Featured documents
R (Greyhound Board of Great Britain Ltd) v Welsh Ministers [2026] EWHC 670 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling reinforces the constitutional divide between the courts and the legislature. It explains that the scheme and framework of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GWA 2006) embody that separation of powers, and that any judicial attempt to recognise and enforce a common law obligation on Welsh Ministers to consult prior to introducing legislation in the Senedd would trespass upon that boundary. This is not a departure from established principle; case law has already upheld comparable rules for lawmakers in Scotland and at Westminster. However, this is the first express confirmation of the position for Welsh lawmakers, and the first time this dimension of the GWA 2006 has been analysed in such depth. The court examined earlier
The solution arrived through the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), a quasi‑judicial body handling mass claims, created under UN Security Council Resolution 687. By addressing environmental harm—most notably via its ‘F4’ claim class—the UNCC set a seminal benchmark shaping how international law and contemporary arbitral panels allocate financial responsibility for wartime ecological devastation. With present-day wars in areas such as Eastern Europe and the Middle East bringing dam breaches, strikes on chemical facilities, and the burning of farmland, the UNCC’s legacy endures as an essential reference point for states, global investors, and companies engaged in post‑conflict arbitration. The F4 claims: Quantifying the unquantifiable Prior to the 1990s, mechanisms in international law for war reparations overwhelmingly favoured property loss, foregone earnings, and bodily injury. The natural world was commonly treated as a mute, non-compensable victim of armed hostilities...
Understanding the farming business as a business Many farms still use long-standing structures that arose by habit, not strategy. Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common. While once effective, such setups can cause major issues around succession, tax planning and involving the next generation. A corporate team can take a fresh, business-led view of the farm, asking: Who owns the land and other critical assets? Who manages daily operations? Who carries the risk and who enjoys the return? What is the enduring plan for succession? From this review, the team can confirm whether the current setup is fit for purpose or if an alternative — for example an updated partnership agreement, a company, a limited liability partnership, or a blended model — would better meet the family’s aims. Tax efficiency through joined-up advice Tax sits at the centre of most
Most recent News
Commission launches call for feedback on draft guidelines for trusted flaggers The European Commission is seeking input and comments on provisional guidance concerning trusted flaggers under the EU Digital Services Act. Trusted flaggers are organisations with expertise in detecting unlawful content online......
The Health Research Authority ( HRA) has unveiled its 2026–28 strategy, outlining how it will support AI use across health and social care research, whilst ensuring suitable protections and safeguards are appropriately maintained......
The Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA) confirmed it has contacted multiple trader recommendation platforms ( TRPs) following the recent identification of concerns about their conduct......
In this issue: New technologies Information technology Internet Media Advertising, marketing and sponsorship Reputation management Telecommunications Lex Talk®TMT: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information New technologies DSIT announces UK- Australia AI security partnership The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology ( DSIT) says the UK AI Security Institute ( AISI) and its Australian counterpart have signed a memorandum of understanding to deepen co-operation on AI safety and security risks. The arrangement will see both AISIs exchange insights on frontier AI capabilities, work jointly on research into emerging risks, and shape best practices for testing and evaluating AI systems. It also envisages staff secondments between the institutes to strengthen day-to-day collaboration. See: LNB News 26/05/2026 41. Df T opens...
The Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA) announced it had obtained a High Court–approved settlement from Emma Sleep after the firm admitted to breaching consumer law. According to the CMA, Emma Sleep also used misleading countdown clocks, false claims of high demand, and deceptive discount promotions......
The Advertising Standards Authority ( ASA) examined two complaints in question about whether gambling-themed Instagram ads broke the Committees of Advertising Practice ( CAP) Code by using figures likely to hold strong appeal for under-18s. The ASA upheld the case regarding Oddschecker, but rejected the one concerning Betway. Betway Ltd t/a Betway; Cyan Blue Odds Ltd t/a Oddschecker. Both decisions related to Instagram content promoting gambling services. For Betway, the decision covered a post with ex-footballer and pundit Thierry Henry talking about Arsenal’s chances of winning the Premier League. For Oddschecker, the decision addressed posts highlighting current players Harry Kane and Erling Haaland alongside betting activity and bookmaker odds. Issue The ASA formally assessed whether the ads breached the CAP Code by featuring people deemed likely to be of strong attraction to under-18s in particular......
