The chief executive of US fintech Bolt has mounted a robust defence of his decision to sack the company’s entire human resources department, telling a Fortune audience that the team “created problems that didn’t exist” and that those issues “disappeared” the moment he showed them the door.

Ryan Breslow, the 32-year-old co-founder who returned to the helm last year after a three-year absence, insisted the move was central to his attempt to drag the one-time darling of Silicon Valley back into “start-up mode”. The online checkout software business shed roughly 30 per cent of its workforce in April, its fourth round of redundancies in as many years.

“We had an HR team, and that HR team was creating problems that didn’t exist,” Breslow told delegates. “Those problems disappeared when I let them go.”

He argued that traditional HR professionals were better suited to the “peacetime” rhythms of larger, more mature businesses than to the bare-knuckle conditions of a turnaround. In their place, Bolt has installed a leaner “people operations” function, charged with employee training and day-to-day support rather than policy-making.

“We need a group of people who are very oriented around getting things done,” Breslow said. “There is just a culture of not getting things done and complaining a lot.”

The remarks land at a delicate moment for the company. Bolt’s valuation has plunged from $11 billion at the peak of the 2022 fintech boom to just $300 million, according to The Information, a humbling reset for a business once held up as the future of one-click commerce.

Breslow, who stepped away from the chief executive’s office in 2022 before returning in 2025, has made little secret of his view that the workforce he inherited had grown soft on venture capital largesse.

“There’s a sense of entitlement that had festered across the company,” he said. “People who felt empowered, felt entitled — but weren’t actually working hard. And this is the number one thing that I had to battle. Ultimately, most of those people just had to be let go.”

Bolt has confirmed that fewer than 40 staff were affected by the latest cull, which it said was driven in part by the rapid adoption of artificial intelligence. In a company-wide Slack message in April, Breslow reportedly told employees: “Developing products and operating in 2026 is very different than it was in prior years, and we need to adapt as an organisation to be leaner and more AI-centric than ever to keep up with competition.”

The comments echo a broader trend across the technology sector, with employers from Meta to Microsoft using AI investment as cover for sweeping headcount reductions. Recent CIPD research suggests one in six UK employers now expect AI to eliminate jobs within the next 12 months, with white-collar roles bearing the brunt.

For founders of smaller British businesses watching from afar, the Breslow doctrine will provoke equal measures of admiration and unease. Few would deny that bloated middle layers can hobble a growth-stage company, and the temptation to strip back in tougher times is real. But UK employment law offers far less latitude than the at-will culture of the United States, and dispensing with HR expertise carries reputational as well as legal risks.

Employment lawyers have long warned that getting redundancy wrong can prove ruinously expensive, particularly for SMEs without the budgets to absorb tribunal claims. The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) continues to urge employers to follow a structured, transparent process, including meaningful consultation and fair selection criteria — protections that, in practice, are typically marshalled and monitored by an HR function.

Breslow’s broader argument, that growth-stage businesses must run leaner and faster in an AI-driven economy, is one that increasingly few in the City would dispute. The challenge for British founders is to translate that ambition into a culture that delivers results without falling foul of either employment law or staff morale. As the wave of AI-related layoffs sweeping global tech has shown, the line between bold restructuring and reckless cost-cutting is easily crossed.

Whether Bolt’s stripped-back, founder-led model can return the business to its former $11 billion valuation — or simply hasten its slide — will be one of the defining fintech stories of the year. As reported by Fortune, Breslow has slimmed the headcount from a peak of around 800 to roughly 100. For a man who once championed the worker-friendly four-day week, it is a striking volte-face — and one his remaining staff, and his investors, will be watching closely.

Read more:
Bolt boss defends sacking entire HR team, claiming staff ‘invented problems that didn’t exist’

Britain’s small and medium-sized businesses have been put on notice. From 19 June 2026, exactly one month from today, every organisation that handles personal data will, by law, be required to operate a formal complaints process. Those that fail to prepare risk regulatory action, reputational damage and the slow drip of customer trust eroding away.

The new obligations flow from section 103 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, the most significant reshaping of the UK’s data protection landscape since the post-Brexit settlement. And in a clear signal that the Information Commissioner’s Office is anxious to avoid a repeat of the GDPR scramble of 2018, deputy commissioner Emily Keaney has used the four-week countdown to issue a direct appeal to the smaller end of the market.

“There is still plenty of time to act, and the ICO is here to support you,” Ms Keaney said. “We know that smaller organisations are less likely to have formal complaints processes in place, and that is exactly why we have designed this guidance with you in mind.”

What the new law actually requires

For SME owners and finance directors who have not yet digested the detail, the statutory obligations are mercifully short. Under the new regime, every organisation must give individuals a clear and accessible route to raise a data protection complaint, whether by email, online form, telephone or post. Receipt of a complaint must be acknowledged within 30 days. Businesses must then, “without undue delay”, take appropriate steps to investigate, keep the complainant informed of progress, and communicate the outcome.

Crucially, there are no carve-outs. The rules apply to the corner shop with a customer mailing list just as much as to the FTSE 250 financial services firm. Privacy notices will also need updating to make clear that customers have a right to complain directly to the organisation before escalating to the regulator.

Why this matters more than it might look

On paper, the changes appear modest, a tweak to administrative housekeeping rather than the seismic shock that GDPR delivered seven years ago. But seasoned compliance professionals warn that complacency would be a mistake.

For the first time, individuals will have a statutory right to complain directly to the organisation handling their data, and to expect a structured response within a defined timeframe. That changes the calculus on everything from subject access requests to the handling of data breaches. The ICO has indicated that sectors generating the highest volume of complaints, healthcare, financial services, technology and retail, should expect particular scrutiny.

There is also a commercial logic at work. Resolving a grievance quickly and fairly tends to prevent it from metastasising into something more serious, whether a formal regulatory referral or a customer departure. As any SME operator who has watched a one-star Trustpilot review go viral can attest, the cost of getting the response wrong can dwarf the cost of getting the process right. The wider context is one of rising data risk, with the ICO already pressing the technology sector to embed privacy by design into AI products, a sign of how high the regulatory bar is climbing.

The ICO’s olive branch

The regulator’s tone this time is markedly different from the rather schoolmasterly approach that characterised the early GDPR rollout. The guidance, published in February following a public consultation that drew more than 85 responses, is studded with practical examples and worked-through scenarios pitched squarely at smaller firms without dedicated compliance teams.

“A data protection complaint can come from any customer at any time,” Ms Keaney noted. “Having a clear process means you can respond quickly, resolve issues fairly and protect the trust your customers place in you. We are not here to catch businesses out, we are here to help you get ready.”

That conciliatory framing should not, however, be mistaken for indefinite patience. Once the 19 June commencement date passes, the ICO will have the power to take enforcement action against organisations that fail to operate a compliant process, and the line between supportive regulator and active enforcer can move quickly.

A four-week action list

For business owners still unsure where to begin, the practical steps are reasonably straightforward. Decide who inside the business will own the complaints process and ensure they have the authority to investigate and respond. Build a simple, visible route for customers to raise complaints — usually a dedicated email address or web form, signposted in the privacy notice. Document the workflow, including how the 30-day acknowledgement deadline will be met. Train any customer-facing staff on what to do if a complaint lands in their inbox.

Owners who already operate under data protection frameworks will recognise much of this from existing good practice. For a refresher on the broader compliance landscape, our complete guide to GDPR compliance in the UK sets out the foundations, while our explainer on the difference between data controllers and processors is worth bookmarking for any business that shares customer data with third parties.

The bottom line

For Britain’s 5.5 million SMEs, the message from regulators is clear: 19 June is not a target, it is a deadline. The four weeks ahead are not an invitation to delay, but a window to prepare. Done well, the new complaints process is a modest piece of administrative plumbing that can quietly strengthen customer relationships. Done badly, or not at all, it is a regulatory exposure that few small businesses can afford to carry.

The ICO has, unusually, all but rolled out a welcome mat. The smart move for SME owners is to walk through the door before someone else knocks.

Read more:
ICO Warns SMEs: one month to comply with new Data Complaints Law

An Isle of Man trading-education platform has won a two-year trade mark battle against TikTok’s UK arm, in a ruling small business advisers say sets a powerful precedent for founders facing legal pressure from global tech giants.

In a decision likely to be studied across the SME community, a small financial-trading education business has seen off TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited, the British arm of ByteDance, one of the world’s most valuable technology companies, in a two-year trade mark dispute before the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO).

TickTickTrader Ltd, an Isle of Man-based platform that trains aspiring futures traders, applied in April 2023 to register the mark ‘TickTickTrader’. The name is drawn from trading floor terminology: a ‘tick’ is the smallest permissible price movement on a futures exchange. TikTok’s legal team, drawn from one of the world’s largest law firms, opposed the application outright, arguing that the name was confusingly similar to its own globally recognised brand and risked diluting its reputation. An accompanying cease-and-desist letter gave the start-up 14 days to withdraw the application, abandon the name and sign undertakings.

For a company of around 50 employees, the demand was existential. It refused.

On 19 February 2026, Hearing Officer Mrs E Fisher dismissed both grounds of TikTok’s opposition in full and ordered TikTok to pay TickTickTrader’s costs. The appeal window has now closed and the decision is final.

‘Tick Tick’ is not ‘Tik Tok’

The Hearing Officer found the two marks to be visually and aurally similar only to a medium degree, and, crucially, conceptually dissimilar. Where TikTok evokes the sound of a clock, TickTickTrader was held to conjure the image of a trader methodically ticking off positions, gain by incremental gain. The word ‘trader’, the officer ruled, was neither irrelevant nor purely descriptive: it formed an integral part of the overall impression of the mark.

“I find there is no likelihood of direct or indirect confusion,” the decision states. The officer also rejected TikTok’s argument that consumers would assume TickTickTrader was a brand extension in the same family as TikTok Shop, TikTok Pay or TikTok Live, describing that logic as unconvincing. “I find that there is no link between the marks,” she wrote.

She added that buyers of education and training services, typically high-attention, considered purchases, were highly unlikely to confuse two marks with such clear visual, conceptual and commercial differences. TikTok’s reputation, however considerable, did not entitle it to monopolise the market.

Big tech, small business – and the cost of standing your ground

TickTickTrader fought the opposition with Trade Mark Wizards, the London-based intellectual property firm backed by Lord Sugar, who is also a director of the company. For Trade Mark Wizards, the case is emblematic of a wider pattern in which large corporations rely on the disproportionate commercial pressure of legal proceedings to push smaller rivals into surrender, regardless of the underlying merits.

It is a pattern this magazine has documented before, from Rolex demanding that a Devon children’s clock start-up change its name to the steady stream of cease-and-desist letters dropped on UK founders by global brands. As Business Matters has previously argued in its guidance for founders accused of trade mark infringement, not every claim is legally sound, and capitulating without a proper assessment can prove far more costly than fighting back.

Lord Sugar, director at Trade Mark Wizards, said the TickTickTrader case carried a familiar shape.

“I’ve been in business long enough to recognise this pattern straight away,” he said. “Big companies think they can throw their weight around and that smaller businesses will just roll over because they can’t afford the fight. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. What mattered here is that the claim didn’t stack up — and when it was properly tested, it failed. You don’t get to own every name that sounds vaguely similar to your own just because you’re a big brand. If you’re right, you’re right. If you’re not, you lose. Simple as that.”

Oliver Oguz, managing director of Trade Mark Wizards, was equally direct. “The playbook used to be simple,” he said. “If you’re a big company and a small business gets in your way, you throw lawyers at it and wait for them to blink. That playbook is finished. This decision is proof that the rules apply to everyone, regardless of how many zeros are in your legal budget. TikTok had every resource in the world at its disposal. They still lost because the facts didn’t support them.”

A board member of TickTickTrader described the moment the ruling came through.

“We were effectively being asked to give up our brand entirely. For a small business, that’s not just a legal issue, it’s your identity, your work, everything you’ve built. It would have been easy to walk away, but we knew the name meant something and we believed we were right to keep it. Having the right support around us made all the difference.”

What founders can take from the ruling

For start-ups and SMEs watching from the sidelines, the case offers three practical lessons. First, the UKIPO’s standard opposition process is structured, evidence-led, and decided on the law — not on the relative size of the parties. Second, a defence grounded in the genuine meaning and commercial context of a brand name can defeat a much larger opponent. Third, as our own legal contributors have long argued in pieces on brand protection and the power of IP, independent legal advice from specialists, rather than reflexive capitulation, is often the decisive factor in determining whether a name survives.

The UKIPO has confirmed that TickTickTrader may now proceed to full trade mark registration, which the company has also secured in several key global territories. TikTok has been ordered to pay £1,700 in costs. The figure is modest in headline terms, but reflects the tribunal’s clear view on the merits, and, for the wider SME community, the symbolism is anything but small.

Read more:
How a 50-person start-up beat TikTok at the IPO – with Lord Sugar in its corner

Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta Platforms has suffered a significant legal setback in Europe after the bloc’s highest court ruled that national regulators have the power to enforce compensation arrangements between online platforms and news publishers for the use of their journalism.

The Court of Justice of the European Union, sitting in Luxembourg, found in favour of Italy’s communications regulator, AGCOM, which Meta had accused of overstepping its remit by setting the price the social media group must pay for displaying snippets of press articles on Facebook and Instagram. The judgment is likely to embolden newspaper groups across the continent, including in the UK, that have long argued they are negotiating from a position of structural weakness against a handful of dominant American technology platforms.

“The court finds that a right to fair compensation for publishers is consistent with EU law, provided that that remuneration constitutes consideration for authorising their publications to be used online,” the judges said in their ruling.

Meta had argued that the Italian measures were incompatible with the rights publishers already enjoy under European copyright law, and that allowing national regulators to dictate commercial terms amounted to regulatory overreach. The company, which owns WhatsApp alongside its flagship social platforms, said it would study the judgment in full and “engage constructively as the matter returns to the Italian courts”.

For Britain’s beleaguered publishing sector, where regional titles in particular have been hollowed out over the past decade as advertising revenue migrated to Silicon Valley, the ruling will be watched closely. Although the UK is no longer bound by Court of Justice decisions following Brexit, Westminster has been drafting its own framework for compelling platforms to strike commercial deals with news publishers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act. The European judgment provides political cover for ministers minded to take a firmer line.

The European Publishers Council was quick to claim victory. Angela Mills Wade, its executive director, said the ruling acknowledged “the economic reality that publishers cannot negotiate on equal terms with dominant online platforms without transparency, access to relevant data, and safeguards against coercive behaviour”.

“This crucial decision comes at a time when AI-driven and platform-mediated uses of journalistic content are rapidly expanding,” she added. “This important ruling will pave the way for fairer negotiations with gatekeepers which have been abusing their dominance by refusing to negotiate in good faith. Quality journalism depends on the ability of publishers to recoup the investments required to produce trusted news and information.”

The decision lands at a fraught moment for relations between the technology industry and the creative economy. Earlier this month, five of the world’s largest publishing houses, including Elsevier, Hachette and Macmillan, filed a class-action lawsuit against Meta in a New York federal court, alleging that the Silicon Valley group pirated millions of books and academic articles to train Llama, its large language model. Works cited in the complaint include N. K. Jemisin’s award-winning novel The Fifth Season and Peter Brown’s bestselling children’s book The Wild Robot.

Meta has vowed to fight the case “aggressively”, but the action is symptomatic of a broader reckoning. Anthropic, the AI start-up backed by Amazon and Google, last year became the first major artificial intelligence company to settle such a claim, agreeing to pay a group of authors $1.5 billion to resolve litigation that the company’s lawyers feared could have run into many billions more had it gone to trial.

For owner-managed publishers, freelance journalists and the broader content economy, the direction of travel is becoming clearer. After two decades in which platforms harvested editorial output largely on their own terms, the legal pendulum is swinging, slowly, but unmistakably, back towards those who produce the work in the first place. Whether the compensation flowing from rulings such as this one will be enough to sustain quality journalism is a separate, and arguably more difficult, question.

Read more:
Meta dealt blow by EU court in landmark ruling on publisher payments

Tesco has suffered a significant setback in the long-running equal pay battle being waged by tens of thousands of its shop floor staff, after the Court of Appeal threw out the supermarket’s challenge to the way an Employment Tribunal had been assessing the value of jobs carried out by its customer assistants.

In a judgment handed down on 12 May 2026, the Court of Appeal dismissed Britain’s biggest grocer’s appeal against the Tribunal’s approach to determining the job facts of customer assistants and warehouse operatives, a critical step in the so-called “equal value” process that underpins the entire dispute.

The ruling comes mid-way through a separate Employment Tribunal hearing in which Tesco is attempting to justify paying its predominantly female store workforce less than its largely male distribution centre staff. The supermarket has leant heavily on the argument that the differential reflects “market rates”, a defence lawyers at Leigh Day, who act for more than 16,000 claimants, insist cannot lawfully stand.

At the heart of the appeal was Tesco’s attempt to stop the Tribunal from relying on the company’s own training manuals and operational documents to establish what customer assistants and warehouse operatives are required to do day-to-day. For Britain’s SME employers and retail bosses watching closely, the Court of Appeal’s response will make uncomfortable reading.

The judges upheld the Tribunal’s approach, accepting that Tesco operates in a highly regulated environment, deploys sophisticated digital stock systems and maintains exhaustive training materials precisely to ensure work is carried out consistently across every one of its stores. The Court found Tesco had a “strong business need” for these roles to be performed in the same way throughout its operations, and that, absent clear evidence to the contrary, its own training documents could properly be treated as determinative of what staff were required to do.

