Introduction: The Jurisdictional Singularity
The metaverse represents not merely an incremental evolution of the internet but a legal and constitutional event horizon. It is a persistent, interconnected network of digital worlds, a merging of virtual, augmented, and physical reality where users, represented by avatars, can connect, explore, and interact in ways that transcend physical geography. This emerging digital frontier, being constructed by a combination of centralized corporate giants and decentralized, user-owned platforms , operates in a deterritorialized space that directly collides with the foundational principles of legal jurisdiction. Traditional jurisdiction is a manifestation of state sovereignty, fundamentally rooted in the power to regulate conduct and property within defined territorial boundaries. The metaverse, by its very design, has no such boundaries, creating what can be termed a “jurisdictional singularity”—a point where geography-based legal frameworks become fundamentally incoherent.
The legal vacuum resulting from this singularity is not remaining empty. It is being filled rapidly, not by public law developed through democratic processes, but by privately drafted Terms of Service agreements and the architectural dictates of software, a reality often described as “code is law”. This dynamic effectively establishes a new form of corporate sovereignty, where platform owners wield quasi-governmental power over digital realms. This profound shift necessitates a fundamental re-evaluation of constitutional rights, which are traditionally conceived as protections against state power, and underscores the urgent need for a transnational legal framework capable of governing this new global space without stifling its innovative potential.
The very definition of the “metaverse” contributes to this legal ambiguity. The distinction between a singular, interoperable metaverse—a seamless network akin to the internet itself—and a fragmented ecosystem of disparate “metaverses” carries profound jurisdictional consequences. A singular, unified metaverse might lend itself to governance through international treaties and universal standards. Conversely, a fragmented landscape of privately owned virtual worlds could devolve into a chaotic patchwork of competing legal regimes. In such a scenario, a user’s rights, obligations, and the legal status of their digital assets could change instantaneously as their avatar teleports from a world governed by Meta’s policies to one operating under the decentralized protocols of Decentraland. This architectural choice is not a mere technical detail; it is a foundational legal question that will define the nature and scale of the jurisdictional challenges ahead.
The Deterritorialized Realm: Deconstructing the Metaverse’s Legal Challenge
The metaverse’s challenge to traditional legal authority stems from its core technological features, each of which actively dismantles a pillar of established jurisdictional theory.
First, the principles of persistence and embodiment create a reality where virtual worlds continue to exist and evolve independently of any single user’s presence, much like a physical city. The psychological immersion afforded by virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technologies fosters a powerful sense of “presence,” meaning virtual harms—such as assault, harassment, or theft—can inflict genuine, real-world psychological trauma. Yet, these tortious or criminal acts occur in a non-physical space, profoundly complicating the application of laws designed to address physical contact and geographically located events.
Second, the core vision of interoperability—the ability to move avatars and digital assets seamlessly between different virtual worlds—shatters the legal concept of a “situs,” or a single, identifiable location for a legal event. An asset, such as a non-fungible token (NFT), purchased in one virtual environment and then used or displayed in another could simultaneously be subject to the conflicting Terms of Service of both platforms, as well as the disparate laws of the countries where the buyer, the seller, and the platform’s servers are physically located. This creates an intractable conflict-of-laws problem for which there is no current solution.
Third, the rise of decentralization creates a profound governance gap. Platforms built on blockchain technology, such as Decentraland or Cryptovoxels, are often governed by Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) and lack a central controlling entity that can be held legally accountable. This architecture makes it nearly impossible to identify a defendant to sue, a server to subpoena for evidence, or a legal authority to compel compliance with a court order.
Finally, anonymity and the use of avatars obscure the real-world identities of users, posing immense practical challenges for fundamental legal processes like service of process, enforcement of judgments, and establishing accountability for illegal acts. The avatar itself raises novel questions of legal personality: is it mere property of the user, a digital extension of their personhood, or an entirely new type of legal entity with its own rights and liabilities?
