZE9940.
Reviews for article
Add a Review
АНОТАЦІЯ УКРАЇНСЬКОЮ МОВОЮ
Дослідницька стаття
Могаммад Амін Алкрішег і Фатіха Могаммед Ґурарі
АНОТАЦІЯ
Вступ. Завдяки швидкій цифровій трансформації та широкому використанню платформ
соціальних медіа розповсюдження різних форм шкідливого цифрового контенту, включно
з незаконним контентом і неправдивою чи оманливою інформацією, особливо коли це
фінансово стимулюється, стало актуальною глобальною проблемою. Такі практики
загрожують цифровій довірі та створюють значні ризики для суспільної стабільності.
Незважаючи на посилення правових зусиль щодо боротьби з цими злочинами, єдиної
та комплексної законодавчої бази все ще бракує. У цьому дослідженні розглядається
кримінальна відповідальність, пов’язана з оплаченою дезінформацією в цифровому світі,
здійснено порівняння правового підходу, що передбачений законодавством ОАЕ та
Законом ЄС про цифрові послуги (DSA). У той час як ОАЕ прийняли спеціальні положення,
спрямовані на монетизацію дезінформації, європейське законодавство зосереджене
насамперед на обов’язках цифрових платформ без прямого звернення до окремих учасників,
залучених до такої діяльності.
Методи. У статті використовується порівняльно-правовий аналіз, увагу зосереджено на
відповідних законодавчих положеннях в обох юрисдикціях. У дослідженні застосовано
аналітичний і порівняльний підхід для вивчення статті 55 Закону ОАЕ про боротьбу з
плітками та кіберзлочинністю, яка чітко криміналізує фінансові стимули для поширення
незаконного контенту. Також було здійснено оцінку Європейського DSA, який в основному
регулює підзвітність платформи, але не містить прямих положень про індивідуальну
кримінальну відповідальність за оплачену дезінформацію. Аналіз охоплює доктринальні
юридичні та тематичні дослідження, щоб підкреслити ефективність і обмеження кожної
правової системи в боротьбі з цією проблемою.
Результати та висновки. Дослідження виявило, що законодавство ОАЕ забезпечує більш
структуровану та детальну правову базу для боротьби з платною дезінформацією,
пропонуючи чіткі кримінальні санкції для осіб, причетних до таких дій. Європейський
DSA, навпаки, використовує ширший регуляторний підхід, зосереджуючись на
інституційному нагляді, не розглядаючи безпосередньо кримінальну відповідальність осіб,
причетних до монетизованої дезінформації. У дослідженні рекомендується, щоб
європейське законодавство прийняло більш конкретну модель боротьби з цими
злочинами, інтегрувавши пряму кримінальну відповідальність поряд із регулюванням
платформ. Крім того, у статті наголошено на необхідності посилення міжнародного
співробітництва та гармонізації регулювання для того, щоб посилити цифрову
прозорість та зменшити ризики, пов’язані із фінансово мотивованою дезінформацією.
Ключові слова: оплачена дезінформація, неправдива інформація, кримінальна
відповідальність, кіберзлочини, законодавство ОАЕ, Закон ЄС про цифрові послуги (DSA),
цифрові платформи, діпфейк, AI, плітки.
Publication history
- Date of submission: 15 Mar 2025
Date of acceptance: 08 Apr 2025
Date of publication: 14 May 2025
Whether the manuscript was fast tracked? - No
Number of reviewer report submitted in first round: 2 reports
Number of revision rounds: 1 round, revised version submitted 06 Apr 2025
Technical tools were used in the editorial process:
Plagiarism checks - Turnitin from iThenticate https://www.turnitin.com/products/ithenticate/
Scholastica for Peer Review https://scholasticahq.com/law-reviews
Managing Editor – Mag. Yuliia Hartman. . English Editor – Julie Bold.
Ukrainian Language Editor – Liliia Hartman.
How to cite it?
-
Alkrisheh MA and Gourari FM, ‘Criminal Liability For Paid Disinformation In The Digital
World: A Comparative Study Between UAE Law And The European Digital Services
Act (DSA)’ (2025) 8(2) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 341-64
https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-8.2-r000110
