About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


61 Wash. U. J. L. & Pol'y 173 (2020)
Smart Contracts and the Illusion of Automated Enforcement

handle is hein.journals/wajlp61 and id is 185 raw text is: SMART CONTRACTS AND THE ILLUSION OF AUTOMATED ENFORCEMENT Danielle D'Onfro* ABSTRACT Proponents of so-called smart contracts have suggested that these innovations could be deployed in the consumer finance space, providing automated enforcement that would lessen-if not eliminate-the need for judicial remedies. But as this essay explores, there are three significant barriers to deploying smart contracts in the consumer finance context: consumer behavior, existing consumer protection laws, and the businesses whose own collection efforts would be hindered by competing creditors with access to automated remedies. These three barriers render perfectly automated enforcement all but impossible. Nevertheless, existing consumer protection law may accommodate smart contracts where the smart features of the contract can be swiftly turned off But providing any such off switch may render these contracts only marginally more efficient than traditional contracts and they may stillface opposition from consumers and third parties. INTRODUCTION Smart contracts constitute one of the most promising but least understood corners of fintech. In their early days, the core idea of smart contracts was that many kinds of contractual clauses ... can be embedded in the hardware and software we deal with, in such a way as to make breach of contract * Associate Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis. I am grateful to Christopher Bradley, Dan Epps, Dave Hoffman, Dalie Jimenez, Christopher Odinet, Rory Van Loo, and my colleagues at WashU for helpful conversations and comments. All errors are my own. 173