The confluence of decentralization and anonymity does not merely present a challenge to existing law; it creates an environment ripe for “jurisdictional arbitrage.” Criminal activities, from money laundering to fraud, are already migrating to virtual platforms where enforcement is difficult. It is a predictable and logical next step that new metaverse platforms will be deliberately architected to be ungovernable, designed as virtual havens for illicit activities that are difficult to prosecute under any existing legal framework. This possibility forces a necessary shift in legal strategy, moving away from reactive enforcement against a known corporate or individual defendant and toward a proactive, systemic regulation of the underlying technological protocols—a far more complex and politically contentious endeavor.
The Ghost in the Machine: Sovereignty and Jurisdiction in Analog Law
To fully grasp the revolutionary nature of the metaverse’s challenge, it is essential to understand the legal system it threatens to render obsolete. Legal jurisdiction, in both international and domestic law, is fundamentally a “manifestation of state sovereignty”.
In international law, the foundational Territoriality Principle holds that a state possesses exclusive power over all persons, property, and events within its physical borders. This principle, articulated in landmark cases such as The Lotus Case, forms the bedrock of the modern international legal order. While other bases for jurisdiction exist—such as the
Nationality Principle (a state’s power over its citizens abroad), the Protective Principle (jurisdiction over acts abroad that threaten national security), and Universal Jurisdiction (jurisdiction over universally condemned crimes like piracy or genocide)—territory remains the primary and most powerful anchor for a state’s legal authority.
This territorial focus is mirrored in domestic law. In the United States, the Supreme Court’s 19th-century decision in Pennoyer v. Neff established a rigid jurisdictional framework based on the defendant’s physical presence within the state (“tag jurisdiction”) or the presence of the defendant’s property within the state (in rem jurisdiction). This model was a direct legal expression of territorial sovereignty. The 20th century saw an evolution with the landmark case
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, which introduced the more flexible standard of “minimum contacts.” This test allowed courts to assert jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants who had a substantial connection with the forum state, ensuring that the exercise of jurisdiction did not “offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”. Other traditional bases, such as a person’s permanent home (domicile) or their explicit agreement (consent), also ground jurisdiction in a tangible link to a physical place.
The entire historical trajectory of jurisdictional law, from the physical boundaries of Pennoyer to the conceptual connections of International Shoe, can be seen as an ongoing attempt to adapt a geography-based legal system to new technologies that facilitate action across distances, such as the automobile and interstate corporate commerce. However, the metaverse represents a quantum leap, not an incremental step. It breaks the single underlying assumption common to both the Pennoyer and International Shoe eras: that all human activity, no matter how remote, is ultimately tethered to a physical location. An avatar controlled by a user in Germany can perpetrate fraud against an avatar controlled by a user in Japan, within a virtual world hosted on servers in Ireland, owned and operated by a DAO with no formal legal personality. In this context, the “minimum contacts” test becomes conceptually meaningless. This suggests that what is required is not another modification of the old jurisdictional paradigm, but the development of a new one entirely.
The Clash of Realities: Jurisdictional Conflicts in Virtual Worlds
When analog laws are applied to the deterritorialized reality of the metaverse, the result is a landscape of intractable jurisdictional conflicts and legal uncertainty.
The “minimum contacts” paradox is a prime example. Courts are struggling to apply this test in a consistent manner. In one instance, a Pennsylvania court asserted jurisdiction over a California-based virtual world company simply because the company advertised and accepted payments from Pennsylvania residents. If this logic were broadly adopted, any global metaverse platform would be subject to lawsuits in every jurisdiction where it has users, creating an untenable and unpredictable legal environment for businesses.
A related conflict arises over determining the locus of harm. When a tortious act occurs in the metaverse, where did it legally happen? Is it where the plaintiff is physically located and experiences the psychological or financial injury? Is it where the defendant is physically located? Is it where the platform’s servers are hosted? Or is it within the virtual space itself, a location with no physical correlate? Different legal systems provide different answers. European courts tend to focus on the location where the harmful action occurred, while U.S. courts look for the defendant’s contacts with the forum, leading to the potential for conflicting legal outcomes for the exact same virtual event.
