How has the rise of distance distribution channels, such as online platforms and digital brokers, transformed the insurance industry in Italy and the broader EU? Well, I have to say that compared to the initial expectations ten or fifteen years ago, I mean, the perspectives and the tangible reality are very different. With the advent of digital scenarios, there was a legitimate outcry in Italy from the various stakeholders about the risks of disintermediation, job losses, and critical and irreversible reductions in the quality of insurance services offered. This was not the case. The facts have shown that, to this day, there is always a man or a team of men behind the machines. Some have coined the term “phygital” as a cross between physical and digital. I do not like this term because it seems to evoke a hybrid scenario that does NOT exist: physical and digital realities are constantly evolving and it is not easy to predict them. Let me give you an example: when I was a child, we imagined the future as an imaginary reality to be perceived with a glove and a visor, then there was the advent of Second Life, then the Metaverse, social media and related human interactions, and now it’s the era of the voice assistants. To date we are talking - with a boring storytelling - about AI. To come to the point of both questions, there are some positive changes in the insurance world that are here to stay. The digital user has the possibility to compare, to read carefully all the precontractual and contractual documents, not to be put under psychological pressure to sign by a person. And this is a good thing. And then there are some worrying changes. Many people do not know whether a telematics portal belongs to a real company or to a real insurance broker, and they fall victim to fraud. And that will be one of the challenges in the future. Counteracting it. I have to say that the Italian Regulators are working hard on this problem with some excellent results. What are the main legal challenges that Italian and EU insurance companies face when distributing their products remotely, and how do you help them navigate these complexities? This is a million-dollar question that I could not answer without descending into rhetoric and platitudes. The Gordian knot of first- and secondlevel regulation in Italy is an excess of rules. That derives from EU. I often speak of “Regulatory asphyxia”. When the Insurance Code (adopted in Italy in 2009) was being drafted, the declared intention was to bring together in a single clarifying text the scattered rules that had hitherto been left to few laws and to the sense of the national regulator (then called Isvap and now Ivass) to define and regulate. The aim was laudable. However, to date, we have 44 regulations issued under the regime of the so-called Isvap (the old name of our regulator), most of which are still in force, and 55 regulations issued under the regime of the Ivass (new name). Many, many more are to come. Then there are the letters to the market, the notes, the guidelines, and the European indications. Too much. Really. On the side, as I said, are the Insurance Code, the Consumer Code, privacy and data protection regulations, and the AML regulation. In short, the categorical imperative is to rely on experts and not on improvisers. On professionals who have always dealt with digital and only digital. Because digital insurance cannot be just one of many practices a law firm has to deal with, but must be the only one if the aim is to provide excellent service to the client. Because the risk of making mistakes is very high. Although the understanding of the local regulator has grown a lot over the years. 16 LAWYER MONTHLY AUGUST 2024 Digital insurance cannot be just one of many practices a law firm has to deal with, but must be the only one if the aim is to provide excellent service to the client.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Mjk3Mzkz