Antidiscrimination Insurance Pricing: Regulations, Fairness Criteria, and Models

REFERENCES

• Agarwal, A., M. Dudik, and Z. S. Wu. 2019. Fair regression: Quantitative definitions and reduction-based algorithms. Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning 97:120–29.
   Google Scholar
• Alexander v. sandoval (No. 99-1908; Vol. 532, p. 275). (2001). (Vol. 532). Supreme Court. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/532bv.pdf
   Google Scholar
• AMERICAN INS. V. US DEPT. OF HOUSING AND URBAN (Civil Case No. 13-00966 (RJL); Vol. 74, p. 30). (2014). (Vol. 74). Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia. https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2013cv0966-47
   Google Scholar
• Araiza Iturria, C. A., M. Hardy, and P. Marriott. 2022. A discrimination-free premium under a causal framework. 10.2139/ssrn.4079068
   Google Scholar
• Australian Human Rights Commission. 2020. Using artificial intelligence to make decisions: Addressing the problem of algorithmic bias. https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/ahrc_technical_paper_algorithmic_bias_2020.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Australian Human Rights Commission. n.d.a. Direct discrimination. https://humanrights.gov.au/quick-guide/12026.
   Google Scholar
• Australian Human Rights Commission. n.d.b. Indirect discrimination. https://humanrights.gov.au/quick-guide/12049.
   Google Scholar
• Australian Law Reform Commission. 2003. Essentially yours—The protection of human genetic information in Australia. Vols. 1 and 2. Report 96. https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/essentially-yours-the-protectionof-human-genetic-information-in-australia-alrc-report-96/%7D.
   Google Scholar
• Avraham, R., K. D. Logue, and D. Schwarcz. 2014a. Towards a universal framework for insurance anti-discrimination laws. Connecticut Insurance Law Journal 21:1.
   Google Scholar
• Avraham, R., K. D. Logue, and D. Schwarcz. 2014b. Understanding insurance antidiscrimination laws. Southern California Law Review 87 (2):195–274.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barocas, S., M. Hardt, and A. Narayanan. 2019. Fairness and machine learning. fairmlbook.org.
   Google Scholar
• Barocas, S., and A. D. Selbst. 2016. Big data’s disparate impact. California Law Review 104:671.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berk, R. 2009. The role of race in forecasts of violent crime. Race and Social Problems 1 (4):231–42. 10.1007/s12552-009-9017-z
   Google Scholar
• Berk, R., H. Heidari, S. Jabbari, M. Joseph, M. Kearns, J. Morgenstern, S. Neel, and A. Roth. 2017. A convex framework for fair regression. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1706.02409.
   Google Scholar
• Berk, R., H. Heidari, S. Jabbari, M. Kearns, and A. Roth. 2018. Fairness in criminal justice risk assessments: The state of the art. Sociological Methods & Research 50 (1):3–44.
   Google Scholar
• Binns, R. 2018. Fairness in machine learning: Lessons from political philosophy. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research 81:149–59.
   Google Scholar
• Binns, R. 2020. On the apparent conflict between individual and group fairness. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 514–24. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
   Google Scholar
• Birnbaum, B. 2020a. Addressing systemic racism in insurance: Presentation to the NAIC committee on race and insurance workstream 4: Life insurance and annuities. https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/call_materials/cej_presentation_naic_race_life_201210.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Birnbaum, B. 2020b. Insurance consumer protection issues resulting from, or heightened by COVID-19: Presentation to NAIC Consumer Liaison Committee. https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/call_materials/Slideshow_Consumer%5B1%5D.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• California Department of Insurance. 2020. Private passenger auto class plan filing instructions. http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0250-insurers/0800-rate-filings/upload/Class-Plan-Instructions-02_10_2020.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• California Office of Administrative Law. (2023). California code of regulations. https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/IDE21D4235C2F11EC9C68000D3A7C4BC3?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)
   Google Scholar
• Casualty Actuarial Society. (1988). Statement of principles regarding property and casualty insurance ratemaking. https://www.casact.org/sites/default/files/2021-05/Statement-Of-Principles-Ratemaking.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Casualty Actuarial and Statistical (C) Task Force. 2015. Casualty Actuarial and Statistical (C) Task Force price optimization white paper. https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/committees_c_catf_related_price_optimization_white_paper.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Caton, S., and C. Haas. 2020. Fairness in machine learning: A survey. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2010.04053.
