��Ů������ӰԺ��ҹ

As part of our Where Law Meets (your) Business series, we showcase the many ways our colleagues at Erasmus School of Law put their expertise to work. Each shaping their own ‘business’, whether that means supporting staff, educating students, or helping translate law into practice. We sat down with Shu Li to talk about his research on AI liability, his path into academia, and the power of collaborative thinking in legal scholarship.

“We need to understand the harm AI can cause”

Shu’s fascination with the intersection of law, economics and technology took shape early in his academic career. After completing his legal studies in China, a year-long exchange that would bring him to Bologna and Hamburg exposed him to the emerging world of European data protection law. A topic that was, at the time, still relatively new in China. “I found it fascinating,” he says. “There was so much happening, and still so little being said about it back home. That sparked something in me.”

After moving to the Netherlands, Shu started his PhD at Erasmus School of Law in 2015, focusing on the economic analysis of tort law. It wasn’t long before his research turned toward the digital frontier. A postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Helsinki deepened his focus on AI and liability. “My core interest is harm,” he explains. “In this case, this translates to the question of how AI may cause harm. And how may the law help identify and address it?”

Harm in relation to AI can take many forms, many of which we are still uncovering. From discrimination in credit scoring and job applications, to opaque decision-making in healthcare and insurance. “Sometimes, the algorithm decides you’re a high-risk applicant. But no one can explain why,” he explains. “That lack of transparency can make people more vulnerable, especially if they’re already in a marginalised position.”

Insurance, risk, and legal black boxes

Much of Shu’s recent work centres on the insurability of AI-related risks. It’s a deceptively complex topic: insurance might offer a more accessible remedy to harm than traditional litigation. Unlike litigation, insurance can offer faster, less costly compensation, without the burden of proving fault in court. But insurers are hesitant to cover AI risks because they’re so unpredictable.

“We know how to insure cars,” Shu explains. “We have data, and clear risk profiles. But AI? It’s much harder. You might be able to prove personal injury. But how do you quantify a discriminatory outcome? How do you measure algorithmic harm?”

In these legal grey zones, Shu’s work doesn’t seek easy answers but aims to map the terrain clearly, so stakeholders can make informed decisions. “I try to look at it holistically,” he explains. “What are the barriers for regulators, insurers, designers, companies, and how can we address them in a way that protects people?”

Examining the rules, and teaching them too

Shu is currently contributing to two major legal commentaries: one on the EU AI Act and another on the new Product Liability Directive. Both are extensive, multi-author projects involving scholars across Europe. His contributions to the AI Act commentary has taken nearly a year to complete. “These are complex texts, but I love the detail,” he says. “Seeing how legislators choose words, it tells you so much.”

Alongside his research, Shu teaches in the Law & Tech master’s programme, as well as in the general master. For him, teaching is not just a duty, it’s central to how law meets business. “When I’m in the classroom, explaining legal rules around AI, I’m speaking to future professionals,” he says. “They’ll advise companies, shape policies, make decisions. So I see it as a way of influencing business in a very real, very direct way.”

Legal education as a global conversation

  Having studied law in both China and Europe, Shu is deeply aware of the cultural dimensions of legal thinking. “When we discuss topics like social scoring, EU students often find it unacceptable. But students from other regions may see it differently,” he says. “There’s no single ‘correct’ view. My role as an educator is to explain the legal and social context, and to help students understand the diversity in how legal systems define values.” This sensitivity to context and culture runs through his teaching and research alike. “Law is always shaped by the social context, by politics, culture, even history,” Shu explains. “That’s why we shouldn’t expect one universal answer. Understanding those differences is part of the legal challenge.”

Looking ahead: from children’s toys to digital dignity

Shu’s future plans are ambitious and multidisciplinary. Beyond finishing his current book projects, he hopes to develop new research around harm in the digital age, particularly how law can help protect vulnerable populations. But when it comes to the topic of harm, there is always more to explore. A recent invitation to collaborate on toy safety, for instance, opened his eyes to the ethical complexity of AI-powered children’s products. “We don’t always think of children’s toys as legal objects,” he notes. “But if a toy collects data or influences behaviour, it becomes a legal and ethical issue. How do we ensure those toys are safe, sustainable, and respectful of children’s rights?”

Whether he’s writing EU commentaries, shaping the next generation of legal professionals, or advising on AI regulation, one thing is clear: Shu’s business is about protecting people from harm. Thoughtfully, rigorously, and with an eye on the digital future.