The implications stretch well beyond Welwyn Garden City. The judgment effectively rejects attempts to force thousands of workers in mass equal pay claims to individually prove every nut and bolt of their roles when the employer has itself standardised the work. For any business with a structured operating model, supermarkets, hospitality chains, logistics operators and the wider SME retail community, the precedent is plain: your own training materials and operating manuals may be used as evidence against you.

The Court of Appeal also repeated earlier criticisms of Tesco’s evidential approach, raising concerns about both the nature and presentation of witness testimony deployed during the litigation. In a further blow to large employers, the judgment offered fresh guidance that tribunals in mass equal pay claims may, where appropriate, assess jobs more generically rather than insisting every single claim be picked apart on an overly individualised basis, a clarification that could substantially reduce the runway of delay and procedural complexity that often accompanies these disputes.

Kiran Daurka, employment partner at Leigh Day, said the ruling was a significant moment for access to justice. “The Court of Appeal has recognised the importance of removing unnecessary hurdles that prevent everyday people from accessing justice in complex equal pay litigation,” she said. “This judgment is a welcome clarification that, in large-scale cases involving sophisticated respondents like Tesco and other large retailers, tribunals can take a practical and proportionate approach to assessing jobs, which then mitigates against unnecessary complexity to delay or obstruct claims.

“Our clients have always maintained that these cases should focus on the reality of the work being done, not on creating artificial barriers that make equal pay claims impossible to pursue. This ruling will help future claims progress in a more streamlined and accessible way.”

For Tesco, and for every employer with a workforce split between front-of-house and back-of-house operations, the message from the Court of Appeal is unambiguous. The defence of “that’s just what the market pays” is wearing thin, and the documents sitting on a company’s own intranet may yet prove to be the most powerful evidence claimants ever need.

Read more:
Tesco loses court of appeal fight over equal pay job assessment in landmark ruling for SME and retail employers

Mike Ashley’s retail empire has scored a notable courtroom victory after the Court of Appeal threw out a substantial damages award handed down in a protracted trademark infringement dispute, sparing the FTSE-listed group what could have proved a punishing financial blow.

The ruling brings to a head a long-running tussle between the Shirebrook-based discount sports chain, rebranded as Frasers Group in 2019, and Lifestyle Equities, the company that owns and licenses the Beverly Hills Polo Club marque. Lifestyle Equities had alleged that Ashley’s group infringed its trademark by flogging goods under the rival ‘Santa Monica Polo Club’ label, a claim it first lodged back in 2018.

Frasers had lost the underlying infringement case seven years ago but mounted a fresh challenge against the scale of damages it was ordered to stump up. At an appeal hearing in April, the retailer’s lawyers argued that the bill should be slashed because the third-party companies trading under the Beverly Hills Polo Club name, and on whose behalf Lifestyle Equities was attempting to recover losses, had never been officially registered as licensees in the United Kingdom.

The Court of Appeal duly sided with the high street giant, ruling that it was “too late” for Lifestyle Equities to retrospectively register the licences in question. With the original claim dating back to 2018 and the licensing arrangements stretching back nearly a decade, the court concluded that the additional claims “appear to be well out of time” and that allowing them through would amount to an “unprincipled windfall” for businesses that had not properly placed themselves on the public register.

Counsel for Frasers warned during the appeal that permitting such claims to succeed would expose accused infringers to ambush litigation, leaving defendants “suddenly confronted with a Trojan Horse full of licensees claiming damages” of whose existence they had no prior knowledge. Without strict adherence to public registration, the retailer’s legal team argued, the regime risked becoming “a charter of unjust enrichment”, allowing trademark owners to scoop up compensation for unregistered partners alongside their own losses.

The judgment represents a material win for Frasers, which has shrugged off a potentially eye-watering damages bill that, had it stood, would have set an awkward precedent for the wider retail sector. The decision is likely to be studied closely by intellectual property lawyers and brand owners alike, given the implications for how licensing arrangements must be formally documented to be enforceable in the British courts.

The legal win follows news first reported by City AM that the magic circle-adjacent law firm RPC has lost one of its highest-billing partners, Jeremy Drew, who represents Ashley personally, to Taylor Wessing.

The trademark victory comes hard on the heels of an extraordinary admission by Ashley, the man who founded Sports Direct in his native Burnham in 1982 and ran it as chief executive until handing the reins to son-in-law Michael Murray in 2022.

The 61-year-old billionaire has confirmed publicly for the first time that he engineered the downfall of his most prominent retail adversary, the former JD Sports executive chairman Peter Cowgill.

Cowgill stepped down from the FTSE 100 trainer chain in 2022 in the wake of a Competition and Markets Authority probe, triggered after leaked footage emerged of him in a clandestine car park meeting with Footasylum chief executive Barry Brown. The pair had been expressly barred from exchanging commercially sensitive information while JD Sports was attempting to acquire Footasylum, and the leaked footage led the CMA to impose fines of nearly £5m on the two businesses.

In an interview with the Financial Times last weekend, Ashley conceded that the footage had been obtained by one of his own employees and said he was “not hiding from the fact” that he was the architect of Cowgill’s removal, a candid acknowledgement that lifts the lid on one of the more colourful boardroom feuds in recent British retail history.

Read more:
Ashley’s Frasers group dodges hefty damages bill in trademark appeal victory

The owner of Facebook and Instagram has taken the UK’s media regulator to the high court, opening a fresh front in the increasingly fractious relationship between Silicon Valley and Britain’s online safety regime.

Meta has filed for a judicial review of Ofcom’s methodology for setting fees and penalties under the Online Safety Act, arguing that pegging charges to a company’s qualifying worldwide revenue (QWR) is disproportionate and out of step with the geographic scope of the regulator’s remit. A hearing has been scheduled for 13 and 14 October.

The stakes are considerable. Under the Act, Ofcom can levy fines of up to 10 per cent of QWR or £18m, whichever is higher. Given that Meta reported global revenues of roughly $201bn last year, the regulator could in theory issue a penalty of around $20bn, a sum that would dwarf the largest fines in UK corporate history. The fee regime introduced last September applies the same QWR principle to annual tariffs, capturing companies whose user-generated content, search or adult-content services in the UK generate more than £250m a year.

Meta contends that liability should be determined by activity within the jurisdiction doing the regulating. “We and others in the tech industry believe its decisions on the methodology to calculate fees and potential fines are disproportionate,” a company spokesperson said. “We believe fees and penalties should be based on the services being regulated in the countries they’re being regulated in. This would still allow Ofcom to impose the largest fines in UK corporate history.”

Court documents filed on Meta’s behalf by Monica Carss-Frisk KC describe Ofcom’s approach as “troubling”, warning that it would result in a handful of large platforms shouldering the bulk of the regulator’s costs even though the Act covers a much broader sweep of internet services. The barrister noted that QWR is not pegged to revenue generated by any particular service in the UK; rather, once a service is offered to British users, the entirety of its global turnover is counted.

Ofcom, for its part, is preparing to dig in. The regulator said its fees and fines framework reflected “a plain reading of the law” and pledged to “robustly defend our reasoning and decisions”.

Meta is not alone in pushing back. The US online forum 4chan has refused to pay penalties imposed under the Act, and Ofcom is facing separate litigation from the operators of both 4chan and Kiwi Farms. The regime has also drawn criticism from Donald Trump’s White House, which has signalled growing impatience with European digital rules that it sees as targeting American firms.

The financial significance of the new system for Ofcom itself is hard to overstate. Once the preserve of broadcasters and telecoms operators paying for spectrum and licence fees, the regulator now expects the bulk of its £233m budget for the year to come from online safety tariffs, which are forecast to bring in £164m. That marks one of the most substantial shifts in Ofcom’s funding base in its two-decade history.

For SME founders watching from the sidelines, the case is more than a transatlantic skirmish between Big Tech and a British quango. The threshold of £250m in qualifying turnover means most smaller platforms sit outside the fee net, but the principles being tested in October, how revenue is attributed across borders, and how proportionality is measured for global digital businesses, will shape the regulatory environment for any UK-based scale-up that one day finds itself trading internationally on the back of user-generated content. The judgment, when it comes, will be read closely well beyond Menlo Park.

Read more:
Meta launches high court challenge against Ofcom over online safety act fines

Five of the world’s largest publishing houses have launched a class-action lawsuit against Meta Platforms in a Manhattan federal court, accusing the Mark Zuckerberg-led tech giant of pirating millions of copyrighted works to train its Llama artificial intelligence models, a development that throws fresh fuel on one of the defining commercial disputes of the AI era.

Elsevier, Cengage, Hachette, Macmillan and McGraw Hill, joined by the bestselling American author Scott Turow, filed proceedings on Tuesday alleging that Meta knowingly used pirated copies of textbooks, peer-reviewed scientific journals and novels, among them N.K. Jemisin’s The Fifth Season and Peter Brown’s The Wild Robot, to train the systems that now underpin the Silicon Valley group’s generative AI products.

The complaint, which seeks unspecified damages and class-action status on behalf of a far wider pool of rights holders, marks the first time that academic and trade publishers have moved against Meta as a unified front. It also signals a deliberate escalation by an industry that, until now, has largely watched from the sidelines as authors, newspapers and visual artists fought their own corner.

Maria Pallante, president of the Association of American Publishers, did not mince her words. “Meta’s mass-scale infringement isn’t public progress, and AI will never be properly realised if tech companies prioritise pirate sites over scholarship and imagination,” she said.

Meta has signalled it will mount a robust defence. “AI is powering transformative innovations, productivity and creativity for individuals and companies, and courts have rightly found that training AI on copyrighted material can qualify as fair use,” a spokesperson said. “We will fight this lawsuit aggressively.”

The case opens yet another front in a war that is rapidly redrawing the commercial map for content owners on both sides of the Atlantic. Dozens of plaintiffs, from The New York Times, which is pursuing OpenAI and Microsoft, to a coalition of authors, news outlets and visual artists, have already filed suit against the leading AI developers. The legal questions hinge on whether ingesting copyrighted material to produce new, “transformative” output qualifies as fair use under American law, and the early rulings have been anything but uniform. Two of the first judges to grapple with the issue reached opposing conclusions last year.

The first major scalp came when Anthropic, the AI company backed by Amazon and Google, agreed in 2025 to pay $1.5 billion (£1.18 billion) to settle a class action brought by a group of authors, a sum that could have ballooned into multiples of that figure had the matter gone to trial.

For UK small and medium-sized enterprises operating in publishing, marketing, education and the creative industries, the implications are far from academic. The absence of a coherent licensing regime has left British rights holders exposed to the same alleged practices, while AI-dependent businesses face mounting uncertainty over which models can be deployed without inheriting legal liability.

Benjamin Woollams, chief executive of TrueRights, argues the sector urgently needs commercial infrastructure capable of matching the speed at which AI models are being built. “Every one of these lawsuits points to the same underlying problem: there’s no standardised way to license creative work and likeness for AI,” he said. “Tech companies aren’t villains for wanting training data, and creators aren’t luddites for wanting to be paid, but the infrastructure to connect them simply hasn’t existed until now. This represents a huge opportunity for those in the industry to build a transparent and trusted licensing framework that allows innovation and creator rights to coexist commercially.”

He points to the influencer marketing economy, worth tens of billions of pounds globally and constructed almost entirely on rights licensing, as evidence that the commercial template already exists. “Brands and talent collaborate every day on an enormous scale. The commercial appetite for licensed content is there, the economic model is proven, and creators are increasingly aware of how their likeness and IP are used. What’s been missing in AI is a transparent, trusted way to license at the speed and scale these models require.”

Without such guardrails, Woollams warns, the drumbeat of litigation will only grow louder. “This sort of friction and litigation will continue to plague the industry, which will have negative knock-on effects on the kind of collaboration that should be powering the next generation of creative work, where AI platforms, advertisers and talent can actually build together.”

For Meta, the stakes extend well beyond the immediate price tag. A successful class certification could expose the group to claims from thousands of rights holders, while an adverse ruling would reverberate across an industry that has built its competitive edge on the unrestricted ingestion of vast corpora of human-authored work. For Britain’s SME publishers and creators, the case is a reminder that the rules of engagement with generative AI remain very much under construction, and that the courts, for now, are doing the drafting.

Read more:
Publishers take Meta to court in landmark AI copyright showdown

HM Revenue & Customs has suffered a major blow in one of the longest-running and most consequential employment status disputes in British tax history, with a tribunal ruling that 60 football referees engaged by the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) were genuinely self-employed, not employees, as the tax authority had insisted for almost a decade.

The decision, handed down at the First-tier Tribunal, means HMRC will be denied £584,000 in employment taxes it had argued were owed. The department retains the right to appeal, but the verdict has already been seized upon by tax specialists as a potentially seismic moment for the millions of contractors, freelancers and businesses operating in the UK’s flexible labour market.

Specialist contractor insurance provider Qdos described the outcome as one of the most significant employment status rulings in history, warning that it lays bare a “fundamental flaw” in HMRC’s own Check Employment Status for Tax (CEST) tool, the digital instrument introduced in 2017 and used millions of times to determine whether a worker should be taxed as employed or self-employed.

The case turned on two principles long regarded as the bedrock of employment case law: mutuality of obligation (MOO), whether a worker is obliged to accept work and the engager obliged to provide it, and control, namely the extent to which a business directs how services are performed. The tribunal ruled that referees were neither mutually obliged to work for PGMOL nor sufficiently controlled in how they performed their duties to be classed as employees.

Seb Maley, chief executive of Qdos, said the ruling directly undermines HMRC’s interpretation of the very rules it polices.

“This landmark verdict directly challenges HMRC’s very understanding of employment status, exposing a fundamental flaw in the tax office’s employment status tool, which is in desperate need of an overhaul,” he said.

“For years, HMRC has insisted that mutuality of obligation exists in every contract, so much so that its CEST tool barely scratches the surface on it. The latest twist in this case highlights the need for a rigorous review of CEST, which has been used millions of times to set the employment status of individuals, in turn determining whether they pay tax as a self-employed worker or employee.”

Maley added that the result should reassure firms that engage contractors. “Make no mistake, this result is good news for businesses that engage contractors and self-employed workers, ultimately because it proves that factors like mutuality of obligation and control really aren’t as narrow as HMRC has been contending.”

He also took aim at the sheer length of the proceedings. “With the first hearing in 2018, we’re nearly a decade into this case, the result of which could yet be appealed. If that doesn’t highlight the desperate need for the simplification of employment status, I don’t know what does.”

A decade in the courts

The dispute stretches back to PGMOL’s engagement of referees as self-employed contractors during the 2014/15 and 2015/16 tax years. HMRC opened the first front in 2018, arguing at the First-tier Tribunal that the officials should have been treated as employees because they were mutually obliged to work for PGMOL.

The FTT disagreed, finding insufficient mutuality of obligation. HMRC appealed and lost again at the Upper Tribunal in 2020, which upheld the original ruling that the minimum test for employment had not been met.

A further HMRC appeal took the case to the Court of Appeal in 2022, which reversed the earlier decisions and concluded that mutuality of obligation did exist on each match day, sending the dispute back to the FTT for reconsideration.

PGMOL escalated matters to the Supreme Court in 2024, where its appeal was dismissed, again sending the case back to the FTT. It is at this latest hearing that PGMOL’s position has now finally been vindicated, with the judge ruling that the referees were neither mutually obliged to work nor sufficiently controlled by PGMOL to be employees.

For Britain’s SME community, which leans heavily on freelance and contract labour, the decision is more than a footnote in a niche sporting dispute. It strikes at the heart of how HMRC interprets and enforces the very employment status rules it designed, and adds further pressure on Whitehall to deliver the long-promised simplification of a system that has tied businesses, workers and the courts in knots for years.

Read more:
HMRC loses landmark £584,000 tax battle as referees ruled self-employed

The Gaydon-based luxury marque is pressing ahead with trademark action against the Chinese conglomerate that owns a sizeable slice of its share register, in a dispute that underscores the delicate politics of cross-border automotive investment.

Aston Martin Lagonda has launched legal proceedings against Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, the Hangzhou-headquartered motor group that holds a 17 per cent stake in the British carmaker, over a winged emblem the luxury marque claims is too close for comfort to its own storied badge.

The case, which pits Britain’s most famous sports car manufacturer against one of its largest shareholders, centres on a logo Geely intends to roll out on vehicles produced by its London EV Company (LEVC) subsidiary, the Coventry-based maker of the capital’s black cabs. The design features a horse’s head set within a pair of outstretched wings, and Aston Martin contends that the overall impression sails far too close to the slender winged motif that has adorned its bonnets since 1927.

The row is not a new one, Aston Martin first raised objections in 2022, when Geely sought to register the marks with the UK Intellectual Property Office. The Gaydon firm formally opposed the application the following year, arguing infringement, only for the hearing officer to side with the Chinese group on the basis that consumers were unlikely to mistake an electric taxi for a £150,000-plus grand tourer.

That ruling did little to cool tempers at Aston Martin, and the latest legal salvo suggests the board is prepared to press the point despite the awkward shareholder dynamic. Geely acquired its 17 per cent holding for roughly $310m (£245m) in 2023, making it one of the marque’s most significant backers alongside executive chairman Lawrence Stroll’s Yew Tree consortium and Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund.

For Geely, the London taxi business is a strategically important British asset. The group has been quietly assembling a portfolio of UK marques over the past decade, with Lotus now firmly in its stable alongside LEVC. Its involvement at Aston Martin was initially welcomed as a source of both capital and potential manufacturing expertise at a moment when the British firm has been burning through cash to fund its electrification programme.