The issue of data sovereignty further complicates matters. The physical location of data storage is often entirely disconnected from a user’s physical location or nationality. As established in precedents like the
Microsoft Ireland case, a government’s attempt to access user data for a criminal investigation can be legally thwarted if those servers reside in another country’s sovereign territory. This problem is exponentially magnified in the metaverse, where platform providers may deliberately fragment user data across numerous jurisdictions, making it impossible for any single government to obtain a complete data set through traditional legal processes.
These challenges culminate in a profound enforcement vacuum. A monetary judgment or injunctive relief granted by a court in one country is often practically unenforceable in a decentralized or anonymous virtual world. There is no central authority to compel the transfer of a “stolen” virtual asset, garnish an avatar’s virtual wages, or shut down an offending operation. This impotence of public courts is leading to an increased reliance on platform operators to act as de facto law enforcement, adjudicators, and enforcers—a trend that raises significant due process concerns.
The legal chaos and inefficiency of public court systems are creating a powerful incentive for metaverse platforms to privatize the justice system entirely. By embedding mandatory arbitration clauses and choice-of-law provisions into their non-negotiable Terms of Service agreements, companies can create a predictable and efficient system for resolving disputes. While born of practical necessity, this trend facilitates a fundamental transfer of power from public judiciaries to private corporations. It risks establishing a global system of corporate-led governance that operates parallel to, and often above, the authority of national law, where users may unknowingly waive fundamental rights without the transparency, impartiality, and public accountability inherent in a state-run justice system.
The Algorithmic Constitution: Fundamental Rights Under Duress
The metaverse is not a neutral technological platform; its architecture and the governance models that direct it actively reshape and, in many cases, diminish fundamental constitutional and human rights. This erosion is occurring across the domains of expression, privacy, and property.
The Muted Avatar: Freedom of Expression and Corporate Censorship
In the virtual worlds of the metaverse, constitutional protections for free expression, such as the U.S. First Amendment, are largely inapplicable. The “state action” doctrine requires government involvement for a constitutional claim, meaning private companies like Meta, Roblox, or the operators of decentralized platforms are the ultimate arbiters of acceptable speech. Governance is not conducted through public law but through privately drafted End-User License Agreements (EULAs) and Terms of Service (ToS), which users must accept to participate.
This private control is compounded by a content moderation crisis of unprecedented scale. Moderating the metaverse is exponentially more difficult than moderating text-based social media. It requires monitoring not just posts, but real-time behavior, speech, gestures, and complex social interactions within immersive 3D environments—a task that is a practical impossibility at scale. The psychological impact of abusive behavior, such as virtual groping or racist harassment, is also amplified in VR, as the brain can perceive these experiences as physically real. The threat of being “de-platformed”—having one’s account, digital identity, social connections, and virtual assets erased by a private entity, often without meaningful due process—creates a powerful chilling effect on expression that far exceeds what a democratic government could legally impose.
The Panoptic Self: Privacy, Biometrics, and Data Sovereignty
The metaverse is architected to be a data-collection engine of unparalleled scale and intimacy. The hardware required for immersive experiences, such as VR headsets and AR glasses, captures vast quantities of sensitive biometric data, including eye-tracking patterns, facial expressions, vocal inflections, and even physiological responses like heart rate. This data can be used to infer users’ emotional states, health conditions, cognitive processes, and personal preferences with a degree of accuracy that poses an existential threat to personal privacy.
Surveys show that a vast majority of potential users are deeply concerned about these privacy risks and how their personal data will be collected, used, and tracked across different virtual environments. Existing legal frameworks, even comprehensive ones like the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), are stressed to their limits. Core data protection principles like data minimization are antithetical to the functioning of these platforms, which require constant data streams to render immersive experiences. The sheer volume, velocity, and sensitivity of the data collected, particularly biometric data, challenge the adequacy of current consent models and place immense pressure on regulatory oversight.
Virtual Property, Tangible Disputes: Due Process and Digital Assets
A foundational legal crisis in the metaverse revolves around the ambiguous status of digital assets, such as NFTs. It remains unclear whether these assets should be legally classified as property, securities, or merely contractual rights. The answer to this question determines which body of law applies and what rights an owner possesses. Currently, the purchase of an NFT often grants the buyer nothing more than a limited license to display a digital item, not true ownership of the underlying asset or its associated intellectual property rights.