Ofcom has issued a £600,000 penalty to pornography operator Youngtek Solutions Ltd for contraventions of the Online Safety Act 2023 ( OSA 2023), comprising £500,000 for not deploying age assurance across four adult sites and £100,000 for missing the statutory deadline to answer a formal information notice from the regulator. Between 25 July and 22 September 2025, Ofcom determined that Youngtek Solutions had failed to put in place robust age verification to stop children viewing pornographic material, as mandated by the OSA 2023. Ofcom also confirms that the £500,000 sanction will be transferred to HM Treasury. During its inquiry, the company did not supply the requested details within the prescribed timeframe, according to Ofcom. Although the material was ultimately provided, the regulator levied a further £100,000 for breaching a statutory information requirement. Ofcom notes that age assurance has since been...
The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology ( DSIT) stated that the UK AI Security Institute ( AISI), together with the Australian AISI, has agreed a memorandum of understanding aimed at bolstering co-operation regarding AI safety and security risks......
In this issue: New technologies Internet Data protection Media Advertising, marketing and sponsorship Telecommunications Lex Talk®TMT: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information New technologies Commission launches consultation on AI energy consumption and emissions metrics The European Commission has opened a consultation on approaches for assessing the energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of AI models and systems, feeding into a wider study to encourage energy‑efficient, low‑emission AI across the EU and to support implementation of the EU AI Act. The consultation closes on 15 May 2026. See LNB News 13/04/2026 16. Internet Government tables Crime and Policing Bill amendments on harmful pornography and tech liability The government has proposed amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill to make it a criminal offence to possess or publish pornography depicting incest and scenarios where adults pretend to be children. The reforms seek to prohibit possession or...
‘ The exception for 'pastiches' provided for in this provision is not a catch-all provision, but covers creations that are reminiscent of one or more existing works, while at the same time exhibiting perceptible differences from them,’ the court ruled. German electronic music group Kraftwerk brought proceedings against Pelham Gmb H, the producer of ‘ Nur Mir’, a 1997 track by German rapper Sabrina Setlur. Kraftwerk objected to the unauthorised use of a two-second fragment taken from the group’s recording ‘ Metall auf Metall’......
In this issue: New technologies Internet Media Advertising, marketing and sponsorship Reputation management Telecommunications Lex Talk®TMT: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information New technologies Df T study exposes public uncertainty over legal responsibilities for autonomous vehicles. The Department for Transport engaged Ipsos to explore how people interpret language used to describe and market driver-assistance and self-driving systems. Ipsos reported broad misapprehension about system capability and ongoing driver duty; about half of respondents either wrongly believed such vehicles are already available in the UK or were unsure. The March 2025 survey of 2,186 UK adults showed that familiarity with assistance features did not translate into correct understanding, with confusion particularly acute around branded terms and functions. See: LNB News 02/04/2026 54. Internet Ofcom has issued legally binding notices to over 40 technology platforms under the Online Safety Act 2023, requesting more than 70 risk...
Where are we now with AI and copyright law in the UK? The discussion around copyright and AI has moved forward with the release of two significant UK policy papers. To start, on 6 March 2026, the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee issued its study on AI, copyright and the creative sectors (the ‘ Ho L Report’). Then, on 18 March 2026, the government unveiled the Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence (the ‘ Consultation Report’), alongside an economic impact assessment (the ‘ Impact Assessment’). These latter papers appeared under sections 135 and 136 of the Data ( Use and Access) Act 2025 ( DUAA 2025). Curiously, DUAA 2025 became the stage for the so‑called ‘ Kidron amendment’—measures tabled by Baroness Kidron requiring the government to declare its stance on the outcome of the consultation on copyright and AI held between...
What challenges do deepfakes present for celebrities and people in the public eye? For those in the spotlight, the surge of deepfakes—and figuring out how to prevent the exploitation of their image—has become increasingly acute as generative AI and broader technologies evolve at pace. The pressure is sharper in the UK, where the absence of a codified privacy regime or recognised image rights means individuals must piece together protection from a mosaic of statutory and common law claims to restrain unauthorised uses of their likeness. Among the registered tools being deployed to counter deepfakes are trade marks: a host of well-known figures have secured figurative marks of their faces to exert some control over how their profile and image are used. Historically, people have turned to actions such as passing off and defamation. Yet the real effectiveness of trade marks in this context is still...
In this issue: New technologies Information technology Internet Data protection Advertising, marketing and sponsorship Reputation management Telecommunications Lex Talk®TMT: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information New technologies The European Parliament has set out its stance on the Digital Omnibus proposal amending the EU AI Act, endorsing postponement of certain obligations for high‑risk AI and backing a prohibition on AI ‘nudifier’ tools. To improve certainty and predictability, MEPs fix application dates: high‑risk AI listed in the regulation to apply from 2 December 2027; AI falling under EU sectoral safety and market surveillance regimes from 2 August 2028; and providers to meet watermarking duties for AI‑generated content by 2 November 2026. See: LNB News 26/03/2026 37. BEUC warns that Parliament’s EU AI Act Omnibus would narrow consumer protections. After the 26 March 2026 vote, the European Consumer Organisation cautions that the proposed revisions could markedly weaken consumer...