The dispute also comes at a bruising time for Aston Martin’s brand stewardship. The company recently saw 007 defect to the silver screen behind the wheel of a BYD, a coup for the rival Chinese electric-vehicle maker and a blow to a marque whose cultural cachet has long been bound up with the James Bond franchise.

In public, both parties are playing down the significance of the row. Aston Martin has declined to comment further on live proceedings, while Geely has characterised the matter as a routine trademark dispute and insisted it remains committed to a professional working relationship with the Gaydon marque as both business partner and investor.

Trademark lawyers watching the case note that the outcome will hinge on whether the courts accept that the average buyer, whether of an Aston Martin DB12 or an LEVC electric cab, could be confused or whether Aston’s goodwill in the wings motif is being unfairly exploited. What is already clear is that having a Chinese partner on the share register is no guarantee of a quiet life in the intellectual property courts.

Read more:
Aston Martin takes its 17pc shareholder Geely to court over ‘copycat’ wings logo

The world’s largest live entertainment company has been dealt a bruising blow after a Manhattan federal jury ruled that Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary operated an unlawful monopoly over major concert venues in the United States, a verdict that is likely to reverberate through the global ticketing industry and intensify scrutiny of the firm’s dominance in markets including the United Kingdom.

After four days of deliberation, jurors sided with more than 30 US states that had pressed ahead with the civil action, concluding that the concert colossus had smothered competition across the live events business. The jury calculated that Ticketmaster had overcharged buyers by $1.72 per ticket, with the presiding judge still to determine the final quantum of damages.

For an industry that has long drawn the ire of fans, independent promoters and smaller venue operators, the ruling lands as something of a vindication. Counsel for the states, Jeffrey Kessler, described Live Nation in closing submissions as a “monopolistic bully” that had systematically pushed up prices for consumers. He told the court that Ticketmaster controls 86 per cent of the concert market and 73 per cent of the wider live events market once sport is included, numbers that underscore just how comprehensively the business has come to dominate the sector since Ticketmaster and Live Nation merged in 2010.

Live Nation, which generates more than $22bn in annual revenues, was unrepentant. Its lawyer, David Marriott, argued in his summation that the company’s scale was a consequence of operational excellence rather than anti-competitive conduct, telling jurors that “success is not against the antitrust laws in the United States”. The company has confirmed it intends to appeal, stating that it remains confident the “ultimate outcome” will not materially depart from a parallel settlement already reached with the US Department of Justice.

That settlement, announced only days into the trial after the Trump administration took over the federal case, obliges Live Nation to create a $280m fund for participating states, caps service fees at certain amphitheatres and opens a limited pathway for rival platforms such as SeatGeek and AXS to compete at some venues. Crucially, however, it stops short of forcing a structural break-up of Live Nation and Ticketmaster, a remedy that many industry observers and smaller ticketing challengers had been hoping for.

A handful of states signed up to the settlement, but the majority pressed on to trial, arguing that Washington had extracted insufficient concessions from the concert giant. Their gamble has now paid off. The verdict revives debate over whether a clean separation of Ticketmaster from Live Nation’s promotions and venue-operating arms remains the only effective remedy for a market that independent promoters have long claimed is tilted decisively against them.

The trial itself provided a rare look behind the curtain of an opaque business. Chief executive Michael Rapino took the stand and was questioned on a catalogue of controversies, including the 2022 Taylor Swift ticketing fiasco that drew political fury on both sides of the Atlantic. Rapino attributed that episode to a cyberattack. Less easily explained were internal messages from Live Nation executive Benjamin Baker, which surfaced during the proceedings, describing some prices as “outrageous”, branding customers “so stupid” and boasting that the firm was “robbing them blind”. Baker testified that the remarks had been “very immature and unacceptable”.

Regulatory pressure on Ticketmaster is building on multiple fronts. Last May the Federal Trade Commission introduced rules requiring upfront disclosure of concert ticket fees. Ticketmaster responded by scrapping its end-of-transaction processing fee, only for a Guardian investigation to reveal that the company had simultaneously increased other charges to plug the revenue hole. In an email to the Findlay Toyota Center in Arizona, the firm reportedly stated that it “must adjust fees to offset the revenue loss”. Former regulators have suggested the practice may breach the FTC’s ban on misleading charges, while senators including Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal have accused the company of running “bait-and-switch” tactics and manipulating the market.

The saga has deep roots. Grunge pioneers Pearl Jam famously lodged an antitrust complaint against Ticketmaster with the Department of Justice back in the 1990s, only for regulators to walk away. Three decades on, the mood music has shifted. For independent UK promoters, smaller venues and the growing cohort of challenger ticketing platforms eyeing cross-Atlantic expansion, the verdict in Manhattan is the clearest signal yet that the ground beneath the live entertainment industry’s dominant player is finally beginning to shift.

Read more:
Live Nation and Ticketmaster ruled an illegal monopoly as US jury sides with States

In a recent Acas survey, employers and employees were asked which three changes in the Employment Rights Act 2025 would have the biggest impact in their workplace.

Surprisingly, the new rights on Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) topped the list for both groups, named by 43% of employers and 36% of employees. The reduction in the unfair dismissal qualifying period from two years to six months was the second most significant change (31% of employers and 30% of employees). Employers ranked the new paternity leave day-one rights as the third-largest reform, whereas employees said it was easier access to flexible working arrangements.

The SSP reforms take effect from 6 April 2026, aiming to improve financial security, particularly for part-time employees and those in low-paid jobs. While more employees will qualify for SSP, employers will face increased costs and compliance requirements, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Before looking at the reforms and what employers can do to prepare for them, let’s consider the current arrangements.

What is the current SSP framework?

An employee must be an “eligible employee” and earn at least the Lower Earnings Limit (LEL), which is currently £125 per week. Even if employees are eligible, SSP is payable only from the fourth consecutive day of sickness, as the first three days are unpaid waiting days.

It is estimated that around 1.3 million employees receive no SSP at all, and many lose pay for only short periods when unwell. Some face the choice of working while ill or losing income. This can spread illness in the workplace and reduce productivity.

What is changing from 6 April 2026?

Approximately 25% of employees only receive SSP (rather than contractual sick pay), and the SSP changes below will have a significant impact.

• Removal of the Lower Earnings Limit, and employees will no longer need to meet the LEL to qualify for SSP.
• A new earnings‑linked calculation and SSP will be paid at 80% of normal weekly earnings (NWE) unless the SSP flat rate is lower.
• SSP will be payable from day one of sickness absence, as the Employment Rights Act 2025 abolishes the three unpaid waiting days.
• SSP will increase from £118.75 to £123.25 a week on 6 April 2026.

It is important to mention atypical workers, such as zero-hours and agency workers, as well as seasonal and irregular-hours staff. Establishing NWE is not always straightforward because of their fluctuating pay and variable working patterns. Employers can determine NWE, for example, by averaging pay over the previous 8-12 weeks or by following the relevant contractual arrangements to ensure SSP reflects actual earning patterns.

What do the SSP changes mean for employers?

The scope of SSP entitlements is significantly widened. As well as administrative adjustments to update policies and payroll processes, the reforms carry a cost implication for organisations of all sizes.

The Government estimates that removing waiting days and abolishing the LEL, combined with introducing the 80% earnings‑linked calculation, will increase employer SSP costs by around £450 million a year. Although a significant sum, it equates to roughly £15 more per employee according to the Government’s impact assessment. Crucially, earlier access to SSP may boost productivity by allowing employees to stay home when unwell without feeling compelled to attend work.

Employer concerns about increased sickness absence could be mitigated through strengthened sickness management. This includes conducting return‑to‑work interviews promptly, even after short periods of illness, which can help to identify underlying issues early and reduce avoidable absences. It can also include structured return-to-work planning, phased returns, and temporary adjustments.

How can employers prepare for the changes?

• Update payroll systems for earnings‑linked SSP and day‑one entitlement.
• Review and update sickness absence policies, contracts and employee handbooks and communicate these changes to employees.

• Budget for increased SSP.
• Identify roles or departments most affected by the wider eligibility rules.

• Train managers and HR on the new regime.
• Strengthen sickness absence management processes.
• Establish the number of atypical workers and how their normal weekly earnings are calculated.

Conclusion

The April 2026 SSP reforms represent a major shift in the UK’s approach to sick pay, expanding access and enhancing financial protection for employees. While these changes introduce additional costs and compliance requirements for employers, early preparation will support a compliant and well‑managed transition.

By reviewing systems and policies now, organisations can ensure they are ready for the new SSP regime and are equipped to support staff and manage sickness absence effectively.

Read more:
Imminent changes to Statutory Sick Pay: What employers need to know

Teenage darts sensation Luke Littler has applied to trademark his own face in a landmark move aimed at protecting his image from AI-generated fakes and unauthorised commercial use.

The 19-year-old, already a two-time World Darts Championship winner, has submitted an application to the UK Intellectual Property Office as concerns grow over the rapid rise of deepfakes and AI-generated content exploiting public figures.

Littler’s likeness is already widely used across commercial products, from branded dartboards and video games to food items, reflecting his meteoric rise as one of the most marketable names in British sport. He has previously secured trademark protection for his nickname “The Nuke” in the United States, underlining the increasing value of his personal brand.

The latest move signals a growing trend among high-profile athletes and celebrities seeking to protect their identity in an era where AI tools can replicate faces and voices with alarming accuracy.

Graeme Murray, a trademark attorney at Marks & Clerk, said such applications are becoming more common as public figures attempt to safeguard their image. He noted that AI-generated content poses a “genuine threat” to the commercial value and goodwill associated with well-known individuals.

“The objective is to create exclusivity around a recognisable appearance that consumers associate with one individual,” he explained. “This prevents third parties from exploiting that identity without consent, particularly in commercial settings.”

The legal landscape, however, remains uncertain. Unlike some jurisdictions, the UK does not recognise a formal “right of personality”, meaning individuals have limited protection over the commercial use of their likeness outside existing intellectual property frameworks.

Iain Connor, intellectual property partner at Michelmores, warned that trademarking a face is not a comprehensive solution. “Even if successful, trade mark protection is limited to specific categories of goods and services,” he said. “It is not a silver bullet against deepfakes.”

He added that previous attempts to protect identity through trademarks have produced mixed results, citing successful and unsuccessful cases involving public figures. The challenge lies in proving that a face or likeness functions as a distinctive commercial identifier.

The move comes as policymakers and legal experts increasingly debate how to regulate AI-generated content. The UK government has already acknowledged potential gaps in existing copyright and IP frameworks, with discussions underway about introducing new “personality rights” to better protect individuals from digital replication.

Littler’s application therefore represents not only a commercial strategy but also a test case for how far current intellectual property law can stretch in the age of generative AI.

Away from the courtroom, Littler continues to dominate on the oche. Fresh from a dramatic comeback victory over Gerwyn Price in Dublin, he admitted he is still adapting to the pressures of fame and fan scrutiny.

But as his profile continues to grow, so too does the need to protect it, not just from rivals on the darts circuit, but from the increasingly sophisticated capabilities of artificial intelligence.

Read more:
Luke Littler moves to trademark his face in bid to combat AI fakes

Artificial intelligence is emerging as a new source of legal and financial pressure for UK businesses, with more than a third now reporting a rise in low-merit claims generated using AI tools, according to new research from Irwin Mitchell.

The study, based on a survey of more than 80 senior in-house lawyers, highlights how AI is reshaping the litigation landscape—creating not only new efficiencies, but also new risks. Businesses say AI-generated claims are increasing legal workloads, absorbing senior management time and driving up costs at a moment when many organisations are already operating under tight margins.

Around 35% of in-house legal teams reported an uptick in claims, particularly from customers, where AI tools are being used to produce lengthy, highly structured legal arguments. While many of these claims lack substantive merit, they are often sophisticated enough to require detailed review and formal response.

Katie Byrne, Head of Commercial Dispute Resolution at Irwin Mitchell, said these claims are rarely successful but still impose a material burden on businesses.

“In-house teams are dealing with a growing volume of AI-generated, low-merit claims. Many are lengthy, legalistic and built from templates. Businesses say they rarely stand up, but they still consume time and budget, and are driving greater spend on cyber cover and claims handling,” she said.

The result is a growing layer of administrative and legal friction, particularly for mid-sized firms without extensive internal legal resources.

Alongside the rise in AI-generated claims, the research underscores a broader shift in legal risk priorities. Data protection and privacy breaches are now seen as the most significant AI-related litigation threat, cited by 55% of respondents.

Cyber insurance costs are also rising sharply. Nearly 70% of businesses reported higher premiums, while two-thirds said they are either expanding their cyber cover or reassessing liability limits in response to evolving threats.

This reflects growing concern at board level that AI, while improving productivity, also introduces new vectors for data leakage, misuse and compliance failures.

Despite the challenges, businesses are increasingly deploying AI themselves to manage the rising complexity of disputes. The research found that 64% of legal teams are already using AI tools to support litigation workflows, particularly in areas such as document review, disclosure and early case assessment.

More than half (51%) have also introduced internal governance frameworks to regulate the use of AI in legal processes, reflecting a growing emphasis on responsible deployment.

Byrne said the response from leading organisations is not to resist AI, but to integrate it strategically.

“Boards shouldn’t panic—they should prepare. The immediate priorities we’re seeing are clear governance for AI use, staff training to avoid data leakage, and practical triage to separate credible claims from AI-padded complaints,” she said.

The findings point to a wider evolution in how UK businesses view legal risk. Litigation is increasingly seen as an operational necessity rather than a reactive last resort, with 69% of respondents describing it as a strategic investment.

This shift is being driven by a combination of factors, including rising cyber threats, regulatory complexity and supply chain disruption. Cyber-related risks were cited most frequently (35%), followed by supply chain issues (21%) and regulatory divergence (17%).

Environmental and greenwashing claims are also gaining prominence, identified as the leading ESG-related legal risk by 33% of respondents.

The report also highlights mixed adoption of alternative litigation funding. While just over half of businesses use it occasionally, concerns around cost, complexity and loss of control continue to limit wider uptake.

Looking ahead, the intersection of AI and legal risk is expected to intensify. As generative tools become more accessible, the volume of automated claims is likely to increase further, forcing businesses to invest more heavily in both defensive and operational capabilities.

For UK firms already navigating economic uncertainty, the emergence of AI-driven litigation represents another layer of cost and complexity, one that will require a more sophisticated, technology-enabled approach to legal risk management.

Read more:
AI-generated legal claims add to cost burden on British businesses

The eco-friendly pet brand Piddle Patch, which rose to national prominence following an appearance on Dragons’ Den, has won a significant trademark infringement case in the UK courts after a judge ruled that a rival company deliberately attempted to profit from its brand recognition.

District Judge Obodai ruled in favour of Makeality Ltd, the company behind the Piddle Patch brand, in a dispute with City Doggo Ltd and its founder Laurencia Walker-Fooks. The case was heard on the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) small claims track at the High Court.

The judge concluded that the defendants had deliberately attempted to benefit from the Piddle Patch trademark and associated goodwill, stating that their actions were part of a coordinated attempt to exploit the brand’s market presence.

In the written judgement, Judge Obodai said the defendants’ conduct was not accidental but formed part of a “deliberate policy to promote the sign in the relevant market”. He added that “passing off is exactly what she intended when she began her campaign of infringement”.

Piddle Patch was created by entrepreneur Rebecca Sloan, who launched the product as a sustainable alternative to disposable puppy training pads. The product uses real grass to provide an eco-friendly indoor toilet solution for dogs, particularly popular with urban pet owners.

Makeality Ltd registered the Piddle Patch trademark in 2016, establishing legal protection over the brand name and product identity.

Over the following years the business built strong brand recognition through a growing subscriber base, endorsements from celebrity veterinarians and dog trainers, and media coverage across national press outlets.

The company’s profile rose significantly in 2022 after appearing on BBC’s Dragons’ Den, where Sloan received an investment offer from entrepreneur and investor Steven Bartlett. The appearance helped propel the brand into the national spotlight and strengthened its commercial position in the pet care market.

Court documents revealed that Laurencia Walker-Fooks, the founder of City Doggo Ltd, had previously been a long-term customer of Piddle Patch.

During the Covid-19 pandemic she reportedly approached Sloan with an offer to acquire the company. Negotiations did not proceed after Sloan ultimately declined the proposal.

Shortly afterwards, City Doggo Ltd was incorporated and began trading in November 2020, entering the same market for dog toilet products.

The court heard evidence that the rival company subsequently used the Piddle Patch name extensively across its digital marketing channels, including website content, search engine optimisation tags and social media posts.

Evidence presented in court showed that the Piddle Patch trademark appeared in numerous areas of the City Doggo website.

These included product titles such as “SHOP: Piddle Patch”, as well as keyword metadata, alt tags and landing page descriptions designed to attract search engine traffic.

The trademark also appeared in hidden text on the website, including phrases such as “Piddle Patch Dragons Den”, which the court heard were intended to capture search traffic generated by the brand’s television exposure.

Additionally, City Doggo registered the domains piddlepatch.info and piddlepatch.shop, both of which directed users to its own website.

The trademark was also used as a hashtag across social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, further increasing the likelihood that consumers searching for Piddle Patch would encounter City Doggo’s products.

The judge concluded that these actions were a calculated attempt to benefit commercially from the existing brand reputation built by Makeality Ltd.

