Introduction. The relevance of this research topic is dictated by the importance of information and information technologies, which began to determine the dynamics of modern society, defining the special role and value of information law in regulating social relations arising in the information sphere. Given the terminological imperfections and inconsistencies of information legislation, judicial bodies, in particular the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, are forced to actively participate in the development of the conceptual apparatus of information law, exercising a form of judicial lawmaking (in terms of definitions in the broad sense).
Materials and Methods. The study is largely theoretical and methodological in nature and is based on the analysis of fundamental works in the fields of general legal theory, administrative, constitutional, and information law. To identify the existing problems and substantiate proposals for improving the conceptual apparatus of information law, comparative analysis and expert assessment have been used. A content analysis of acts of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, and departmental acts of Roskomnadzor has been conducted.
Results and Conclusions. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation defines the constitutional and legal meaning of legislative regulation and the meaning of legal concepts in the information sphere, which is a necessary process for establishing boundaries based on the principles of the legal system.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and arbitration courts, within their authority, interpret and clarify the meaning of terms which meaning must be clarified for law enforcement. This often concerns specialized, highly specialized concepts of information law.
A trend in judicial lawmaking in the area of concepts is that courts, faced with imperfect legal technique (the lack of a clear and unambiguous terminology basis), resort to consolidated and clarifying interpretations to ensure legal certainty. Judicial practice, by establishing unique legal standards (benchmarks) for professional terminology, effectively compensates for legislative gaps, as their clarifications are mandatory for all law enforcement practice.
The acts of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, and the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, which addressed the content of various information law concepts, have been examined.
It has been concluded that judicial practice acts both as a factor in the development of the conceptual apparatus and as a source of its complexity and potential inconsistency.
Along with the judicial system, administrative bodies vested with supervisory and regulatory powers in this area exert a significant influence on the practical content of the conceptual apparatus of information law. Their activities, including issuing clarifications, maintaining registers, conducting inspections, and imposing liability, largely determine how legislative norms and definitions are applied in practice.
The key regulators in this regard are the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor), the Federal Service for Technical and Export Control (FSTEC of Russia), and the Federal Security Service (FSB of Russia), as well as relevant ministries and agencies. These government bodies, when applying regulatory legal acts, provide them with specific interpretations, which are then either accepted by the courts or amended.
Law enforcement practice not only applies existing legislative definitions but actively participates in their revision. The need to resolve specific disputes arising in a rapidly changing technological and social environment forces courts and regulators to constantly adapt and revise the content of legal concepts.
The study showed that the current conceptual framework of information law in Russia cannot be considered fully coherent and consistent.
In the current situation, law enforcement agencies should more actively utilize the opportunities offered by the official clarification. Judicial bodies have to more actively balance constitutional rights with the challenges of the digital age, clarifying disputed concepts and establishing the required framework for interpretation.
Discussion. The study confirms the need for successful implementation of judicial rulemaking and regulatory outreach to improve the conceptual framework of information law and enhance the effectiveness of law enforcement.