   Google Scholar
• Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 2022. Market rating reforms—State specific geographic rating areas. https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Programs-and-Initiatives/Health-Insurance-Market-Reforms/state-gra.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, T., and C. Guestrin. 2016. XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 785–94. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, T., T. He, M. Benesty, V. Khotilovich, Y. Tang, H. Cho, K. Chen, R. Mitchell, I. Cano, T. Zhou, et al. 2015. XGBoost: Extreme gradient boosting. R Package v0.4-2. https://cran.microsoft.com/snapshot/2022-01-01/web/packages/xgboost/xgboost.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Chiappa, S. 2019. Path-specific counterfactual fairness. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 33:7801–8. 10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33017801
   Google Scholar
• Chibanda, K. F. 2022. SB21-169—Protecting consumers from unfair discrimination in insurance practices. https://doi.colorado.gov/for-consumers/sb21-169-protecting-consumers-from-unfair-discrimination-in-insurance-practices.
   Google Scholar
• Civil rights act of 1991. (1991). Public Law 102-166. https://www.eeoc.gov/civil-rightsact-1991-original-text#:∼:text=To%20amend%20the%20Civil%20Rights,actions%2C%20and%20for%20other%20purposes.
   Google Scholar
• Consumer Reports. 2021. Effects of varying education level and job status on online auto insurance price quotes. https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Auto-Insurance-White-Paper-Report-FINAL1.26C.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Corbett-Davies, S., E. Pierson, A. Feller, S. Goel, and A. Huq. 2017. Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairness. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 797–806. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
   Google Scholar
• Council of the European Union. (2000). Council directive 2000/43/EC of 29 june 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32000L0043
   Google Scholar
• Council of the European Union. 2004. Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32004L0113.
   Google Scholar
• Court of Justice. 2011. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 March 2011. https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A62009CJ0236, Judgement of the Court, Case C-236/09.
   Google Scholar
• De Jong, P., and G. Z. Heller. 2008. Generalized linear models for insurance data. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. Cambridge Books.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2013. Implementation of the Fair Housing Act’s discriminatory effects standard. https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DISCRIMINATORYEFFECTRULE.PDF.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2020. HUD’s implementation of the Fair Housing Act’s disparate impact standard. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-09-24/pdf/2020-19887.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2021. Reinstatement of HUD’s discriminatory effects standard. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/06/25/2021-13240/reinstatement-of-huds-discriminatory-effects-standard.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Justice. (2021). Title VI legal manual. https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6Manual7#:%20:text=To/%20establish/%20an/%20adverse/%20disparate,and/%%20Q201%2020(4)/%20establish/%20causation
   Google Scholar
• Department of Transportation. (n.d.a). Title VI - intentional discrimination and disparate impact. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/civilrights/programs/docs/Title%20VI%20-%20Intentional%20Discrimination%20and%20Disparate%20Impact.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Department of Transportation. (n.d.b). What types of discrimination are prohibited by title VI? https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/civilrights/programs/docs/Title%20VI%20-%20Types%20of%20Discrimination.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Directorate of Legal and Administrative Information. (2020). Bonus-malus in car insurance. https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F2655.
   Google Scholar
• Di Stefano, P. G., J. M. Hickey, and V. Vasileiou. 2020. Counterfactual fairness: Removing direct effects through regularization. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2002.10774.
   Google Scholar
• Directorate of Legal and Administrative Information. 2022. Assurance auto obligatoire ou “au tiers” [Compulsory or "third party" car insurance]. https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F2628.
   Google Scholar
• Dolman, C., and D. Semenovich. 2019. Algorithmic fairness: Some practical considerations for actuaries. Paper presented at Actuaries Summit 2019, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, June 3–4.
   Google Scholar
• Dunn, R. A. 2009. Measuring racial disparities in traffic ticketing within large urban jurisdictions. Public Performance & Management Review 32 (4):537–61. 10.2753/PMR1530-9576320403
   Google Scholar
• Dutang, C., A. Charpentier, and M. C. Dutang. 2015. Package “CASdatasets.” http://dutangc.perso.math.cnrs.fr/RRepository/pub/web/CASdatasets-manual.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Dwork, C., M. Hardt, T. Pitassi, O. Reingold, and R. Zemel. 2012. Fairness through awareness. In Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, 214–26. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
   Google Scholar
• Elliott, M. N., P. A. Morrison, A. Fremont, D. F. McCaffrey, P. Pantoja, and N. Lurie. 2009. Using the Census Bureau’s surname list to improve estimates of race/ethnicity and associated disparities. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology 9 (2):69–83. 10.1007/s10742-009-0047-1
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2014. Commission Staff working document Annexes to the joint report on the application of the racial equality directive (2000/43/EC) and the employment equality directive (2000/78/EC). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52014SC0005.