Makeality Ltd argued that City Doggo’s activities caused a measurable decline in traffic to the Piddle Patch website.

The court accepted that the rival company’s online marketing strategy had successfully positioned its website alongside the genuine brand in search engine results.

Judge Obodai noted that this outcome was intentional, commenting that the activity “had the desired effect” because City Doggo’s website appeared alongside the claimant’s when consumers searched for the Piddle Patch name.

The defendants had argued that the alleged infringements were too small or insignificant to be legally actionable, describing them as “de minimis”.

However, the court rejected this defence, ruling that the actions were deliberate and commercially motivated.

During the proceedings Walker-Fooks described City Doggo as a “sideline” business and suggested she lacked experience in intellectual property matters.

The judge rejected this characterisation, stating he did not believe her portrayal of limited business knowledge.

Judge Obodai noted that Walker-Fooks had a background in financial services and held senior roles in the investment sector, including serving as Vice President of Macro at Lighthouse Investment Partners between 2022 and 2025 before becoming Chief Operating Officer at hedge fund Anahata Capital Management LLC in October 2025.

The court found that she had sufficient commercial understanding to recognise the implications of using the Piddle Patch trademark in her marketing.

While the court ruled in favour of Makeality Ltd on trademark infringement and passing-off claims, the amount of financial compensation has not yet been determined.

The case will now proceed to a separate quantum trial, which will establish the level of damages owed to the Piddle Patch brand.

The court also considered requests for an injunction preventing further use of the trademark.

Following the ruling, Piddle Patch founder Rebecca Sloan welcomed the outcome and said the judgement vindicated the company’s efforts to protect its intellectual property.

“We are very happy with the result,” Sloan said.

She added that the case had required extensive preparation and thanked her legal team for their work during the proceedings.

“I’d like to thank our direct access barrister Christy Rogers, who worked tirelessly to help us make our case to the Court. This was by no means a straightforward process.”

The ruling is likely to attract attention among UK entrepreneurs and intellectual property specialists because it highlights how trademarks can be exploited through digital marketing techniques.

The case illustrates how search engine optimisation, domain registration and social media tagging can be used to redirect online traffic and potentially mislead consumers.

Legal experts say the judgement reinforces the principle that digital marketing tactics designed to exploit a rival’s brand reputation can constitute trademark infringement and passing off.

For small businesses and start-ups, particularly those building strong online brands, the case underscores the importance of securing and defending intellectual property rights as businesses scale.

With the Piddle Patch brand continuing to expand following its national exposure on Dragons’ Den, the ruling represents a significant legal victory for the company and a warning to competitors seeking to capitalise on established brand names.

Following the judgement, Laurencia Walker-Fooks, Founder, City Doggo Ltd, has provided Business Matter with the following statement “This was a dispute between two small companies in the Small Claims Track. Judge Hacon said from the beginning there was unlikely to be much at stake in this claim, and it was narrowed further when the claimant dropped its allegation that our product “Oui Oui Patch” copied their trademark.

The remaining issues in the claim related to errors in our digital marketing. We acknowledged these issues from the beginning but demonstrated their limited visibility. For example, one complained of blog had five views in a month. We corrected these things nearly two years ago.

“I’m delighted Oui Oui Patch lives on and I’m excited as ever to keep helping dog owners toilet train apartment puppies quickly and naturally.

“I am reviewing the judgment and considering appropriate options, including a possible appeal.

“I respect the court’s decision, however I do not recognise its characterisation of my intentions and conduct. Everyone who has worked with me knows that I do business openly and transparently. I have never previously worked in digital marketing and it does not overlap with my professional experience at all.”

Read more:
Dragons’ Den success story Piddle Patch wins landmark trademark infringement case

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that the Spain cannot rely on state immunity to avoid paying a €120 million arbitration award owed to renewable energy investors, marking a significant legal victory for international investors seeking to enforce unpaid awards against sovereign states.

In a unanimous judgment delivered by Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lady Simler, the court concluded that Spain had effectively waived its immunity from enforcement proceedings by signing up to the ICSID Convention, which obliges member states to recognise and enforce arbitration awards issued under the framework.

The ruling follows a nearly five-year legal dispute brought by Luxembourg-based investors Infrastructure Services Luxembourg and Energia Termosolar, who were awarded damages in 2018 after Spain withdrew renewable energy subsidies that had originally encouraged large-scale solar investments.

The dispute dates back to policy changes introduced by Spain in 2012, when the government removed incentives that had previously supported investment in renewable energy infrastructure. The investors argued that the move breached Spain’s obligations under the Energy Charter Treaty, which protects cross-border investments in the energy sector.

Following arbitration proceedings administered by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, the tribunal ruled in favour of the investors in 2018, awarding compensation of approximately €120 million plus interest.

However, Spain refused to pay the award, prompting the investors to register the ruling in the High Court of Justice (England and Wales) in 2021 in order to pursue enforcement against Spanish assets located in England.

Spain challenged that move, arguing that sovereign immunity protected it from enforcement proceedings in British courts.

The Supreme Court rejected Spain’s claim, ruling that by signing the ICSID Convention the country had already accepted the jurisdiction of national courts for enforcement purposes.

In its decision, the court stated that Spain had “submitted to the jurisdiction by virtue of Article 54 of the Convention and consequently may not oppose the registration of ICSID awards against it on the grounds of state immunity.”

Article 54 of the ICSID Convention requires signatory states to treat arbitration awards issued under the system as if they were final judgments of their own courts, ensuring enforceability across jurisdictions.

Legal representatives for the investors said the ruling reinforces the principle that arbitration awards issued under the ICSID framework must be honoured by participating states.

Richard Clarke, barrister at Kobre & Kim, which represented the investors before the Supreme Court, said the decision strengthens the international enforcement regime for investment arbitration.

“The judgment confirms that where states agree by treaty to waive their adjudicative immunity, as in Article 54 of the ICSID Convention, they cannot later invoke state immunity to resist enforcement,” Clarke said.

He added that the decision aligns with the broader objective of the ICSID system, which was designed to produce binding awards backed by a global enforcement framework.

The ruling now allows the investors to continue enforcement proceedings against Spanish assets in the UK.

In 2023 the High Court had already granted an interim charging order over Spanish-owned freehold property in Notting Hill, London, as part of attempts to recover the debt.

A final hearing later this year will determine whether those assets can ultimately be seized to satisfy the arbitration award if Spain continues to refuse payment.

The case forms part of a much broader series of disputes stemming from Spain’s 2012 overhaul of renewable energy incentives.

According to legal estimates cited in the proceedings, Spain currently owes around $1.6 billion to investors across 22 binding arbitration awards linked to similar claims.

Courts in other jurisdictions have already reached similar conclusions about Spain’s inability to rely on sovereign immunity in such cases. Decisions in both Australia and the United States in 2024 and 2025 also rejected Spain’s immunity arguments.

The case has also attracted political attention within the European Union.

The European Commission intervened in the UK proceedings in support of Spain’s position and has separately argued that payments arising from the arbitration awards could constitute unlawful state aid under EU law.

In a 2024 decision, the Commission concluded that compensation awarded to renewable investors under the Energy Charter Treaty amounted to state aid, a finding that is now being challenged in the General Court of the European Union.

Critics argue the EU’s stance risks undermining investor confidence in the region’s renewable energy market, particularly at a time when energy security and green investment are high on the political agenda.

Legal experts say the UK ruling adds to a growing body of international jurisprudence reinforcing the enforceability of arbitration awards against sovereign states.

By confirming that treaty commitments override immunity defences in this context, the decision may strengthen the position of investors seeking to recover damages awarded in international investment disputes.

For Spain, the ruling increases the pressure to settle outstanding claims or risk further legal actions targeting state-owned assets in multiple jurisdictions.

With enforcement proceedings now able to move forward in England, the dispute could enter a new phase later this year as courts determine whether Spanish property holdings can be used to satisfy the long-standing debt.

Read more:
UK Supreme Court rules Spain cannot avoid €120m renewable energy debt by claiming state immunity

Iceland supermarket ends decade-long trademark battle with Iceland and offers ‘rapprochement discount’

The UK supermarket chain Iceland has formally ended its decade-long legal battle with the Nordic nation of the same name, drawing a line under one of Europe’s most unusual trademark disputes and promising a goodwill gesture to Icelandic consumers.

The frozen food retailer confirmed it would abandon further legal action after suffering its third defeat in European courts last year. Instead of continuing the costly dispute, the company plans to use funds earmarked for further litigation to offer what it has described as a “rapprochement discount” to shoppers in Iceland.

Richard Walker, the executive chair of the supermarket group, said the decision marked a pragmatic end to a legal fight that had stretched for nearly a decade and consumed significant time and resources.

Speaking to the Financial Times, Walker said the company would redirect the money that would have been spent on another legal appeal toward offering shopping vouchers to Icelandic consumers, which they could use in the retailer’s stores.

“We lost for a third time. We’re going to throw in the towel,” Walker said. “It’s actually fine, we don’t have to change our name.”

He added that the legal costs for another round in the European courts would have amounted to a couple of hundred thousand pounds, money the company now intends to spend on the goodwill initiative instead.

The legal conflict began in 2016, when the government of Iceland launched proceedings against the British supermarket chain over its EU-wide trademark registration for the word “Iceland.”

The country argued that the supermarket’s ownership of the trademark prevented Icelandic companies from properly promoting products abroad under the country’s name, potentially limiting exports and international branding opportunities.

Officials in Reykjavík contended that geographical names should remain available for public use and not be monopolised by private companies for commercial purposes.

The dispute quickly became a high-profile case in European intellectual property law, raising broader questions about the use of place names as trademarks and the rights of countries to promote their own national identity in international markets.

In July 2025, the EU General Court ruled against the supermarket chain and upheld an earlier decision to cancel its EU trademark for the word “Iceland”.

The court concluded that geographical names should remain accessible to businesses and organisations linked to that location and cannot normally be reserved exclusively by a single company.

The judgment effectively stripped the British retailer of its exclusive EU trademark rights, although the ruling did not require the supermarket to change its name.

Walker acknowledged that the legal defeat raised a new concern for the company — the possibility that competitors could attempt to use the name in the future.

“Other people now have the ability to open shops and call it Iceland and stock Iceland products,” he said.

Despite that risk, the retailer has decided not to pursue further appeals, bringing the long-running dispute to a close.

As part of its effort to move beyond the dispute, Iceland’s management plans to introduce a special discount scheme aimed at Icelandic consumers.

The proposed initiative is expected to involve shopping vouchers that residents of Iceland can use at the retailer’s stores, symbolising a more cooperative relationship between the brand and the country.

The company has not yet confirmed when the vouchers will be available or how they will be distributed, but executives say the gesture is intended to mark the end of hostilities and encourage goodwill.

The move also reflects the retailer’s desire to avoid further reputational damage from a legal fight that has attracted widespread international attention.

The decision to end the dispute comes during a period of leadership transition at the supermarket group.

Richard Walker took over as executive chair in 2023, succeeding his father Malcolm Walker, who co-founded Iceland in 1970 and led the company for more than five decades.

The younger Walker has increasingly positioned himself as a public advocate on economic and social issues in Britain. Earlier this year he was appointed the UK government’s cost of living champion and was also made a Labour peer by Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Before that appointment he had previously been known as a supporter of the Conservative Party.

The Iceland supermarket chain began as a single frozen-food store in Oswestry, Shropshire, specialising in loose frozen products.

Over the decades it expanded rapidly to become one of Britain’s best-known budget grocery brands.

Today the business operates more than 900 company-owned stores across the UK, trading under the Iceland and The Food Warehouse brands.

The company also operates franchised stores internationally, including locations in the Channel Islands, Spain and Portugal.

Beyond its supermarket operations, the group owns the restaurant business Individual Restaurants, which operates brands including Piccolino and Restaurant Bar & Grill.

Iceland spent several decades listed on the London Stock Exchange after its flotation in 1984.

During that period the company rebranded as The Big Food Group, expanding into multiple food retail formats.

However, in 2012 the company returned to private ownership following a £1.45 billion management buyout led by Malcolm Walker and South African investment firm Brait.

Walker and long-time chief executive Tarsem Dhaliwal subsequently bought out Brait’s stake in 2020, restoring full control of the business to its management team.

Dhaliwal himself has been closely associated with Iceland’s growth, having joined the company in 1985 as a trainee accountant before rising to become chief executive.

By abandoning the trademark dispute, Iceland’s leadership hopes to draw a definitive line under a legal battle that has lasted almost a decade and attracted attention across Europe.

For the supermarket chain, the decision represents a pragmatic recognition that the legal fight had run its course, and that repairing relations with Iceland may ultimately be more valuable than continuing a costly courtroom battle.

The planned “rapprochement discount” for Icelandic shoppers now stands as a symbolic gesture aimed at turning a long-running dispute into a moment of reconciliation between the British retailer and the Nordic country whose name it shares.

Read more:
Iceland supermarket drops decade-long trademark dispute with Iceland and offers “rapprochement discount”

A High Court judge has ruled that thousands of people affected by a major data breach at Capita can continue with their legal action against the outsourcing group, in a decision being described as a landmark for large-scale data privacy claims in the UK.

In a judgment handed down on 9 February, Master Dagnall rejected arguments from Capita’s legal team that solicitors acting for more than 8,000 claimants had abused the court process. Capita had claimed that the use of repetitive or generic descriptions of mental distress following the 2023 cyber attack undermined the validity of the claims.

The ruling allows the case, brought by Barings Law, to proceed and is likely to be closely watched by companies, regulators and claimant law firms involved in data protection litigation.

Barings launched the action in 2023 after a cyber attack exposed the personal data of around 6.6 million individuals, including Capita employees. The compromised information is understood to include sensitive financial and pension details.

Capita’s lawyers had applied to have the claims struck out, alleging that Barings improperly influenced evidence relating to claimants’ anxiety and psychological distress following the breach. However, Master Dagnall concluded that Capita had failed to demonstrate that any abuse of process had occurred.

In his judgment, the judge said solicitors had a “real basis” and were entitled to a “wide latitude” when preparing evidence in cases involving large numbers of claimants. He also noted that clients had given informed consent to Barings to act on their behalf. Striking out the claims, he added, would have been a “draconian step”.

Adnan Malik, head of data protection at Barings Law, said the decision was a significant victory for those affected. “From day one this case has centred on the rights of ordinary individuals against a major corporation which catastrophically failed to protect their privacy,” he said.

“For Capita to attempt to play down the seriousness of the impact was wrong, and today’s judgment affirms that the welfare of data breach victims is being taken seriously by the courts.”

Robert Whitehead, chairman of Barings Law, said the ruling reinforced the firm’s commitment to pursuing accountability in large-scale privacy cases. “Capita has played fast and loose with its customers’ data, and that has had an inevitable impact on the health and wellbeing of those affected,” he said. “We see today’s decision as a vindication of our claimants’ rights and an important signal for future data breach cases.”

While the ruling does not determine whether claimants will ultimately succeed, it clears a major procedural hurdle. The court said substantive questions around the extent of harm suffered by victims will be examined at a later trial, as the case against Capita now moves to its next phase.

Read more:
High Court clears way for thousands to pursue Capita data breach claims

UK-founded legaltech business Lawhive has raised $60 million (£47m) in Series B funding as it accelerates its expansion across the US consumer legal market and doubles down on its AI-driven operating model.

The round was led by Mitch Rales, co-founder of Danaher Corporation, one of the world’s most successful public companies. Existing and new backers participating in the round include TQ Ventures, GV, Balderton Capital, Jigsaw, Anton Levy and LTS.

The raise comes less than a year after Lawhive secured $40 million in Series A funding and caps a period of rapid growth for the company. Lawhive has now surpassed $35 million in annualised revenue, having grown sevenfold over the past 12 months, and is operating in 35 US states, with plans to expand nationwide.

Founded to tackle inefficiencies in consumer legal services, Lawhive is targeting one of the largest and most fragmented markets in the US. Consumer legal services generate an estimated $200 billion in annual revenue, yet industry research suggests up to $1 trillion in legal needs go unmet each year due to high costs, slow processes and heavy reliance on manual workflows.

Everyday legal matters such as family law, landlord and tenant disputes and employment claims remain expensive and unpredictable for consumers, while lawyers are constrained by legacy systems and administrative overheads. Lawhive’s response has been to build what it describes as the world’s first AI-native consumer law firm, powered by its proprietary AI operating system.

The platform automates large parts of the legal workflow, including document drafting, legal research, case management, client onboarding and payments. Its AI paralegal, Lawrence, works alongside lawyers and support teams, enabling cases to be handled more quickly, consistently and at lower cost. The model now supports more than 450 lawyers across the US and UK.

Lawhive entered the US market in mid-2025 and has seen rapid adoption, making it the company’s fastest-growing region. Alongside its existing Austin base, the business is opening a New York office to support the next phase of growth.

Pierre Proner, co-founder and CEO of Lawhive, said the pace of growth reflects the scale of the problem the company is addressing. “Everyday legal matters remain costly and unpredictable for millions of people, while lawyers are held back by manual processes that limit their ability to scale. AI is finally making it possible to deliver consumer legal services with the speed and consistency people expect. Demand in the US has been exceptionally strong, and this funding allows us to build on that momentum.”

In the UK, Lawhive expanded its footprint last year through the acquisition of Woodstock Legal Services, and the company now plans to replicate its vertically integrated model across the US, where the market is dominated by thousands of small firms lacking modern infrastructure.