Meta Platforms, Tik Tok, X and Amazon are now well used to the steady rhythm of enforcement under the EU's content-moderation law, but are increasingly encountering private actions that seek remedies for alleged shortcomings. Such claims were always envisaged by the EU's Digital Services Act ( EU DSA), operating alongside public oversight by the European Commission and national regulators, and they are now emerging as a growing exposure for Big Tech platforms. Most of the EU DSA lawsuits disclosed to date have been brought by advocacy groups and consumer organisations in Germany and the Netherlands, and have been filed in national courts (see here, here and here). As a result, these first decisions take effect only at the national level. One example is a recent Dutch ruling in summary proceedings that compelled Meta to offer Facebook and Instagram users a...
EU Member States are facing a challenge to ensure smooth cross-sectoral and cross-border co-operation between the regulators tasked with enforcing the bloc EU's AI law, with no easy solution to navigate the complexity. Timetables for crucial elements of the EU AI Act have already slipped. Most EU countries failed to meet August 2025’s deadline to establish national authorities to oversee rules for high-risk AI systems. Setbacks in creating compliance tools, including technical standards, have led the European Commission to suggest postponing the high-risk regime, thereby granting Member States additional time to ready their governance arrangements. The EU AI Act leaves it to national governments to decide how to organise AI oversight, resulting in enforcement duties being spread across a mix of data protection authorities, telecom regulators, cybersecurity agencies and other regulatory bodies. “ The institutional structures vary in each country, and we need to...
The Los Angeles County Superior Court jury’s finding in the landmark Bellwether trial that Meta must pay US$2.1m in punitive damages and Google US$900,000, for conduct characterised as malice, fraud or oppression, creates substantial litigation exposure for the trillion‑dollar companies, which face thousands of comparable lawsuits nationwide. The jury was directed to apportion the US$3m compensatory award between the two defendants and decided Instagram bore 70% of the responsibility, with You Tube accountable for 30%. The punitive damages award, which doubles the overall damages, follows the same allocation. The 25 March 2026 verdict arrived just one day after a New Mexico jury determined that Meta owes US$375m in relation to the state lawyer general’s claims that the social media giant concealed the full extent of mental health harm its apps were causing to underage users. After the compensatory verdict was...
In this issue: New technologies Internet Data protection Advertising, marketing and sponsorship Media Reputation management Telecommunications Lex Talk®TMT: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information New technologies Creation of criminal offence for unsafe AI chatbots gets UK lawmakers’ backing MLex reports that, late on 18 March 2026, UK legislators approved amendments establishing a criminal offence for AI chatbots judged unsafe, endorsing campaigner-driven proposals over the government’s preferred regulatory route. Inserted into the Crime and Policing Bill in the House of Lords, the provisions would oblige businesses to identify and reduce risks, with breaches attracting custodial sentences of up to five years. The Bill now proceeds to the House of Commons, where the government’s sizeable majority could see ministers attempt to overturn the revisions. See: Creation of criminal offence for unsafe AI chatbots gets UK lawmakers’ backing. WIPO launches Artificial Intelligence Infrastructure Interchange...
EU copyright rules may not require a full overhaul to address challenges posed by AI A European Commission official indicated that a sweeping rewrite might be unnecessary, hinting that stronger enforcement and better implementation could suffice. “ It is premature to say whether a fresh legal instrument is required,” said Emmanuelle du Chalard, who leads the EU executive’s copyright unit, at an event in Brussels. She added: “ One can envisage regulatory steps that would not fundamentally replace the current framework.” “ We do not need to invent new rights or fresh exceptions; instead we can devise updated rules to enhance how existing rights are exercised and enforced.” The Commission is assessing how well the 2019 Copyright Directive functions, especially given emerging tensions between rights holders and AI firms. An external study is in progress, with publication also anticipated before the end of the year. The...
Siniakovich v Hassan- Soudey and others [2026] EWCA Civ 215 What are the practical implications of this case? Disputes about limitation and the point at which proceedings are ‘brought’ despite payment of an incorrect court fee can now be conclusively resolved by adhering to the Court of Appeal’s guidance: The issue of when an action is ‘brought’ under the Limitation Act 1980 is one of substance rather than form; it does not depend on interpreting the civil procedure rules or practice directions. For limitation, proceedings are brought when a claim form, stated with sufficient clarity, is first delivered to the court office and a fee is tendered or paid, or a help with fees form is filed. That is sufficient. Proceedings are still treated as brought (for limitation) even if the court issue fee paid is the wrong amount......
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Discover more from LexisNexis