This ambiguity has led to regulatory chaos. In the U.S., the application of the decades-old Howey test to determine if a digital asset is a security has resulted in contradictory court rulings, with different judges reaching opposite conclusions on similar facts. This inconsistency deprives companies and individuals of fair notice of what conduct is lawful—a cornerstone principle of legal due process. When these virtual assets are “stolen” through hacks or scams, users often find they have no effective legal recourse. The disputes are technically complex and cross-jurisdictional, and traditional courts are ill-equipped to provide timely remedies. This has led to growing calls for specialized international arbitration bodies designed specifically to handle digital asset disputes.
These distinct threats to speech, privacy, and property are not isolated; they are interconnected and create a reinforcing cycle of corporate power. The collection of intimate biometric and behavioral data enables the creation of detailed psychological profiles, making users vulnerable to manipulation. A platform can identify users who express dissenting views through their data profile. It can then use its absolute power as a private entity to censor that speech by suspending the user’s account. This suspension can simultaneously result in the forfeiture of all the user’s digital property and the erasure of their established social identity, creating a powerful economic and social deterrent against any form of dissent. This forms a closed loop: data collection enables the control of speech, and the control of speech protects the platform’s power to continue collecting data. This is not a series of separate legal problems but a single, integrated system of private governance that challenges the foundations of a free and open society.
Charting the New World: Emerging Governance Frameworks and Geopolitical Tensions
As the legal and constitutional vacuum of the metaverse becomes undeniable, the world’s major powers are beginning to project their distinct regulatory philosophies into this new virtual realm. This contest is not merely about legal frameworks; it is a geopolitical struggle to shape the next frontier of the global economy, define the future of international influence, and embed fundamental values into the very architecture of the next internet. The divergent paths being forged by the European Union, the United States, and China are setting the stage for a new era of regulatory and geopolitical competition.
| Jurisdiction | Core Philosophy | Key Legislation/Policy | Approach to Data & Privacy | Approach to Content Moderation | Stance on Sovereignty & Geopolitics |
| European Union | Rights-Centric Regulation | Digital Services Act (DSA); GDPR; AI Act | Strict, rights-based protection; data minimization and user consent are paramount. | Proactive and systemic; platforms must assess and mitigate risks to fundamental rights; high transparency requirements. | Aims to export its regulatory model globally (“Brussels Effect”); frames digital governance as a matter of protecting fundamental human rights. |
| United States | Market-Driven Innovation | Proposed U.S. Leadership in Immersive Technology Act; Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act | Industry-led standards with a focus on consumer protection; legislative action is reactive and prioritizes economic growth. | Platform liability is limited (Section 230); emphasis on self-regulation and First Amendment principles, though this is under increasing scrutiny. | Views metaverse leadership as a matter of national economic competitiveness and security; aims to ensure the next platform is imbued with U.S. values. |
| People’s Republic of China | State-Controlled Industrial Strategy | Three-Year Action Plan for Metaverse Industry (2023-2025) | Data is a national strategic asset; subject to state surveillance, localization requirements, and control. | Highly controlled and censored by the state to align with political objectives and maintain social stability. | Views the metaverse as a tool for industrial policy and global influence; actively seeks to shape international governance rules to reflect its state-centric model. |
The Brussels Effect in Cyberspace: The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA)
The European Union is pursuing a rights-centric, comprehensive regulatory approach, epitomized by the Digital Services Act (DSA). The DSA imposes significant due diligence obligations on online platforms regarding illegal content, algorithmic transparency, and user rights. These rules will apply directly to metaverse platforms accessible in the EU, with Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) facing the strictest requirements. These platforms must conduct systemic risk assessments related to the spread of illegal content and negative effects on fundamental rights, and they must implement measures to mitigate these risks. Recent developments in 2024 and 2025 show the EU is actively implementing this framework, issuing specific guidelines on protecting minors online and integrating codes of conduct on disinformation and hate speech into the DSA’s co-regulatory structure.