   Google Scholar
• European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority. 2019. Big data analytics in motor and health insurance: A thematic review. https://register.eiopa.europa.eu/Publications/EIOPA_BigDataAnalytics_ThematicReview_April2019.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Fang, H., and A. Ko. 2018. Partial rating area offering in the ACA marketplaces: Facts, theory and evidence. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
   Google Scholar
• Fauzan, M. A., and H. Murfi. 2018. The accuracy of XGBoost for insurance claim prediction. International Journal of Advances in Soft Computing and Its Applications 10 (2):159–171.
   Google Scholar
• Federal Reserve. 2017. Fair lending regulations and statutes: Overview. https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/fair_lend_over.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Feldman, M., S. A. Friedler, J. Moeller, C. Scheidegger, and S. Venkatasubramanian. 2015. Certifying and removing disparate impact. In Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 259–68. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
   Google Scholar
• Fick, B. (1997). American bar association guide to workplace law. Times Books, New York, United States.
   Google Scholar
• Frees, E. W., R. A. Derrig, and G. Meyers. 2014. Predictive modeling applications in actuarial science. Vol. 1. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frees, E. W., and F. Huang. 2021. The discriminating (pricing) actuary. North American Actuarial Journal. 27 (1):2–24
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, C. (2020). HUD issues final rule on the fair housing act’s disparate impact standard. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/hud-issues-final-rule-on-the-fair-63161/.
   Google Scholar
• Gaulding, J. 1994. Race sex and genetic discrimination in insurance: What’s fair. Cornell Law Review 80:1646.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldburd, M., A. Khare, D. Tevet, and D. Guller. 2016. Generalized linear models for insurance rating. Arlington, VA: Casualty Actuarial Society, CAS Monographs Series, 5.
   Google Scholar
• Grari, V., C. Arthur, L. Sylvain, and D. Marcin. 2022. A fair pricing model via adversarial learning. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2202.12008.
   Google Scholar
• Griggs v. Duke Power Co. No. 124; Vol. 401, p. 424 (1971). Supreme Court. https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep401/usrep401424/usrep401424.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hardt, M. 2013. Fairness through awareness. https://course.ece.cmu.edu/∼ece734/fall2013/lectures/cmu13-fairness.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hardt, M., E. Price, and N. Srebro. 2016. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1610.02413.
   Google Scholar
• Hedden, B. 2021. On statistical criteria of algorithmic fairness. Philosophy and Public Affairs 49 (2):209–231. doi:10.1111/papa.12189.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henckaerts, R., M.-P. Côté, K. Antonio, and R. Verbelen. 2021. Boosting insights in insurance tariff plans with tree-based machine learning methods. North American Actuarial Journal 25 (2):255–85. 10.1080/10920277.2020.1745656
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunstad, L. 1996. Sequential analysis guidelines. https://www.insurance.ca.gov/0250-insurers/0800-rate-filings/upload/Sequential-Analysis.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchinson, B., and M. Mitchell. 2019. 50 Years of test (un) fairness: Lessons for machine learning. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 49–58. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
   Google Scholar
• Insurance Information Institute. 2019. Background on: Credit scoring. https://www.iii.org/article/background-on-credit-scoring.
   Google Scholar
• Johndrow, J. E., and K. Lum. 2019. An algorithm for removing sensitive information: Application to race-independent recidivism prediction. The Annals of Applied Statistics 13 (1):189–220. 10.1214/18-AOAS1201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kallus, N., X. Mao, and A. Zhou. 2021. Assessing algorithmic fairness with unobserved protected class using data combination. Management Science. 68 (3):1959–1981
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamiran, F., and T. Calders. 2012. Data preprocessing techniques for classification without discrimination. Knowledge and Information Systems 33 (1):1–33. 10.1007/s10115-011-0463-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kasirzadeh, A., and A. Smart. 2021. The use and misuse of counterfactuals in ethical machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 228–36. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
   Google Scholar
• Kilbertus, N., M. Rojas-Carulla, G. Parascandolo, M. Hardt, D. Janzing, and B. Schölkopf. 2017. Avoiding discrimination through causal reasoning. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, eds. Ulrike von Luxburg, Isabelle Guyon, Samy Bengio, Hanna Wallach, and Rob Fergus, 656–66. New York, NY: Curran Associates Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, M. P., O. Reingold, and G. N. Rothblum. 2018. Fairness through computationally bounded awareness. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1803.03239.
   Google Scholar
• Kleinberg, J., S. Mullainathan, and M. Raghavan. 2016. Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1609.05807.