Investors say Lawhive stands out for combining strong technology with an operating model designed to scale. Mitch Rales said the business was “democratising legal services” by widening access to transparent, high-quality legal support. “We share a long-term mindset and are building Lawhive for the decades ahead,” he added.

Read more:
Lawhive raises $60m to scale AI-native consumer law firm across the US

Pinterest has dismissed two engineers after they created and shared a software tool that identified colleagues who had been made redundant during a recent round of job cuts, according to reports.

The digital pinboard company announced earlier this month that it would cut about 15 per cent of its workforce, roughly 700 roles, as chief executive Bill Ready said the business was “doubling down on an AI-forward approach”. Pinterest did not disclose which teams would be affected by the reductions.

Following the announcement, two engineers wrote custom scripts that accessed internal systems to flag when employee accounts were deactivated, effectively revealing the names and locations of staff who had lost their jobs. The information was then shared more widely, prompting the company to take disciplinary action.

A Pinterest spokesperson said the engineers had “improperly accessed confidential company information” and described the actions as a clear breach of company policy and a violation of affected employees’ privacy. It remains unclear whether the data was shared solely with colleagues inside the business or beyond the company.

The scripts targeted internal communication and access tools, according to the BBC, citing a source familiar with the incident. The code reportedly triggered alerts when employee names were removed from internal systems.

Pinterest has been ramping up investment in artificial intelligence to improve personalisation for users and automate tools for advertisers. However, investor confidence has been shaken, with shares down more than 20 per cent this year as markets weigh the competitive threat posed by newer and more advanced AI platforms.

Ready told staff in an internal meeting that while debate and dissent were healthy, employees who fundamentally disagreed with the company’s direction should consider their future elsewhere, according to CNBC, which first reported the firings.

The incident comes amid a broader wave of job losses across the tech sector as companies restructure around AI. Last week, Amazon announced a further 16,000 redundancies worldwide, while Meta said it would cut more than 1,000 roles from its Reality Labs division. Design software maker Autodesk has also confirmed plans to shed around 1,000 jobs this month.

Read more:
Pinterest sacks engineers after internal tool exposed laid-off staff during AI-driven cuts

The Employment Rights Act 2025 received Royal Assent on 18 December 2025, and the Act will be implemented on a phased basis, through to 2027.

There are, however, two specific implementation dates to be aware of this year: 6 April 2026 and 1 October 2026.

April 2026

Paternity leave and Parental leave

From 6 April, there will be a day-one right to paternity leave and parental leave. The current requirement for 26 weeks’ and one year’s service, respectively, will be removed. It will also be possible to take paternity leave after shared parental leave.

Also from the same date, there will be a new right to bereaved partner’s paternity leave of up to 52 weeks. This is for fathers and partners who lose their partner before their child’s first birthday. It resolves the difficulties of bereaved partners, without the relevant length of service for time off, who have to rely on discretionary compassionate leave from their employer.

Statutory sick pay

From 6 April, employees will receive SSP from day one of sickness absence, removing the current three-day waiting period. The lower earnings limit will also be abolished, and SSP will be £123.25 a week or 80% of normal weekly earnings, whichever is lower.

Whistleblowing

The definition of a “qualifying disclosure” for whistleblowing purposes will be extended from 6 April to include disclosures about sexual harassment.

Collective redundancy protective award

From 6 April, the maximum protective award for failure to collectively consult will double from 90 days’ to 180 days’ pay. This significant increase is intended to prevent employers from “pricing in” the cost of ignoring collective consultation obligations.

Fair Work Agency (FWA)

The FWA will be established on 6 April. It will be able to conduct workplace inspections, issue penalties for underpayment of wages, and represent workers in legal proceedings. We do not have the timeline for the FWA’s enforcement powers; we only have its launch date.

Other developments

It is worth mentioning that there will be extensive trade union and industrial action changes throughout the year. Also, employers with 250 or more employees are expected to introduce voluntary equality action plans in April to promote gender equality, address the gender pay gap, and support menopausal employees. The plans will be mandatory in 2027.

October 2026

Harassment and sexual harassment

Currently, employers must take “reasonable steps” to prevent sexual harassment in the course of employment. From 1 October, the duty will be strengthened to take “all reasonable steps”.

There will also be protection from third-party harassment, covering any harassment rather than only sexual harassment as at present. Third parties include customers, clients and members of the public. Employers will be liable unless they can show they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent third-party harassment.

Fire and rehire

From 1 October, dismissing an employee for refusing certain contract changes (“restricted variations”) will be automatically unfair, except where the employer is in financial difficulty. Restricted variations include changes to pay, pensions, working hours, shift patterns or holiday entitlement.

It will also constitute an automatic unfair dismissal if an employee is replaced with someone who is not a direct employee (for example, an agency worker) and who will perform the same or substantially the same role as the dismissed employee.

Employment Tribunal time limits

From 1 October, the time limit for bringing an Employment Tribunal claim will increase to six months for all claims, doubling the current limit of three months. There is concern that this may lead to a rise in Employment Tribunal cases, but it also arguably provides more time for early conciliation.

Other developments

As well as changes to trade union and industrial action, amendments scheduled for implementation on 1 October will prevent the creation of a “two-tier workforce” under outsourced contracts. From the same date, employers must consult with workers and trade union representatives on their written tips policy and review it at least once every three years.

How can employers prepare for implementation?

• Review and update family-related and sickness absence policies, and communicate with staff about the reasons for the changes and when they will take effect.

Be mindful of the considerable increase in the protective award for failing to collectively consult if redundancies are anticipated.

• Prepare for higher SSP costs.
• Review and update whistleblowing policies and reporting mechanisms to cover sexual harassment disclosures and provide clear guidance for staff.
• Review and update harassment and sexual harassment policies, and review any sexual harassment risk assessment to account for the extended duty.
• Prepare for greater scrutiny of employment practices when the FWA’s remit becomes clearer.
• Consider whether additional training is needed for staff and managers.

This year, more than ever, employers need to stay informed and to prepare for the many employment law changes ahead.

Read more:
Implementation of the Employment Rights Act 2025: what employers need to know

The High Court has granted an urgent hearing to a judicial review challenging the Government’s proposed changes to inheritance tax reliefs for farms and family businesses, in a move that significantly raises the legal stakes around reforms currently passing through Parliament.

The claim, brought by Collyer Bristow LLP on behalf of professional services firm Alvarez & Marsal and claimants including Thomas Martin, George Martin and campaign group Farmers and Businesses for Fair Tax Relief, targets changes to Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and Business Property Relief (BPR).

Following what the court described as “regrettable administrative delays” in handling the case, the claimants sought judicial intervention to accelerate proceedings. On 19 January 2026, Mrs Justice Lang ordered that the case proceed to a rare “rolled-up” hearing, covering both permission to bring the judicial review and the substantive merits of the claim.

The two-day hearing will take place in February or March 2026, with the court recognising that the issues raised are time-critical and of significant public importance.

At the heart of the challenge is the claimants’ argument that the Government acted unlawfully by conducting only a limited technical consultation on a narrow aspect of the proposed APR and BPR reforms. They argue this fell short of established public law standards, particularly given the scale of the potential impact on farming families, business owners and the wider agricultural and commercial economy.

The claimants say the lack of a full and meaningful consultation breached the Government’s own consultation principles and denied affected taxpayers the opportunity to influence policy before it was finalised.

Given the constitutional sensitivity of the issues, the Speaker of the House of Commons has been granted permission to intervene as an interested party. His counsel will assist the court on matters relating to parliamentary privilege, the separation of powers, and the appropriate use of parliamentary materials in judicial proceedings.

James Austen, partner at Collyer Bristow with conduct of the claim, said the court’s decision to expedite the case was highly unusual and reflected its importance.

“This ruling means a High Court judge will determine whether the Government acted unlawfully by introducing these changes without consulting taxpayers in line with its own policy,” he said. “Rolled-up hearings are exceptionally rare, and for one to be listed so promptly underlines the seriousness of the issues at stake.”

Marvin Rust, head of tax EMEA at Alvarez & Marsal, said the reforms created damaging uncertainty for family-owned enterprises.

“Restricting long-standing inheritance tax reliefs is a major policy shift,” he said. “Introducing changes of this magnitude without proper consultation runs contrary to well-established principles. We welcome the court’s decision to determine whether the process was lawful.”

Tom Martin, the lead claimant, said the case was about safeguarding due process rather than blocking parliamentary decision-making.

“By choosing not to carry out a proper consultation, the Government denied farmers and business owners the chance to influence policy that could fundamentally affect their livelihoods,” he said. “This case matters to everyone affected by the proposed tax changes.”

Because the APR and BPR reforms are already being debated as part of the draft Finance Bill currently in Committee stage in the House of Commons, the court cannot order the Government to conduct a fresh consultation. The claimants are therefore seeking a declaration that the consultation carried out was unlawful.

If the court agrees, such a declaration would not invalidate the legislation itself, but would formally recognise that the Government’s process fell short of legal standards. While ministers would retain discretion over how to proceed, the ruling could increase political and legal pressure to revisit how the reforms are implemented.

The High Court has issued detailed case management directions to ensure the case proceeds without further delay, setting the stage for one of the most significant legal challenges to recent inheritance tax reforms.

Read more:
High Court fast-tracks judicial review into inheritance tax relief reforms

Calling a colleague “old” because they struggle with computer skills does not, on its own, amount to age discrimination, an employment tribunal has ruled.

The decision came in the case of Farah Janjua, 39, who brought claims against her former employer, Harvey Jones Ltd, after a younger manager told her her lack of IT skills was “because you’re old”.

Ms Janjua argued that the comment, made by a colleague in his late 20s, amounted to unlawful age discrimination. She was dismissed from her role as a sales designer following the end of her probation period and subsequently launched legal proceedings.

However, an Employment Tribunal sitting in Reading rejected her claim in full, concluding that the remark did not meet the legal threshold for age discrimination.

The tribunal heard that Ms Janjua began working at a Harvey Jones kitchen showroom in Marlow in July 2022. During one incident, a sales manager, Nawaz Salauddin, intervened while she was working on a document, showing her how to add attachments using a computer mouse.

When Ms Janjua said she did not know the function existed, Mr Salauddin replied: “Cos you’re old.”

Ms Janjua complained about the remark, arguing it was ageist given that she was 39 at the time. She also alleged a separate incident in which a regional sales manager appeared “disgusted” on learning her age.

In dismissing the claim, Judge Naomi Shastri-Hurst said the tribunal accepted that the comment had been made, but found that it was not discriminatory in law.

“We find that a lack of technical knowledge is not infrequently deemed, rightly or wrongly, to be connected to age,” the judge said. “On the balance of probabilities, we accept that this conversation took place as suggested.”

However, she added that the evidence showed Mr Salauddin would have made the same comment to anyone older than him, rather than targeting Ms Janjua specifically because she was 39.

“In light of the evidence we have as to his character and behaviour, in terms of his desire to assert his authority, we find that he would have said this to anyone older than him,” the judge said.

Ms Janjua was dismissed in December 2022 following concerns about her performance. She launched legal action the following month, bringing claims of age discrimination alongside allegations of race and sex discrimination, sexual harassment, harassment related to sex, and victimisation.

All claims were rejected by the tribunal.

“We reject the claim of age discrimination in its entirety,” Judge Shastri-Hurst concluded.

The ruling highlights the distinction tribunals draw between inappropriate or ill-judged workplace comments and conduct that meets the legal definition of discrimination under employment law.

Read more:
Calling colleagues ‘old’ over IT skills is not age discrimination, tribunal rules

UK businesses are being urged to tighten controls around their use of artificial intelligence in 2026, as legal experts warn that poorly governed AI systems are exposing companies to mounting legal, financial and reputational risks.

From unclear ownership of AI-generated content to data protection breaches and misleading outputs, advisers say many organisations have adopted AI tools faster than they have put safeguards in place, leaving them vulnerable as regulation accelerates.

Copyright and ownership disputes remain unresolved

One of the most pressing risks for businesses using generative AI is uncertainty around copyright and ownership of AI-generated outputs. Legal experts warn that AI tools can unintentionally reproduce copyrighted material, creating disputes over who owns, or is liable for, the content produced.

A high-profile example is the case of Getty Images versus Stability AI, which highlighted the legal grey areas surrounding AI training data. Getty alleged that its copyrighted images had been used without permission to train an image-generation model. While Getty’s main UK copyright claim did not succeed, the court found limited trademark infringement linked to early outputs that reproduced Getty watermarks, underlining the legal uncertainty businesses still face.

Lawyers say companies should carefully review the licensing terms of any AI tools they use, implement internal review processes to check outputs for potential infringement, and clearly define ownership rights in contracts. Commercial use of AI-generated content is particularly risky where training data sources are opaque.

AI ‘hallucinations’ pose serious business risks

Accuracy remains another major concern. Studies suggest that around 20 per cent of AI-generated outputs contain significant errors, including fabricated or outdated information. When relied upon for legal, financial or operational decisions, these so-called “hallucinations” can expose businesses to misrepresentation claims, regulatory penalties and reputational damage.

In March 2024, a chatbot powered by Microsoft was reported to have given incorrect legal guidance to business owners, including advice that could have led to breaches of employment law. Legal experts warn that similar errors could result in fines of up to €7.5 million (£6.5 million) for providing misleading information to regulators.

To mitigate the risk, businesses are advised never to treat AI as a final authority. Human verification should be mandatory for high-stakes decisions, with clear disclosure when content has been AI-generated.

Weak AI governance is a growing liability

Many organisations have rolled out AI tools without establishing internal governance frameworks, a gap advisers describe as a “ticking time bomb”. Without clear policies, employees may misuse AI systems, input sensitive data, or fail to recognise harmful or biased outputs, increasing the risk of data breaches and legal claims.

Legal specialists recommend introducing company-wide AI policies that define acceptable use, establish review protocols and assign accountability for decisions informed by AI. Treating AI as a regulated business tool rather than a productivity shortcut is increasingly seen as essential.

Data protection breaches carry heavy penalties

AI systems often process vast quantities of personal data, including customer and employee information. Using this data without proper consent, transparency or anonymisation can lead to serious breaches of data protection law, resulting in fines and loss of trust.

Businesses are being urged to minimise data collection, document lawful bases for processing, maintain clear consent records and ensure transparency around how AI systems handle personal information.

Regulation is evolving faster than many businesses expect

Perhaps the biggest challenge for 2026 is the pace at which AI regulation is changing. Governments are introducing new rules that can apply across jurisdictions and, in some cases, retrospectively to systems already in use.

Legal experts warn that companies failing to monitor regulatory developments or audit their AI systems regularly risk falling foul of the law even when acting in good faith. Flexible compliance strategies and ongoing legal oversight are increasingly seen as essential as AI moves from experimentation to core business infrastructure.

The message from advisers is clear: AI remains a powerful competitive tool, but in 2026 it also represents a growing legal exposure. Businesses that fail to embed governance, oversight and compliance into their AI strategy may find the technology creates more problems than it solves.

Read more:
Legal experts warn UK firms of rising AI risks in 2026 as regulation tightens

A bitter trademark dispute over the Beckham name has emerged as a key factor in the growing rift between the Beckhams and their son Brooklyn Beckham and his wife Nicola Peltz, underscoring how intellectual property law can collide with family relationships when a surname becomes a commercial asset.

The row centres on control of the Beckham name, which has long been protected as a trademark across multiple commercial categories. While the dispute has played out in the public eye as a deeply personal family fallout, legal experts say it is also a textbook example of how trademark ownership can override individual autonomy in business.

Hannah Finster, an intellectual property lawyer at Marks & Clerk, said the situation highlights a fundamental principle of trademark law.

“Trademark ownership trumps personal identity in commerce,” she said. “The Beckham family has strategically protected the ‘BECKHAM’ brand since 2000 across multiple classes of goods and services. This isn’t just family drama, it’s a clear example of trademark strategy colliding with personal autonomy.”

Finster said that, in legal terms, even being born with a famous surname does not automatically confer the right to commercialise it. “Brooklyn Beckham cannot simply monetise his own name without permission if the trademark is owned elsewhere,” she said.

She pointed to historic precedents, including Chelsea FC’s registration of José Mourinho’s name, which meant the manager himself could not authorise merchandise linked to his new club. “It’s a stark illustration of how trademark rights can sit above the individual,” Finster added.

The Beckham dispute also echoes earlier high-profile cases where founders lost control of their own names after selling businesses, such as Jo Malone and Bobbi Brown. In those cases, the personal brand became a corporate asset, limiting the founders’ future freedom to trade under their own identities.

Finster noted that trademark disputes often capture public attention in a way commercial law rarely does, precisely because they blur the line between family, identity and money. She pointed to popular culture, including the latest season of Emily in Paris, which features a storyline centred on family trademark infringement.

She added that many of the world’s most commercially successful celebrity families have moved early to avoid similar conflicts. Figures such as Beyoncé and Jay-Z, along with the Kardashians, have aggressively registered trademarks and secured social media handles for their children from a young age, often as a defensive measure to prevent third-party exploitation.

“The Beckham situation shows what happens when the desire for personal autonomy clashes with a brand that has already been locked down,” Finster said. “When your name is the asset, breaking free is not as simple as doing whatever you want.”

As the family fallout continues to attract headlines, legal specialists say the episode serves as a cautionary tale for celebrity families and entrepreneurs alike: without clear agreements on ownership and future use, even the most personal of assets — a family name — can become a source of conflict rather than legacy.