A National Strategy for a Virtual Frontier: The U.S. Legislative Approach
The United States, historically reliant on a market-driven model with strong liability protections for platforms under Section 230, is now shifting toward a more strategic, whole-of-government approach. The bipartisan “United States Leadership in Immersive Technology Act,” introduced in 2024 and re-introduced in 2025, signals a clear recognition of the metaverse’s geopolitical importance. The Act’s primary objective is to ensure U.S. economic competitiveness and global leadership in developing the next major computing platform. It proposes an advisory panel to create a national strategy. While the Act directs this panel to identify best practices for protecting individual rights like privacy and intellectual property, these considerations are framed as secondary to the primary goal of strategic leadership—a notable contrast to the EU’s rights-first philosophy.
The State-Controlled Metaverse: China’s Industrial Blueprint
China is implementing a top-down, state-directed industrial policy. Its “Three-Year Action Plan for Innovative Development of the Metaverse Industry (2023-2025)” is a blueprint for creating a world-leading metaverse ecosystem that serves national strategic interests. The plan explicitly focuses on developing an “industrial metaverse” to enhance manufacturing and productivity, deliberately differentiating its approach from what it terms the “entertainment-oriented” Western model. Crucially, the policy states that China will “deeply participate in the formulation of international governance rules” and promote a governance system that reflects its own state-centric ideas, signaling a direct challenge to the open, multi-stakeholder model of internet governance that has historically prevailed.
The New Cold War? Geopolitical Competition in the Metaverse
These three divergent models are not developing in isolation; they are on a collision course. The metaverse is rapidly emerging as a new and critical arena for geopolitical competition, particularly between the United States and China. Control over the standards, platforms, and governance protocols of the metaverse is a new form of soft power. The nation or bloc that successfully defines the operating principles of this next-generation internet will wield immense influence over global communication, culture, and commerce. The inherently borderless nature of these virtual worlds directly challenges traditional notions of national sovereignty, forcing nations to develop new policies to protect their interests as their citizens’ lives become increasingly enmeshed in these global digital realms.
The inherent interoperability of the metaverse means these conflicting legal regimes will inevitably clash within the same virtual spaces. A single global platform, to be commercially viable, must attempt to operate in all three major markets. This raises fundamental questions: How can a platform simultaneously comply with the EU’s strict privacy and data portability mandates, China’s demands for data localization and state access, and the U.S. model that prioritizes free data flows and platform autonomy? The most likely outcome is a “splinternet” within the metaverse itself. Platforms may be forced to geofence their virtual worlds, creating an “EU-compliant” zone, a “China-compliant” zone, and a “U.S.-compliant” zone. This would directly contradict the core vision of a seamless, interoperable global metaverse, effectively Balkanizing the next generation of the internet before it is even fully built.
Conclusion: Towards a Transnational Legal Order for the Metaverse
The analysis of the metaverse reveals a “jurisdictional singularity” where traditional, territory-based laws lose their coherence. This legal vacuum, coupled with a nascent geopolitical contest between competing regulatory philosophies, demonstrates the profound inadequacy of purely national or purely self-regulatory approaches to governance. State-centric territoriality fails because the metaverse is deterritorialized. Corporate self-regulation fails because it lacks democratic legitimacy, accountability, and robust due process, leading to the systemic erosion of fundamental rights.
The path forward requires the development of a hybrid, multi-stakeholder transnational legal order. This framework must be grounded in the principles of international human rights law, building on emerging scholarship on a universal “international law of the Internet”. Achieving this will demand unprecedented collaboration between states, international organizations like the UN and the World Economic Forum (which are already forming expert groups and governance initiatives), technology companies, and civil society.
The essential components of such a framework would include:
- International Treaties: Establishing binding international agreements that set baseline protections for fundamental rights, including privacy, freedom of expression, and due process. These treaties must apply not only to states but also directly to the operators of metaverse platforms, holding them accountable under international law.