   Google Scholar
• Kusner, M. J., J. Loftus, C. Russell, and R. Silva. 2017. Counterfactual fairness. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, eds. I. Guyon, U. Von Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett, 4066–76. New York, NY: Curran Associates Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Landes, X. 2015. How fair is actuarial fairness? Journal of Business Ethics 128 (3):519–33. 10.1007/s10551-014-2120-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehtonen, T.-K., and J. Liukko. 2011. The forms and limits of insurance solidarity. Journal of Business Ethics 103 (1):33–44. 10.1007/s10551-012-1221-x
   Google Scholar
• Lindholm, M., R. Richman, A. Tsanakas, and M. V. Wüthrich. 2022a. Discrimination-free insurance pricing. ASTIN Bulletin 52 (1):55–89. 10.1017/asb.2021.23
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindholm, M., R. Richman, A. Tsanakas, and M. V. Wüthrich. 2022b. A discussion of discrimination and fairness in insurance pricing. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2209.00858.
   Google Scholar
• Lindholm, M., R. Richman, A. Tsanakas, and M. V. Wüthrich. 2022c. A multi-task network approach for calculating discrimination-free insurance prices. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2207.02799.
   Google Scholar
• Lohia, P. K., K. N. Ramamurthy, M. Bhide, D. Saha, K. R. Varshney, and R. Puri. 2019. Bias mitigation post-processing for individual and group fairness. In ICASSP 2019–2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2847–51. New York, NY: IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Loi, M., and M. Christen. 2021. Choosing how to discriminate: Navigating ethical trade-offs in fair algorithmic design for the insurance sector. Philosophy & Technology 34:967–92. 10.1007/s13347-021-00444-9
   Google Scholar
• Merriam-Webster. 2022. Discrimination. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination.
   Google Scholar
• Meyers, G., and I. van Hoyweghen. 2018. Enacting actuarial fairness in insurance: From fair discrimination to behaviour-based fairness. Science as Culture 27 (4):413–38. 10.1080/09505431.2017.1398223
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, M. J. 2009. Disparate impact and unfairly discriminatory insurance rates. Casualty Actuarial Society e-Forum 276.
   Google Scholar
• National Association of Insurance Commissioners. 2010. Property and casualty model rating law (GL-1775). https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/GL1775.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• National Association of Insurance Commissioners. 2020a. NAIC unanimously adopts artificial intelligence guiding principles. https://content.naic.org/article/news_release_naic_unanimously_adopts_artificial_intelligence_%0Aguiding_principles.htm#:∼:text=Washington%20(August%2020%2C%202020),safe%2C%20secure%%0A20and%20robust%20outputs.
   Google Scholar
• National Association of Insurance Commissioners. 2020b. National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) principles on artificial intelligence (AI). https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/inlinefiles/AI%20principles%20as%20Adopted%20by%20the%20TF_0807.pdf, as a response to the OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence.
   Google Scholar
• National Association of Insurance Commissioners. 2021. NAIC members vote to form new letter committee. https://content.naic.org/article/naic-members-vote-form-new-letter-committee.
   Google Scholar
• National Association of Insurance Commissioners. 2022. McCarran-Ferguson Act. https://content.naic.org/cipr-topics/mccarran-ferguson-act; see the legislative background of the Act as per the NAIC.
   Google Scholar
• National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies. 2017. Our positions—Disparate impact rule. https://www.namic.org/issues/disparate-impact-rule.
   Google Scholar
• National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies. 2020. Re: NAMIC comments on the draft NAIC principles on artificial intelligence. https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/call_materials/NAMIC%20-%20NAIC%20AIWG%20-%20Comments%20-%206-29-20.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Ojo v. Farmers group, inc. (No. 10-0245; Vol. 356, p. 421). (2011). (Vol. 356). Tex: Supreme Court. https://www.txcourts.gov/media/819896/OpinionsFY2011.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Pearl, J. 2000. Models, reasoning and inference. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pope, D. G., and J. R. Sydnor. 2011. Implementing anti-discrimination policies in statistical profiling models. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 3 (3):206–31. 10.1257/pol.3.3.206
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prince, A. E., and D. Schwarcz. 2019. Proxy discrimination in the age of artificial intelligence and big data. Iowa Law Review 105:1257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quintanar, S. M. 2017. Man vs. Machine: An investigation of speeding ticket disparities based on gender and race. Journal of Applied Economics 20 (1):1–28. 10.1016/S1514-0326(17)30001-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rawls, J. 2001. Justice as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ricci v. DeStefano (No. 07-1428; Vol. 557, p. 557). (2009). (Vol. 557). Supreme Court. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/557bv.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Rogelberg, S. G. 2007. Encyclopedia of industrial and organizational psychology. Vol. 1. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Roth, P. L., P. Bobko, and F. S. Switzer III. 2006. Modeling the behavior of the 4/5ths rule for determining adverse impact: Reasons for caution. Journal of Applied Psychology 91 (3):507. 10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.507
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sawyer, R. L., N. S. Cole, and J. W. Cole. 1976. Utilities and the issue of fairness in a decision theoretic model for selection. Journal of Educational Measurement 13 (1):59–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schelldorfer, J., and M. V. Wuthrich. 2019. Nesting classical actuarial models into neural networks. 10.2139/ssrn.3320525
   Google Scholar
• Shimao, H., and F. Huang. 2022. Welfare cost of fair prediction and pricing in insurance market. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4225159.