Read more:
The trademark dispute at the heart of the Beckham family feud

Elon Musk has launched a $134 billion lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, claiming both companies unjustly profited from his early backing of the artificial intelligence pioneer and abandoned its founding mission.

In a federal court filing on Friday, lawyers for Elon Musk said OpenAI gained between $65.5 billion and $109.4 billion as a result of Musk’s initial funding, reputation and strategic input after he co-founded the organisation in 2015. Microsoft, which owns an estimated 27 per cent stake in OpenAI, is alleged to have benefited by between $13.3 billion and $25.1 billion.

Musk’s legal team argues that without his early involvement, OpenAI, now best known for ChatGPT,  would not exist in its current form. His lawyer, Steven Molo, said Musk provided the “bulk of the seed funding”, lent credibility to the venture and shared expertise in scaling technology businesses.

Musk left OpenAI in 2018 following disagreements over its direction and governance. He now claims the company breached its original non-profit mission by restructuring itself into a more commercially oriented entity, a move designed to attract vast sums of capital to fund its AI ambitions.

OpenAI completed a major restructuring last year alongside Microsoft, valuing the business at $500 billion. Under the new structure, a non-profit OpenAI Foundation will hold equity in a for-profit arm that can raise funds from external investors.

OpenAI dismissed Musk’s claim as “unserious”, accusing him of running a sustained harassment campaign against the company. Microsoft and OpenAI jointly asked the court to restrict the evidence presented by Musk’s expert witness, financial economist C Paul Wazzan, arguing the damages estimates are speculative, unverifiable and misleading.

The companies contend that Musk’s attempt to reclaim “wrongful gains” amounts to an unprecedented transfer of value from a non-profit organisation to a former donor who is now a competitor in the AI race.

The case is due to be heard by a jury in Oakland, California, with the trial expected to begin in April. The dispute adds another chapter to the increasingly bitter rivalry between Musk and Sam Altman, and highlights the growing legal and commercial tensions surrounding the global AI boom.

Read more:
Musk sues OpenAI and Microsoft for up to $134bn over ‘wrongful gains’

The High Court has ruled that claims of forced labour, modern slavery and exploitation brought against Dyson will proceed to a full trial in April 2027.

In a judgment handed down today, following a case management conference in December 2025, the court confirmed that allegations brought by 24 former migrant workers will be tested through the cases of six lead claimants. The trial will focus on working and living conditions at Malaysian factories within Dyson’s electronics supply chain and will determine whether Dyson companies are legally liable for the alleged abuses.

Any compensation and the claims of the remaining workers will be dealt with in a separate, follow-up hearing if liability is established.

The claimants, represented by law firm Leigh Day, allege that while employed by Malaysian suppliers ATA Industrial (M) Sdn Bhd and Jabco Filter System Sdn Bhd, they were subjected to forced labour practices and false imprisonment while producing components for Dyson’s supply chain.

As part of the ruling, the High Court ordered Dyson to disclose a series of documents previously referenced in now-discontinued defamation proceedings brought by Dyson against Channel 4 News and ITN over reporting on alleged labour abuses. The documents to be disclosed include internal meeting minutes between Dyson and ATA in 2021, audit reports carried out between 2019 and 2021, correspondence from Dyson’s chief legal officer, and records relating to requests for workers to work on rest days to increase production volumes.

Mr Justice Pepperall emphasised the importance of ensuring that the claimants, described as impoverished and vulnerable migrant workers, are able to participate on an equal footing with Dyson, a well-resourced multinational group. He highlighted the seriousness of the alleged human rights violations and urged both sides to progress the case with cooperation and realism.

The judge also noted the delay caused by Dyson’s unsuccessful attempt to have the case heard in Malaysia rather than England and stressed the need for the litigation to move forward without further disruption.

During the hearing, the court was told that Leigh Day has been contacted by hundreds of other migrant workers with potentially similar claims against Dyson. Up to 100 additional cases could be ready to file this year, although the judge said any further claims should not interfere with the timetable for the existing trial.

Over the coming months, expert and factual evidence will be gathered and further disclosure will take place, including internal Dyson documents relating to its knowledge of labour conditions within its supply chain.

Oliver Holland, international partner at Leigh Day and lead lawyer for the claimants, said the ruling significantly strengthened his clients’ position and reinforced access to justice in England and Wales.

“The High Court has recognised the need for equality of arms in a case of this nature,” he said. “This judgment helps ensure our clients, who are among the world’s poorest workers, can participate fairly in proceedings against a global corporation. We are committed to progressing the case efficiently and achieving justice as swiftly as possible.”

The case will be closely watched by businesses, legal practitioners and ESG specialists as scrutiny of supply chain practices and corporate accountability continues to intensify.

Read more:
High Court rules forced labour claims against Dyson will go to trial in 2027

A high-profile £14 million divorce dispute involving the former manager of Australian rock band INXS has shone a spotlight on the growing complexity of modern family law cases, particularly where generational wealth, gifts and opaque asset structures are involved.

Maria Christina Copinger-Symes, who previously managed the band during its global success, is now locked in a legal battle with her former husband, James Copinger-Symes, a former SAS major, after a financial settlement agreed following their separation in 2022 was challenged over alleged “material non-disclosure”.

Under the original financial remedy order, Ms Copinger-Symes agreed to pay her ex-husband a lump sum of £1.2 million, leaving her with approximately £5 million from the couple’s joint marital assets. However, the settlement has since unravelled after it emerged that Mr Copinger-Symes received a £27.6 million gift from Ms Copinger-Symes’ parents after the couple separated.

Ms Copinger-Symes argues that the gift was not disclosed during the original proceedings and that, had it been known, it would have fundamentally altered the outcome of the settlement. She is now seeking a £14 million share of the sum, claiming it constitutes material non-disclosure sufficient to overturn the original order.

Her former husband disputes this, arguing that the gift was neither secret nor matrimonial in nature and should therefore be excluded from any financial remedy. He maintains that the funds were gifted to him on the clear understanding that Ms Copinger-Symes would have no entitlement to them.

The case also highlights how financial disputes in divorce can become deeply entangled with wider family relationships. Reports suggest the dispute has intensified existing tensions within Ms Copinger-Symes’ family, allegedly stemming from disagreements over property and inheritance, underscoring the emotional and relational damage that can arise when wealth, divorce and family dynamics collide.

At its core, the case raises two long-standing and highly contentious issues in family law: the obligation of full and frank financial disclosure, and the boundary between matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets, particularly where significant gifts are made after separation but before final settlement.

The Court of Appeal heard the case over two days, with judgment now reserved. The panel, comprising Lord Justice Moylan, Lady Justice Andrews and Lord Justice Nugee, is expected to deliver a ruling at a later date.

Family law practitioners will be watching the outcome closely. A decision in favour of reopening the settlement could have wide-ranging implications for how post-separation gifts are treated and reinforce the risks of incomplete disclosure in cases involving complex family wealth structures.

Read more:
£14m divorce battle exposes the risks of non-disclosure in complex family wealth cases

UK media regulator Ofcom has made “urgent contact” with xAI, the artificial intelligence business owned by Elon Musk, following reports that its Grok chatbot can be used to generate sexualised images of children and non-consensual explicit images of women.

The intervention follows widespread concern over Grok’s image-generation capabilities on X, where users have posted examples of the AI being prompted to digitally “undress” women or place them into sexualised scenarios without consent.

Ofcom confirmed it is investigating whether the use of Grok breaches the UK’s Online Safety Act, which makes it illegal to create or share intimate or sexually explicit images, including AI-generated “deepfakes”, without a person’s consent.

A spokesperson for Ofcom said the regulator is also examining allegations that Grok has been producing “undressed images” of individuals, adding that technology companies are legally required to take appropriate steps to prevent UK users from encountering illegal content and to remove such material swiftly once flagged.

X has not responded publicly to Ofcom’s request for clarification. However, over the weekend the platform issued a warning to users not to use Grok to generate illegal material, including child sexual abuse imagery. Musk also posted on X that anyone prompting Grok to create illegal content would “suffer the same consequences” as if they had uploaded such content themselves.

Despite this, Grok’s own acceptable use policy, which explicitly bans depicting real people in a pornographic manner, appears to have been routinely bypassed. Images of high-profile figures, including Catherine, Princess of Wales, were among those reportedly manipulated using the AI tool.

The Internet Watch Foundation confirmed it has received reports from members of the public relating to Grok-generated images. However, it said that, so far, it had not identified content that crossed the legal threshold to be classified as child sexual abuse material under UK law.

The issue has also triggered scrutiny beyond the UK. The European Commission said it was “seriously looking into the matter”, while regulators in France, Malaysia and India are reportedly assessing whether Grok breaches local laws.

Thomas Regnier, a European Commission spokesperson, described the content as “appalling” and “disgusting”, stating that there was “no place” for such material in Europe. X was fined €120 million (£104 million) by EU regulators in December for breaching its obligations under the Digital Services Act.

Criticism has intensified from UK politicians. Dame Chi Onwurah, chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, said the allegations were “deeply disturbing” and argued that existing safeguards were failing to protect the public. She described the Online Safety Act as “woefully inadequate” and called for stronger enforcement powers against social media platforms.

The controversy has also highlighted the human impact of AI misuse. Journalist Samantha Smith told the BBC that seeing AI-generated images of herself in a bikini was “as violating as if someone had posted a real explicit image”.

“It looked like me. It felt like me. And it was dehumanising,” she said.

The Home Office confirmed it is progressing legislation to outlaw “nudification” tools altogether, with a proposed new criminal offence that would see suppliers of such technology face prison sentences and substantial fines.

As regulators move to tighten scrutiny, the Grok episode has become a flashpoint in the wider debate over AI accountability, platform responsibility and the limits of free expression in the age of generative technology.

Read more:
Ofcom demands answers from X over claims Grok AI generates sexualised images of children

A Salvation Army employee responsible for supporting refugees was lawfully dismissed after making inflammatory remarks suggesting migrants should be sent back “on a boat”, an employment tribunal has ruled.

The tribunal found that the charity was justified in dismissing Charles Markie, 56, after comments he made while working at Strathmore Lodge, a Salvation Army–run hostel in Dundee that housed refugees and migrants.

Mr Markie, who had worked for the organisation for almost 20 years, was dismissed following comments made to colleagues in March 2024. The tribunal heard that he said there “wouldn’t be a housing shortage if we weren’t taking in 150 refugees” and added that they should be “sent back on a f****** boat”.

In its judgment, the tribunal concluded that the remarks went beyond inappropriate workplace frustration and amounted to gross misconduct, particularly given the nature of Mr Markie’s role and the values of his employer.

The tribunal found that the comments were inflammatory, carried a clear reputational risk, and were fundamentally incompatible with the mission and purpose of The Salvation Army, which provides support to vulnerable people and communities without discrimination.

Commenting on the ruling, Jainika Patel, an employment lawyer at Freeths, said the case illustrated where employers are entitled to draw a firm line.

“There are many instances where inappropriate but inoffensive comments are made by employees, whether off the cuff or in frustration, and would not warrant disciplinary action,” she said. “However, the tribunal found this case was not one of them.”

Patel added that the claimant’s remarks were considered particularly serious because of his role and the organisation’s values.

“The comments were held to be inflammatory and posed a real risk to the employer’s reputation. It was reasonable to categorise them as gross misconduct, given that the claimant worked for an organisation whose purpose is to offer help and support without discrimination,” she said.

The ruling reinforces the principle that employers are entitled to take account of reputational risk, organisational values and the nature of an employee’s role when deciding on disciplinary sanctions.

Patel noted that roles involving vulnerable groups or a high degree of public trust are subject to higher standards of conduct, and that misconduct of this nature is likely to be treated more seriously than in other workplace contexts.

Read more:
Salvation Army justified in sacking refugee worker over ‘send them back on a boat’ remark, tribunal rules

UK companies could be hit with fines of up to £60,000 per worker under proposed changes that would require right-to-work checks to be carried out on freelancers and other casual workers, a move that many business owners remain unaware of.

Under current rules, employers have been legally required since 2008 to carry out right-to-work checks on employees engaged under traditional employment contracts. However, a government consultation — closing on Wednesday 10 December and forming part of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill — proposes extending those obligations to cover workers in the gig economy.

While the changes are aimed at sectors such as construction, food delivery and beauty services, legal experts warn that the scope could extend far wider, potentially capturing freelance workers, contractors and agency staff across many industries.

The proposals could place a significant administrative burden on small businesses, particularly those that rely heavily on flexible or freelance labour. Zoe Williams, founder of supplement brand Aegle, said the changes had not been on her radar. Williams, who is the sole permanent employee at her business — which recorded £1 million in sales this year — relies on freelancers to operate.

“It’s not something that I have heard of before,” she said. “For small businesses anything that is extra admin is always quite challenging.”

In the consultation document, immigration minister Alex Norris said the measures are designed to “restrict the ability of rogue employers to take advantage of illegal workers and encourage businesses to provide work opportunities to those permitted to work in the UK”.

Rob McKellar, legal services director at employment law specialist Peninsula, said immigration enforcement had become an increasingly prominent political issue. “The government wishes to be seen to do everything it can to tackle illegal immigration,” he said.

The Home Office said last month that it had arrested 171 delivery drivers working illegally in the UK, with 60 detained for removal, as part of an enforcement operation targeting the gig economy.

Failure to comply with the proposed rules could expose businesses to severe penalties. As with existing right-to-work obligations, employers could face civil fines of up to £60,000 per illegal worker. In cases where a business is found to have knowingly employed someone without the right to work, criminal sanctions could include unlimited fines and prison sentences of up to five years.

Audrey Elliott, a partner at law firm Eversheds Sutherland, warned that the risks extend beyond financial penalties. “There is also a significant reputational risk, particularly for businesses bidding for public sector contracts,” she said.

Elliott advised companies to review their workforce arrangements carefully and ensure robust processes are in place for all individuals carrying out work, including freelancers and agency staff. Employers must not only verify right-to-work status before work begins, but also monitor visa expiry dates to ensure ongoing compliance.

Over time, Elliott suggested, some businesses may choose to move away from freelance arrangements altogether. “We may see more employers opting for traditional employment relationships to reduce compliance risk,” she said.

The government has yet to confirm when the changes would come into force, though legal experts expect implementation could be as late as 2027.

Read more:
Companies face £60,000 fines under plans to extend right-to-work checks to freelancers

A leading solicitor involved in the Supreme Court victory that shielded regional taxi firms from blanket VAT charges has warned that Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ proposed “taxi tax” could have damaging consequences for small operators and vulnerable passengers.

Layla Barke-Jones, Dispute Resolution Partner at law firm Aaron & Partners, represented Delta Taxis in the landmark case that confirmed private hire operators outside London are not automatically required to charge VAT on all fares. The ruling provided long-awaited clarity for thousands of operators — and protected passengers from sharp fare increases.

But with reports suggesting Reeves may impose mandatory VAT on all private hire fares in the Autumn Budget, Barke-Jones says the move would overturn hard-won legal certainty and disproportionately penalise those least able to afford higher costs.

“We are very concerned at the murmurings around a potential ‘taxi tax’ in the upcoming Budget,” she said. “The Supreme Court confirmed this summer that long-standing business models used by private hire operators remain lawful and that VAT is not automatically required. That outcome helped protect passengers from fare increases and allowed local businesses to operate sustainably.”

Barke-Jones said that forcing VAT on all fares would require a change in the law, overriding the Supreme Court’s position and placing an unfair burden on small operators already running on tight margins.

“Most vitally, we must not lose sight of who this impacts,” she added. “Private hire taxis are essential for elderly passengers, disabled people, lower-income households and others who rely on them for daily travel. These are the very groups who would feel any cost increase most sharply.”

The solicitor urged ministers to consult widely — particularly with passenger groups — before making a decision that could have “far-reaching social and economic consequences.”

Her warning comes as operators across the country brace for a Budget in which Reeves is expected to raise multiple small taxes to plug a multibillion-pound fiscal gap after ruling out increases to income tax.

Read more:
New taxi VAT rule would hit vulnerable passengers hardest, warns lawyer behind landmark Uber case

Judgment in Getty Images v Stability AI seen as a setback for copyright owners as calls grow for new UK rules on AI training data

A London-based artificial intelligence company has won a closely watched High Court case that tested whether AI developers can lawfully train their models using vast libraries of copyrighted material.

Stability AI, whose board includes Avatar film-maker James Cameron, successfully defended a lawsuit brought by Getty Images, which alleged that the company had infringed copyright by scraping millions of its photographs to train the image-generation model Stable Diffusion.

Mrs Justice Joanna Smith found that Getty had failed to prove that the training took place in the UK and ruled that the resulting AI model did not constitute an “infringing copy” under existing law. Getty did, however, succeed on limited trademark claims after some AI-generated images were found to contain replicas of the Getty watermark.

The ruling is viewed as a blow to copyright owners’ ability to control how their work is used in AI training. Rebecca Newman, legal director at Addleshaw Goddard, said it highlights that “the UK’s secondary copyright regime is not strong enough to protect its creators.”

Evidence presented in court showed that Getty’s images had been used to train Stability’s model, which creates pictures from text prompts. Getty argued that Stability was “completely indifferent” to what it ingested, but the judge said the dispute underscored a wider societal question about “where to strike the balance between the creative industries and the AI sector.”

The decision comes amid intense debate over how the Labour government should legislate to manage the competing interests of artists and AI developers. Figures including Elton John, Kate Bush, Dua Lipa and Kazuo Ishiguro have urged ministers to protect creative rights, while technology firms argue for broad access to copyrighted data to build powerful generative models.