- Technical Standards as “Embedded Law”: Moving beyond reactive legal enforcement to proactively build rights protections into the metaverse’s core architecture. Through international standards bodies, principles like privacy-by-design, algorithmic transparency, and robust, interoperable identity verification systems can be embedded as technical protocols, making the protection of rights a default condition of the environment.
- Global Dispute Resolution Mechanisms: Creating specialized, accessible, and enforceable international arbitration bodies designed to handle the unique challenges of digital asset disputes and other cross-border conflicts arising in virtual worlds. This would provide a meaningful avenue for recourse where national courts are jurisdictionally powerless.
The challenge of governing the metaverse is not merely a technical or legal puzzle; it is a fundamental test of our collective ability to adapt the foundational principles of sovereignty, rights, and the rule of law to a world where the boundaries between the physical and the digital have irrevocably dissolved. Failure to construct a legitimate, rights-respecting governance framework will not lead to a digital utopia of boundless innovation, but to a fragmented dystopia of corporate fiefdoms, digital autocracies, and ungovernable lawless zones. The time to architect a better future is now.
References
University of Cambridge. (n.d.).
What is the metaverse? Cambridge Stories. LineZero. (2025, February 19).
The Metaverse Explained. Webisoft. (n.d.).
Top 10 Metaverse Development Companies to Hire in 2025. Oxford Bibliographies. (n.d.).
Jurisdiction. In International Law. Wikipedia. (n.d.).
Jurisdiction. Fiveable. (n.d.).
Traditional Bases of Personal Jurisdiction. Nathenson, I. S. (2020, September 27).
The Traditional Bases for Jurisdiction. Norwegian National Human Rights Institution. (n.d.).
Human Rights in the Metaverse. In The Metaverse and Human Rights. ResearchGate. (2024).
Regulating the Metaverse: Emerging Legal Challenges in Virtual Worlds. Balkin, J. M. (n.d.).
Virtual Worlds, Real Freedom: A First Amendment Analysis. New York Law School Law Review, DigitalCommons@NYLS. HeinOnline. (n.d.).
Freedom of Speech in the Virtual World. Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology, 19. Georgetown Law Technology Review. (2022, May).
Meet the New Verse, Same as the Old Verse: Moderating the Metaverse. Zevo Health. (n.d.).
The Wellbeing of Content Moderators in the Metaverse: Navigating New Realities. Norton Rose Fulbright. (2021, October).
NFTs and intellectual property rights. International Journal of Law and Information Technology. (2024).
NFTs and intellectual property rights: A legal analysis. Academic.oup.com, doi:10.1093/ijlit/eaae018. NYU Moot Court. (2025).
Clarifying Crypto: The Case for Restoring Due Process in Crypto Regulation. Transnational Matters. (n.d.).
Digital Asset Arbitration & Disputes. PatentPC. (n.d.).
Security & Privacy in the Metaverse: User Concern Stats. Tata Consultancy Services. (n.d.).
User Privacy Protection in the Metaverse Experience. Secure Privacy. (2025, June 4).
Metaverse Data Jurisdiction Conflicts: Cross-Border Enforcement and Regulatory Challenges. Clifford Chance. (2022, February).
The Metaverse: What are the legal implications? International Bar Association. (n.d.).
Digital Regulations in the Metaverse Era. McKinsey & Company. (2023, June 26).
The role of legal and compliance in the metaverse. Land, M. (2013).
An International Law of the Internet. Harvard International Law Journal, 54(2). Pollicino, O., & Bassini, M. (n.d.).
The Law of the Internet and the Process of Globalization of Legal Systems. RePEc. The Jerusalem Post. (2024).
Crime in the metaverse: How virtual worlds become fertile ground for criminals. American Bar Association. (2025, August).
Recent Developments in Artificial Intelligence: Cases and Legislation. Business Law Today. ResearchGate. (2024).
Regulating the Metaverse: Emerging Legal Challenges in Virtual Worlds. Journal of Metaverse. (2022).
Intellectual Property Rights in the Metaverse. Secure Privacy. (2025, June 4).
