This article considers possible misunderstandings of cryptoasset investments by consumers in Turkey and possible legal responses to them. Building upon interviews with Turkish professionals and investors in a study in the empirical legal tradition it considers the potential for three misunderstandings, framed as expectation gaps. First, it considers that many consumers can be led into unwise investments through expectation gaps based on suppositions that the safeguards, such as deposit protection, that apply to other investment opportunities will be present. Second, it considers that others will have expectation gaps based on stories of success for others bringing survivorship bias combined with a fear of missing out. Third, it finds that, although stablecoins are often regarded as a safe investment, there is another expectation gap, as they can lack the protections that might be expected. In discussing the expectation gaps we draw upon an analysis of the terms of service of the 10 leading Turkish crypto exchanges. The article also considers how cryptoassets are being used in Turkey and notes that many Turkish investors find cryptoassets to offer significant positives. Nonetheless, it finds that in some cases significant assets can be put at risk due to the expectation gaps and other misunderstandings, potentially impacting on families and livelihoods. It examines the Turkish Capital Markets Law, which was amended in 2024, after the empirical studies were carried out. It considers how its approach offers improved protection, although it is found to be much less detailed than the EU’s Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation. It highlights one area in which the Turkish law might have a chilling effect on crypto firms, which can potentially damage the development of this sector in Turkey. It then sets out a preferred pluralistic and decentred regulatory approach based on improvement of consumer understanding of cryptoassets.

This article reports on a study of the adaptability of European Union (EU) roadside enforcement powers to automated vehicles (AVs). It identifies technological obsolescence within EU laws where there are powers to stop vehicles being directed to the ‘driver’, ‘road users’ or ‘traffic participant’ all of which are assumed to be a ‘human’ controlling a vehicle. This is problematic in an automated transport future where automated driving systems (ADS) will increasingly be in control of the dynamic driving tasks. This article concludes that instead of ‘human-centric’ roadside enforcement powers, lawmakers should move to a ‘vehicle-centric’ focus, where the vehicle (irrespective of who, or what, is driving) should be the addressee of the legal power and provides examples of reform directions.

We study the performance of ChatGPT interpreting prompts that require legal expertise to answer. Our inputs are very close adaptations from the "Contextual Canons" section of Antonin Scalia & Bryan Garner's Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (Thomson West: 2012). We report our experiments and findings for the entire section (comprising 14 canons) of the book. We conclude that as a legal reasoner ChatGPT is exceptionally successful in taking the contextual canons into account.