   Google Scholar
• Smith v. City of Jackson. No. 03-1160; Vol. 544, p. 228 (2005). Supreme Court. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/544bv.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. No. 13-1371; Vol. 576, p. 519 (2015). Supreme Court. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/576BV.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. (2015). American insurance association. https://www.lawyerscommittee.org/project/aianamic/
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, R. G. 2012. Non-risk price discrimination in insurance: Market outcomes and public policy. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance-Issues and Practice 37 (1):27–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorndike, R. L. 1971. Concepts of culture-fairness. Journal of Educational Measurement 8 (2):63–70. 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1971.tb00907.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• University of California. 2008. Race, sex and disparate impact: Legal and policy considerations regarding University of California admissions and scholarships. https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/may08/e2attach.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 1979. Questions and answers to clarify and provide a common interpretation of the uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/questions-and-answers-clarify-and-provide-commoninterpretation-uniform-guidelines.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Government Publishing Office. 2017. Part 1607—Uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures (1978). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2017-title29-vol4/xml/CFR-2017-title29-vol4-part1607.xml.
   Google Scholar
• Verma, S., and J. Rubin. 2018. Fairness definitions explained. Paper presented at the 2018 IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Software Fairness (Fairware), Gothenburg, Sweden, May 29.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, S., W. Guo, H. Narasimhan, A. Cotter, M. Gupta, and M. I. Jordan. 2020. Robust optimization for fairness with noisy protected groups. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2002.09343.
   Google Scholar
• Wards cove packing co. V. atonio (No. 87-1387; Vol. 490, p. 642). (1989). (Vol. 490). Supreme Court. https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep490/usrep490642/usrep490642.pdf
   Google Scholar
• White House. 2021. Memorandum on redressing our nation’s and the federal government’s history of discriminatory housing practices and policies. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/26/memorandumon-redressing-our-nations-and-the-federal-governments-history-of-discriminatoryhousing-practices-and-policies/.
   Google Scholar
• Willis, C. J., R. J. Andreano, and L. Sommerfield. 2021. President Biden issues executive order directing HUD to review fair housing act disparate impact rule. https://www.consumerfinancemonitor.com/2021/02/03/president-biden-issues-executiveorder-directing-hud-to-review-fair-housing-act-disparate-impact-rule/.
   Google Scholar
• Wiśniewski, J., and P. Biecek. 2021. Fairmodels: A flexible tool for bias detection, visualization, and mitigation. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2104.00507.
   Google Scholar
• Wortham, L. 1986a. The economics of insurance classification: The sound of one invisible hand clapping. Ohio State Law Journal 47:835.
   Google Scholar
• Wortham, L. 1986b. Insurance classification: Too important to be left to the actuaries. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 19 (2):349–424.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, Y., L. Zhang, and X. Wu. 2019. Counterfactual fairness: Unidentification, bound and algorithm. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence., ed. Sarit Kraus, 1438–1444. Macao, China: International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence.
   Google Scholar
• Xenidis, R., and L. Senden. 2019. EU non-discrimination law in the era of artificial intelligence: Mapping the challenges of algorithmic discrimination. In General principles of EU law and the EU digital order, eds. Ulf Bernitz, Xavier Groussot, Jaan Paju, Sybe Alexander de Vries, 151–82. Alphen aan den Rijn, NL: Kluwer Law International.
   Google Scholar
• Ye, C., L. Zhang, M. Han, Y. Yu, B. Zhao, and Y. Yang. 2018. Combining predictions of auto insurance claims. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1808.08982.
   Google Scholar
• Zemel, R., Y. Wu, K. Swersky, T. Pitassi, and C. Dwork. 2013. Learning fair representations. Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Machine Learning 28:325–33.
   Google Scholar