The government is consulting on proposals to create a “text and data mining” exception in UK law, which would allow copyright works to be used for AI training unless rights-holders explicitly opt out.

In a statement, Getty said it remained “deeply concerned” about the lack of transparency rules governing AI data use.

“We invested millions of pounds to reach this point with only one provider that we need to continue to pursue in another venue,” the company said. “We urge governments, including the UK, to establish stronger transparency requirements to prevent costly legal battles and to allow creators to protect their rights.”

Christian Dowell, general counsel for Stability AI, welcomed the decision: “Getty’s voluntary dismissal of most of its copyright claims left only a subset of issues before the court, and this final ruling resolves the copyright concerns that were at the core of the case.”

Gosia Evans, senior solicitor in Harper James’ intellectual property team, said the judgment still leaves the key question unanswered: “Should training AI models on copyrighted works be lawful in the UK? We need government to regulate AI use in a way that is practical and forward-thinking, without removing protections vital to the UK’s creative economy.”

The case is likely to influence future disputes over how AI systems source their data — and to intensify pressure on policymakers to clarify where copyright ends and machine learning begins.

Read more:
AI firm Stability AI wins High Court case against Getty Images over copyright claims

Officials and liquidators are pursuing businesses behind 21 movies that sought nearly £16 million in incentives from a joint HMRC and British Film Institute scheme.

Businesses controlled by prolific film producer Alan Latham — whose films have featured stars including Elizabeth Hurley, Kelsey Grammer, and Bill Nighy — are being investigated by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) amid questions over how taxpayer funds were used to finance dozens of little-known productions.

Liquidators are examining the collapse of Highfield Grange Production Services, one of Latham’s key holding companies, which listed £20.4 million in film investments now written down to zero. Creditors, including HMRC, have been left facing losses after Highfield fell into liquidation following a tax dispute.

The tax authority is also seeking to wind up GSP Studios International, Highfield’s main shareholder and another Latham-controlled entity.

A Times investigation found that more than 20 films linked to Latham attempted to access £16 million in creative industry tax reliefs, part of a government scheme run jointly by HMRC and the British Film Institute (BFI) to boost UK film production.

Among the titles are Christmas in Paradise, a romantic comedy starring Elizabeth Hurley (pictured) and Kelsey Grammer, shot in the Caribbean as part of a promotional deal for St Kitts and Nevis, and Miss Willoughby and the Haunted Bookshop, featuring Grammer again.

Many of the companies behind these films have not filed accounts for several years — a criminal offence — while others face being struck off the corporate register. The movies are absent from the BFI’s list of projects that received final certification, but some were granted “interim certification”, which allows funds to be released before completion.

Questions have also been raised about the accuracy of the production budgets used to claim tax relief.

For example, Solis — a 2018 sci-fi film starring Steven Ogg of The Walking Dead fame — was reported in company accounts to have cost £4.7 million, qualifying for nearly £1 million in interim tax credits. Its director, Carl Strathie, has said publicly that the film’s real budget was closer to £700,000.

Another film, Gatecrash (2020), is listed as having cost £4.5 million, yet individuals familiar with the project claim the budget was about £750,000. It received nearly £900,000 in tax credits.

Liquidators at Begbies Traynor, who are overseeing Highfield’s administration, said they have conducted “thorough investigations” into why the film investments were written off. In filings this year, they confirmed that solicitors had been instructed to pursue “connected parties” with “substantial claims” against two unnamed special purpose vehicles.

They added that “substantial amounts of money have been identified as having been paid to other connected companies” and that transactions were being investigated for “having the effect of diminishing the company’s assets.”

A statement of affairs signed by Latham listed £3.7 million owed to GSP Studios International, another of his companies, now also facing HMRC action.

The episode has raised wider questions for HMRC and the BFI, which oversee the certification and administration of the UK’s £500 million-a-year film tax credit scheme.

The BFI confirmed that it works closely with HMRC and the government to “uphold the integrity of the system,” adding: “We take any concerns about potential misuse seriously. The tax incentives have helped attract investment, create jobs across the UK and showcase British creativity worldwide.”

An HMRC spokesperson said only: “We take compliance within creative industry tax reliefs seriously.”

Latham, an accountant turned film producer, has held more than 150 directorships and remains linked to more than 60 active companies. He did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

There is no suggestion of wrongdoing by any actors or crew members involved in the productions.

In 2022, Latham told the Mail on Sunday that “inefficiency” was to blame for his companies’ repeated failure to file accounts, after investors complained about losing money in one of his earlier films, The Comedian’s Guide to Survival, which grossed just £75.

Read more:
HMRC and BFI investigate film producer Alan Latham over £16m taxpayer-funded movie projects

Viral jacket potato brand SpudBros has come under fire after being accused of “bullying” a small business owner over a name dispute.

The Preston-based duo, Jacob and Harley Nelson, who became social media sensations for serving up gourmet potatoes from a tram and have since expanded to London and Liverpool, were accused of threatening legal action against a Portsmouth trader, Rumen Islam, owner of The Spud Father.

Islam, 27, opened his stand last month, offering his own take on the viral potato trend. But he says he has since been contacted by SpudBros’ legal team, who claim the name infringes their trademark.

“After months of graft — long days, late nights — we’ve now been threatened with legal action from SpudBros over the use of our name,” Islam wrote on social media. “We’ve poured our heart and soul into this. It’s gutting to think we might lose it because a bigger company wants to throw their weight around.”

The Portsmouth business owner told followers he will be changing the name after the dispute took a mental and emotional toll. “It’s been really hard,” he said in a TikTok video viewed thousands of times. “We’re a really small business — I’m born and bred in Pompey — and this was for the locals. It’s disheartening.”

Supporters online have flooded to defend Islam, accusing SpudBros of “corporate bullying” and calling for the brothers to drop the matter.

Comments on SpudBros’ recent TikTok posts include: “Stop bullying The Spud Father — there’s enough business for everyone.”
“Bit strange to go after a shop 260 miles away. Justice for Spud Father!”

The backlash led SpudBros to issue a public statement on Instagram, insisting they were not suing anyone.

“There are rumours we’ve sued a small business called The Spud Father. We are not suing anyone. Not now. Not ever,” wrote Jacob Nelson.

He said the company trademarked The Spudfather after launching a dish of the same name — in tribute to their father — which became their best-seller.

“As we grew, we developed merch, expanded franchises and had discussions with major retailers,” he said. “We trademarked the name in June, and it was approved before any other business applied for it. Our legal team simply responded to a notification from the Intellectual Property Office — it’s not a lawsuit.”

Nelson added that his family had received threats online since the story went viral, including towards his young daughter, and urged followers to stop the “hate”.

“We’d never want anyone to feel attacked. That’s not who we are,” he said. “We love small businesses — we were one. There’s room for everyone to succeed.”

Intellectual property lawyer Stephanie Davies, senior associate at Withers & Rogers, said the dispute highlights a common pitfall for startups.

“It’s often wrongly assumed that only big companies need to trademark their names,” Davies said. “Small businesses can build a following quickly, and if they don’t secure a registration early, they risk infringing on someone else’s rights — or losing their own brand identity.”

With a valid registration in place, she added, SpudBros may have a strong legal position, and The Spud Father could be forced to rebrand.

“Trademark searches should always be done before launch,” Davies said. “It’s far less painful than a rebrand once the business is up and running.”

The dispute marks the latest clash in the fast-growing world of viral potato vendors.

The Nelson brothers’ success has paralleled that of Ben Newman, better known as Spud Man, whose Tamworth-based jacket potato stall has 4.2 million TikTok followers and even drew the attention of Hollywood stars Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman.

New rivals, including Spud Hut, Spud Life, and Spud Factory, have since popped up nationwide, each hoping to carve out a slice of the viral food trend.

For now, The Spud Father says it will continue trading — but under a new name.

Read more:
SpudBros blasted for ‘bullying’ small UK business in name dispute

Apple has lost a major competition case in the UK after the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruled that the company abused its dominant position in the digital app marketplace by overcharging millions of iPhone and iPad users for apps and in-app purchases.

The tribunal found in favour of Dr Rachael Kent, a senior lecturer at King’s College London, who brought the collective action lawsuit Kent v Apple on behalf of nearly 36 million UK consumers and businesses. The CAT concluded that Apple’s practices led to excessive and unfair pricing over a ten-year period.

The court ruled that Apple had “imposed exclusionary practices” and charged “excessive and unfair fees” on App Store purchases and subscriptions, violating competition law.

Dr Kent’s case marks a significant legal milestone as the first successful collective action of its kind under the UK’s consumer competition framework — and makes her the first female Class Representative in a UK collective claim.

The ruling means that anyone who purchased paid apps, digital subscriptions or in-app content through the Apple App Store since 1 October 2015 could be entitled to compensation. The total payout is estimated at up to £1.5 billion.

“This is a landmark victory – not only for App Store users, but for anyone who has ever felt powerless against a global tech giant,” said Dr Kent.

“The tribunal has confirmed that Apple has been unlawfully overcharging users for more than ten years. Those inflated fees have added up to billions for the world’s richest company, and less choice and innovation for everyone else.”

She added that the decision proved the UK’s collective action regime is working to “empower ordinary people and small businesses to hold even the most powerful corporations to account.”

Typically, Apple charges a 30% commission on app purchases, subscriptions and digital content sold through its App Store — a system critics say limits competition by forcing developers to use Apple’s in-house payment infrastructure.

In its judgment, the tribunal said Apple’s restrictions “cannot sensibly be justified as being necessary or proportionate”, ruling that greater competition would provide better value and choice for consumers.

The ruling applies only to digital goods and services — such as games, music, and streaming apps — and excludes physical transactions like those made through Uber or Deliveroo.

Apple said it “strongly disagreed” with the tribunal’s findings and confirmed plans to appeal. The company told the BBC that its App Store system “ensures a secure and trusted marketplace for users and developers alike.”

The case adds to a series of global antitrust challenges faced by the Cupertino-based firm, which has been under scrutiny in both the EU and the US over similar claims of anti-competitive behaviour linked to its App Store model.

The ruling opens the door for millions of iPhone and iPad users to join the compensation claim. Anyone in the UK who made paid purchases through the App Store since October 2015 can check their eligibility and app purchase history via their Apple ID account settings.

Legal experts say the judgment could have far-reaching implications for digital platform accountability in the UK, potentially paving the way for further consumer class actions against major tech firms.

Read more:
Apple loses £1.5bn UK court case over App Store fees in landmark competition ruling

Scottish finance expert Craig Alexander Rattray has called for stronger government protections for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) involved in legal disputes with large corporations, following his own trademark battle with billion-dollar accounting firm Xero.

Rattray, founder of the financial education programme Know Your Numbers®, claims that Xero’s use of a name “strikingly similar” to his registered trademark has exposed how difficult — and expensive — it is for smaller businesses to defend their intellectual property.

Legal advice has suggested that Rattray has a strong case, but with estimated litigation costs of up to £750,000, he says most SMEs would find it impossible to pursue action.

“What’s the point in a trademark if it costs so much to defend it?” he said. “We did everything by the book to protect our brand, but the system isn’t set up to support smaller businesses when this kind of thing happens.”

Rattray is urging the government to explore simplified legal recourse, subsidised support, and faster dispute resolution for small businesses defending intellectual property rights.

“Small businesses do the right thing — they build something unique, register it, and follow the rules,” he said. “But when a big company with deep pockets comes along and uses something similar, we’re priced out of the system that’s supposed to protect us.”

“We need a better framework — whether that’s subsidised legal aid, streamlined mediation, or a dedicated fund to help SMEs enforce their rights. Otherwise, what’s the point of registering your IP if only large corporates can afford to defend it?”

The dispute centres on Xero’s “Know Your Numbers” initiative, launched in Australia and New Zealand earlier this year and recently rolled out in the UK. Rattray holds the registered UK trademark for “Know Your Numbers®” in the field of financial education and training.

He established the brand four years ago, building a trusted financial education platform that helps thousands of small business owners understand their finances through workshops, podcasts, video content and two published books.

“We’ve built a recognised brand that makes a real difference to business owners,” Rattray said. “So when we saw a billion-dollar company use the same name for a similar initiative, we were taken aback — especially given the values they claim to promote.”

Following legal correspondence, Xero acknowledged Rattray’s cease-and-desist letter and made a minor adjustment — changing its branding to “Xero’s Know Your Numbers” — but no agreement has been reached.

While Rattray remains confident in his legal position, he says the cost barrier effectively blocks smaller firms from pursuing justice.

“Xero positions itself as a champion of small business,” he said. “But this feels less like healthy competition and more like being sidelined by a company with far greater resources.

They’re offering a free programme under the same name, and that directly affects what we’ve worked so hard to build.”

A spokesperson for Xero said: “I’m afraid we are not able to comment on that matter right now.”

Rattray’s experience highlights a broader challenge facing SMEs in protecting intellectual property against global corporations. Business groups and legal experts have long warned that complex, costly trademark disputes are deterring entrepreneurs from enforcing their rights.

As the government continues to promote entrepreneurship and innovation, Rattray believes IP protection must form part of a wider pro-SME agenda.

“This isn’t just about one business,” he said. “It’s about protecting thousands of small business owners who do the right thing but can’t afford to fight back when big companies overstep.”

Read more:
Finance expert calls for stronger government support to protect SMEs in legal disputes

Capita has been fined £14 million by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for serious data protection failures following a major cyber-attack in March 2023 that compromised the personal details of 6.6 million people across the UK.

The attack, which saw hackers infiltrate Capita’s systems and extract nearly one terabyte of sensitive data, affected customers, pension scheme members, and staff of one of Britain’s largest outsourcing firms.

In its report, the ICO described the incident as “a systemic failure to apply basic cyber hygiene”, concluding that the breach caused “significant distress and anxiety” for millions of people whose financial, employment, and personal data was exposed.

According to the regulator, Capita detected the breach within 10 minutes of the hackers gaining access but failed to isolate the infected device for 58 hours, a delay that allowed ransomware to spread and data to be exfiltrated.

Sensitive material stolen included financial data, criminal record checks, and “special category data” — information revealing an individual’s race, religion, sexual orientation, and health status.

The ICO investigation found that Capita had known vulnerabilities in its systems, an understaffed security operations centre, and inadequate testing of its defences. Despite handling data for millions of citizens through contracts with local councils, NHS bodies, and private clients, its cybersecurity processes were found to fall “well below expectations for a company of its size and role”.

The total penalty comprises £8 million for Capita plc and £6 million for Capita Pension Solutions, reflecting the wide range of affected stakeholders, including several large pension schemes.

An initial fine of £45 million was reduced after the company demonstrated improvements to its cybersecurity systems and cooperated with regulators, including the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC).

John Edwards, the Information Commissioner, said: “This incident exposed the personal information of millions of people to potential misuse and caused substantial anxiety and inconvenience. While we recognise Capita’s cooperation and subsequent remediation, the case highlights the consequences of failing to act swiftly and decisively in the face of a known threat.”

Capita’s chief executive, Adolfo Hernandez, said the company had been targeted early in what became a spate of sophisticated cyber-attacks against large UK firms.

“As an organisation delivering essential public and private services, Capita was among the first in the recent wave of highly significant cyber-attacks on UK companies,” Hernandez said. “We have since invested heavily in cyber resilience and security monitoring to protect our systems and our clients’ data.”

Capita provides outsourced services for local authorities, the NHS, and private businesses — making it a key part of the UK’s public service infrastructure. The attack disrupted multiple contracts, including teachers’ pensions administration, prompting government departments to conduct reviews of their exposure to third-party cyber risks.

Andy Ward, SVP International at Absolute Security, said the incident illustrated the danger of delayed responses to cyber intrusions.

“The Capita breach highlights the critical importance of identifying and remediating cyber incidents immediately — every hour of delay multiplies the potential damage,” he said.

“True resilience isn’t just about prevention or compliance; it’s about ensuring organisations can withstand and rapidly recover from attacks while minimising downtime and disruption.”

Ward added that nearly half of UK CISOs (48%) now believe the country’s overall cyber resilience strategy is “insufficient”, calling for greater investment in detection, containment, and recovery capabilities.

The Capita breach remains one of the most significant UK corporate cyber incidents since the 2017 WannaCry attack that crippled NHS systems. The ICO’s findings underscore a broader pattern of cybersecurity weaknesses among large contractors handling sensitive public data.

While the regulator acknowledged Capita’s post-incident reforms, it said the fine should serve as a warning that delays in response and underinvestment in security carry substantial financial and reputational risks.

“Cyber resilience must be embedded across every layer of the business,” Ward said. “Leaders must assume attacks are inevitable — and be ready to respond when they come.”

Read more:
Capita fined £14 Million over 2023 cyber-attack that exposed data of 6.6 Million people

Thousands of UK businesses are being urged to come forward after a £2 billion collective legal action was launched against Microsoft, alleging that the tech giant overcharged customers who used its Windows Server software on rival cloud platforms such as Amazon Web Services (AWS), Google Cloud, and Alibaba Cloud.

The case, filed in the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), has been brought by Dr Maria Luisa Stasi, a leading specialist in digital markets regulation. It seeks damages for businesses that, she says, have been forced to pay inflated prices due to Microsoft’s restrictive licensing practices.

“If your organisation has used Windows Server on Google, Amazon or Alibaba’s cloud platforms at any point since December 2018, you have likely paid too much money,” Dr Stasi said. “This legal action seeks to put that to an end.”