Metaverse Data Jurisdiction Conflicts: Cross-Border Enforcement and Regulatory Challenges. U.S. Senator Mark R. Warner. (2025, March 25).
Warner, Blackburn Introduce Legislation to Strengthen U.S. Immersive Technology Leadership. XR Association. (2024, December 11).
XR Association Applauds the Introduction of the “United States Leadership in Immersive Technology Act of 2024”. XR Association. (2025, March 24).
XR Association Applauds Introduction of the “United States Leadership in Immersive Technology Act of 2025”. Congress.gov. (2025, March 25).
H.R.2321 – United States Leadership in Immersive Technology Act of 2025. EU Digital Services Act. (n.d.).
The EU Digital Services Act. European Commission. (n.d.).
The Digital Services Act package. Inside Privacy. (2025, July).
European Commission Makes New Announcements on the Protection of Minors Under the Digital Services Act. Global Policy Watch. (2025, January).
What Does the New European Commission Mean for EU Tech Policy? Virtual Dimension Center (VDC) Fellbach. (n.d.).
China Metaverse Strategy. Taylor Wessing. (2023, September 25).
China announces its 2025 actions for Metaverse. TILT Labs. (2024, March 27).
China Sets Ambitious Goals for Domestic Metaverse Development. Medium. State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China. (2023, September 11).
China unveils action plan to step up metaverse development. Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research. (n.d.).
The Metaverse and Its Geopolitical Implications. Ifri. (2022, June 20).
The Political Economy of the Metaverse. Center for Strategic and International Studies. (2023).
There Are Tradeoffs in Governing the Metaverse. World Economic Forum. (2022, May).
How to govern the metaverse. INTERPOL. (n.d.).
Metaverse – a law enforcement perspective. Europol. (n.d.).
Policing in the metaverse – what law enforcement needs to know. Licensing Executives Society International. (n.d.).
IP in the Metaverse: Protecting Rights in the Virtual World. SS8 Networks. (2025).
Crime and Law Enforcement in the Metaverse. ResearchGate. (2022).
The Role of Metaverse in Intercultural Interaction. Cao, H. (2025). Bridging the social gap: The role of the metaverse in alleviating loneliness and language barriers among international students.
Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology, 9(9), 261–273. MoldStud. (n.d.).
The Social Aspects of the Metaverse – Connecting with Others in Virtual Space. National Center for Biotechnology Information. (2024).
The Metaverse: A comprehensive review of user perceptions, usability, and societal implications. PMC. WTSVerse. (2023).
Metaverse Governance: Decentralized vs. Centralized Control. DiploFoundation. (2025).
Part 5: Rethinking legal governance. AI Office of the UAE Government. (2023).
Responsible Metaverse Self-governance Framework 2023. Emerald Publishing. (2024).
Metaverse governance in international business. Review of International Business and Strategy. International Data Privacy Law. (2024).
Meta’s Metaverse and the GDPR. Academic.oup.com, 14(2), 89. Oxford Bibliographies. (n.d.).
Jurisdiction. In International Law. Nathenson, I. S. (2020, September 27).
The Traditional Bases for Jurisdiction. Georgetown Law Technology Review. (2022, May).
Meet the New Verse, Same as the Old Verse: Moderating the Metaverse. Norton Rose Fulbright. (2021, October).
NFTs and intellectual property rights. NYU Moot Court. (2025).
Clarifying Crypto: The Case for Restoring Due Process in Crypto Regulation. Tata Consultancy Services. (n.d.).
User Privacy Protection in the Metaverse Experience. Secure Privacy. (2025, June 4).
Metaverse Data Jurisdiction Conflicts: Cross-Border Enforcement and Regulatory Challenges. European Commission. (n.d.).
The Digital Services Act package. Taylor Wessing. (2023, September 25).
China announces its 2025 actions for Metaverse. World Economic Forum. (2022, May 25).
How to govern the metaverse. WTSVerse. (2023, September 25).
Metaverse Governance: Decentralized vs. Centralized Control. DiploFoundation. (2025, May 7).
Part 5: Rethinking legal governance.