“Those responsible for IT or cloud contracting should get in touch. Billions have been drained from business budgets as a result of Microsoft’s licensing practices.”

Dr Stasi’s claim could become one of the largest antitrust lawsuits ever filed in the UK technology sector, potentially covering tens of thousands of organisations, from start-ups to multinationals.

The lawsuit closely follows the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) final report on the UK’s cloud computing market, which concluded that Microsoft’s software licensing practices “adversely impact competition”.

The CMA found that Microsoft’s pricing model makes it more expensive for customers to run its software on rival clouds than on its own Azure service, effectively penalising businesses for using competitors’ infrastructure.

Those findings align directly with Dr Stasi’s case, which will return to court on 11 December 2025 for a hearing to decide whether it can proceed to full trial.

Legal experts say the case could set a precedent for collective actions against dominant technology firms accused of abusing market power in software and cloud services.

Cloud costs soar for UK businesses

The legal action comes amid mounting pressure on businesses struggling with escalating cloud costs.

Recent research shows that 67% of UK IT leaders expect their cloud expenses to rise further over the next year, with 68% of firms already cutting back in other IT areas to compensate.

Smaller organisations have been hit particularly hard. Many lack the resources to navigate complex licensing models or negotiate bespoke cloud contracts, leaving them vulnerable to hidden cost differentials.

“Cloud costs are soaring for UK businesses,” Dr Stasi said. “Getting in touch does not commit you to anything, but could result in your business clawing back a meaningful portion of its IT budget.”

The case against Microsoft is part of a wider wave of scrutiny directed at Big Tech’s control of the global cloud market.

Regulators across Europe, the US and Asia have intensified investigations into whether large technology firms are using software dominance to reinforce control over infrastructure markets.

In May 2025, the European Commission also signalled concern about “loyalty-inducing pricing” in cloud software licensing, echoing the CMA’s conclusions.

Microsoft has repeatedly defended its practices, saying its licensing models are “pro-competitive” and designed to “give customers choice and flexibility.”

If the CAT certifies Dr Stasi’s claim as a collective proceeding, affected organisations could automatically be included unless they opt out.

What happens next

A procedural hearing is scheduled for December 2025, after which the Tribunal will decide whether the case proceeds to trial. If successful, compensation could be distributed across all qualifying UK businesses that used Windows Server on rival clouds after December 2018.

Legal analysts say the potential £2 billion claim underscores the growing use of class-action-style competition litigation in the UK following Brexit, which allows domestic courts to take on global technology disputes previously handled in Brussels.

For now, businesses are being advised to register interest or provide usage data — a process that carries no obligation to join the claim but may determine eligibility for compensation later.

Read more:
£2bn UK lawsuit accuses Microsoft of overcharging cloud customers

HSBC has warned business banking customers that personal identification documents submitted during account applications may have been compromised following unauthorised access to a third-party platform.

In an email sent to customers earlier this month, the bank confirmed that identity documents, images and contact details provided when opening a business account were exposed in the breach. HSBC stressed that its own systems remained unaffected, with passwords, PIN codes and biometric security such as Voice ID uncompromised.

The breach raises concerns about potential identity theft and fraud. HSBC said there was no evidence of fraudulent activity arising from the incident so far, but urged customers to monitor their accounts, credit reports and bank statements closely for suspicious activity.

To mitigate risks, the bank is offering affected customers a complimentary 12-month subscription to Experian’s Identity Plus service, providing monitoring of personal information and alerts for possible misuse. A dedicated helpline managed by Experian has also been set up to handle queries until 8 October 2025.

One affected customer, who declined to be named, told Business Matters: “I provided passport details in good faith to HSBC as it was necessary for identification before opening up a business account. Now I’m worried that money will be taken out of the company account by crooks, with the third-party platform having been hacked. Worse, that my passport details could be sold on the dark web.

I had reservations about providing ID proof in the first place because cyber attacks are now so prevalent but you put your trust in the banks to get online security right, including tech partners. Frankly, nowhere is safe in the online world these days and businessmen and women need to be constantly on alert for data breaches involving their details. In the wrong hands, lives and livelihoods are devastated and there is little redress.”

This latest breach comes after recent high-profile cases, including Harrods’ data breach affecting loyalty scheme members, which also highlighted the vulnerability of customer information in the hands of external providers.

Cybersecurity experts warn that the growing reliance on third-party platforms for data storage and verification continues to expose companies and their clients to heightened risks. The incident underscores the need for firms, particularly financial institutions, to strengthen due diligence on their technology partners.

HSBC said it had worked with external specialists to investigate the incident and had taken steps to prevent further unauthorised access. The bank reiterated that it would never request sensitive information such as PIN codes or passwords by phone or email and urged customers to remain cautious of potential phishing attempts in the wake of the breach.

Speaking about the breach, a HSBC spokesperson said: “We recently became aware of unauthorised access to a third-party platform which held personal identity information and documents provided by applicants for a new HSBC UK business banking account. We have implemented measures to prevent further unauthorised access and have contacted those potentially affected.

“HSBC’s systems are separate and have not been impacted. Customers can continue to use their account as normal.

“We take the safety of customers’ and applicants’ information very seriously and use a range of measures to keep this information safe.

“We are sorry for any concern and inconvenience this may cause.”

Read more:
HSBC warns UK business banking customers of third-party data breach

The chief executive of Yahoo has sounded the alarm over the rise of artificial intelligence, warning that AI’s use of copyrighted content could wipe out publishers unless tech companies change course.

Jim Lanzone, who runs the American online publishing giant, said Yahoo was one of the most heavily “pilfered” sources of material used to train AI models. He criticised the way AI systems scrape articles without permission, only to repackage them for users without linking back to the source.

“Unlike search, where the business model was an understood agreement – the engine aggregates and then sends traffic downstream to the publisher – the AI model takes content without consent. It’s like signing away your future existence,” Lanzone told reporters.

AI companies rely on vast quantities of data, including books, images and journalism, much of which is protected by copyright. Media groups argue this is an unauthorised takeover of their work that threatens their revenue. Several lawsuits are under way, including a high-profile case by The New York Times against OpenAI.

Some firms, including Reddit and Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp, have signed licensing deals with AI developers. But Lanzone said these agreements were damage control rather than genuine partnerships: “The first choice for any publisher would have been for their content not to be taken in the first place.”

Yahoo, which remains one of the top five most-visited websites in the world, takes stories from agencies like Reuters and AP alongside its own journalism. Its model relies heavily on ad revenue driven by traffic – which Lanzone said is being eroded by AI “short-circuiting” the link between readers and publishers.

Since being taken private by Apollo Global Management in a $5bn deal in 2021, Yahoo has tried to strengthen its role as a major aggregator and content provider. Lanzone, who previously ran Tinder and CBS Interactive, said the company would remain “pro-publisher and pro-open web”.

The Yahoo boss also hinted that the company is preparing to unveil its own take on the future of online search. “We’ll continue to shine a light on the need for sustainable traffic for the open web,” he said. “Yahoo has always been about partnerships with publishers. Our future depends on theirs.”

Read more:
Yahoo boss warns: AI is a ‘threat to publishers’ very existence’ as copyright battle heats up

Cyber criminals have stolen the personal details of potentially millions of Gucci, Balenciaga and Alexander McQueen customers in a ransomware attack on their parent company, Kering.

The luxury group confirmed that in April hackers gained “temporary access” to its systems and accessed customer records, though it insists no financial information such as card or bank details was stolen.

The compromised data includes names, email addresses, phone numbers, home addresses and the total amount customers spent in-store. The hacker behind the breach, who calls themselves Shiny Hunters, claims to hold data linked to 7.4 million email addresses, suggesting a similar number of victims.

Kering said affected customers had been contacted directly, though it has not disclosed how many people were impacted. Legally, companies do not need to make a public statement if they notify individuals individually, but the scale of the breach has raised alarm across the industry.

A small sample of the stolen data, shared with the BBC, included thousands of customer records showing spending habits. Some individuals had spent over $10,000, while others were flagged with totals as high as $86,000. Experts warned this could expose high-spending clients to targeted scams or phishing attacks.

Becky White, Senior Solicitor in Harper James’ Data Protection team, told Business Matters: “While no card or ID details were taken, the exposure of names, contact information and purchase history poses a serious risk. This type of data can reveal who your most valuable customers are, enabling cyber criminals to craft convincing phishing campaigns or target high-net-worth individuals for fraud.”

Shiny Hunters said they approached Kering in June demanding a Bitcoin ransom, but the company denies entering negotiations, saying it had followed law enforcement advice and refused to pay.

“In June, we identified that an unauthorised third party gained temporary access to our systems and accessed limited customer data from some of our Houses,” a Kering spokesperson said. “No financial information — such as bank account numbers, credit card information or government-issued IDs — was involved in the incident.”

Kering added that its IT systems had since been secured and regulators notified.

The breach occurred during a wave of cyberattacks on luxury retailers. Cartier and Louis Vuitton also disclosed customer data leaks earlier this year.

Shiny Hunters, also tracked by Google as UNC6040, has been linked to phishing-style intrusions on corporate Salesforce systems. The group has previously targeted technology firms and government contractors.

Google itself warned in June of attacks by the same collective, which it said tricked employees into handing over login details.

White said the Kering breach was “a wake-up call” for the sector: “Businesses often focus on securing payment details, but underestimate the value of other CRM data — from purchase history to loyalty activity. Under UK GDPR, companies are expected to practise ‘data minimisation’, collecting and retaining only what is strictly necessary.

Whether you’re a global fashion house or a local retailer, investing in robust security and transparent communication isn’t just a legal obligation — it’s how you protect customer trust and safeguard your brand reputation.”

As online sales and app-based retail continue to grow, the luxury sector has become a prime target for hackers, given its wealthy clientele and global customer databases.

Read more:
Millions of Gucci, Balenciaga and Alexander McQueen customer records ransomed in cyberattack

Spending short periods of time shopping or browsing online during work hours is not a sackable offence, a UK judge has ruled in a case that awarded an employee more than £14,000 in compensation.

The ruling followed the dismissal of Ms A Lanuszka, an accountancy administrator, who was fired in July 2023 after her employer secretly installed spyware on her computer and recorded her visiting websites such as Rightmove and Amazon.

The tribunal heard she spent around one hour and 24 minutes over two days on personal browsing. But Employment Judge Michael Magee, sitting in Bury St Edmunds, concluded the activity was not “excessive” and did not justify dismissal.

Judge Magee noted that Lanuszka’s boss, Ms Krauze, also used her work computer for personal purposes and had provided no clear policy banning such use. “She was free to use the computer personally when work commitments permitted and during breaks,” the judge said.

A large proportion of the recorded time was spent on professional development, including Excel training. Lanuszka had no prior disciplinary issues and had received no warnings.

The judge also criticised diary entries presented by Krauze to suggest long-standing performance issues, pointing out they were written in 2024, after the dismissal, and backdated to 2022 and 2023.

The tribunal concluded that Lanuszka’s dismissal coincided with the permanent move to the UK of Krauze’s sister and was designed to remove her from the company before she accrued two years’ service — the threshold at which workers gain full protection under unfair dismissal law.

Lanuszka had originally joined Accountancy MK in 2017 but signed a new contract in 2021 when Krauze rebranded the business.

The tribunal’s decision highlights the importance for employers of having clear IT and personal-use policies — and of applying them consistently.

Read more:
Online shopping at work not a sackable offence, tribunal rules

There are around 700,000 disabled people in the UK who want to work but are not in employment, according to the Department for Work and Pensions. Disabled people also leave jobs at twice the rate of non-disabled colleagues.

There is a persistent “disability employment gap”, which is the difference in employment rates between disabled and non-disabled people. Right now, the gap stands at 28%.

A recent government review revealed that the gap is widest for men, older people aged 50 to 64, people with no qualifications, and those living in social housing. Regionally, it is most marked in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and the north of England.

Disabled people are also more likely to be in part-time or lower-skilled roles, and more likely to be “under-employed”, looking for more hours or a different job.

Why this matters to employers

The figures show a large pool of people who want to work and who could bring valuable skills. Widening recruitment practices to encourage candidates with disabilities is not only the right thing to do, but also beneficial for business. It opens up access to high-quality applicants, improves staff retention, and supports a more diverse workforce.

Inquiry now open

The House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee has launched an inquiry into employment support for disabled people and how to improve their job prospects. It wants to hear directly from businesses, people with disabilities, and experts about what works and what doesn’t. Submissions are open until 29 September 2025.

Questions the Committee is asking include:

• Why has progress in closing the disability employment gap slowed?
• What barriers stop disabled people from working or working more?
• What support works best for people with different disabilities?
• How effective are current schemes, such as Access to Work?
• How successful has the Disability Confident scheme been in improving employer practices?

After reviewing the evidence, the Committee will make recommendations to the government.

Support available for employers

Access to Work is a grant to help cover the cost of adjustments, enabling someone to start or stay in work if they have a physical or mental health condition or disability. It can pay for:

• Specialist equipment or assistive software
• Support workers
• Travel costs if public transport can’t be used
• Communication support at job interviews, such as a BSL interpreter
• Mental health support plans and one-to-one sessions with a mental health professional

Full details on eligibility and the application process are available on the government website. Importantly, the grant goes to the employee, not the employer, so the cost does not fall on your business. Find out more about the Access to Work scheme here.

Disability Confident

Disability Confident is a voluntary scheme that helps employers challenge assumptions and improve their recruitment practices, as well as increase their understanding of disability. It has three levels of membership and is designed to show a clear commitment to inclusive hiring. For businesses, joining can bring reputational benefits, widen the candidate pool, and demonstrate to customers that your business values fairness.

Pay gap vs. employment gap

It is worth noting that the disability employment gap (who gets into work) is different from the disability pay gap (what people earn once in work). The government has recently consulted on whether large employers should be required to publish data on disability and ethnicity pay gaps. That consultation closed in June 2025, with proposals still to be announced. You can read more about that in my previous article here.

What can employers do now

• Review recruitment practices to ensure job advertisements and processes are inclusive and equitable.
• Consider Access to Work. It can help remove the cost barrier to hiring staff with disabilities.
• Consider signing up to Disability Confident to demonstrate commitment.
• Keep an eye on the Committee inquiry, as the findings may shape future policy.

Read more:
700,000 disabled people want to work: How can businesses help and benefit at the same time?

A small Brighton law firm is taking on one of Britain’s biggest retail banks in a $20 million (£14.75m) High Court battle, using artificial intelligence to cut costs and challenge legal heavyweights.

Helix Law is representing US software provider Arkeyo LLC in its claim against Metro Bank, which is accused of breaching copyright and licensing agreements linked to the bank’s in-branch coin counting machines, known as ‘Magic Money Machines’. Metro Bank has instructed City firm Eversheds Sutherland to defend the case, with the next hearing set for 17 September.

Alex Cook, partner at Helix Law, said the case represented a pivotal moment for smaller firms.

“By breaching their agreement with our client, Metro Bank has not only caused financial damage, but severely damaged its own reputation and trust among its customers,” he said. “More widely, we see this as a David and Goliath moment for our industry. Taking on a major retail bank on behalf of a much smaller client shows what is possible when you combine legal expertise with the latest technology.”

Arkeyo alleges that Metro Bank replicated its coin-counting technology without permission after their partnership, which ran between 2010 and 2016, came to an end. Helix Law is also pursuing mediation later this year.

Helix Law says it has been able to drive the case forward thanks to technology that slashed disclosure costs from an initial estimate of £350,000 to £100,000 – a fraction of the £557,000 budgeted by Metro Bank’s legal team.

“The cost savings are game-changing,” Cook said. “They have enabled a small software company to continue its fight against a much larger giant. As an independent firm ourselves, we understand how challenging access to this type of justice can be.”

Helix estimates its approach typically saves clients up to 60 per cent on comparable cases by deploying legal AI tools and other technologies not yet widely adopted by larger firms. These systems can process vast document sets and court bundles quickly, highlighting deficiencies and anomalies that would otherwise require large review teams.

Cook added: “During our disclosure review process we identified deficiencies in Metro Bank’s submissions, which will be addressed at the High Court later this year. Without our cutting-edge software, or a huge legal team, this might have gone unnoticed.”

He suggested that traditional law firms have been slow to adopt similar tools because of the impact on billing models. “But change is coming,” he said, “and smaller firms are at the forefront of it.”

Read more:
Helix Law uses AI to take on Metro Bank in $20m copyright case

Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) has threatened legal action against National Rail in a dispute over its use of the terms “rover” and “ranger” for rail tickets, claiming they infringe on its Range Rover trademark.

The Indian-owned carmaker issued a cease-and-desist letter to the Rail Delivery Group (RDG), which manages the National Rail website, demanding the terms be removed. According to a memo seen by The Telegraph, train operators have now been told to strip references to “ranger” and “rover” from their sites.

The RDG has advised companies they may continue to market “ranger tickets” and “rover tickets” under amended names, and JLR has reportedly indicated it will not pursue further action against retailers who comply.

Rover tickets, which allow unlimited rail travel for a week, pre-date the Range Rover by more than a decade. British Rail introduced its first All-Line Rail Rover ticket in the 1950s, costing £15 for second class – equivalent to about £304 today. By comparison, a modern seven-day All-Line Rover second-class ticket is priced at £650.

The first Range Rover was not unveiled until 1970.

A spokesperson for the Rail Delivery Group said: “We are confident that our practices have always complied with intellectual property law and were happy to work with Jaguar Land Rover towards a resolution. After being made aware of a trademark query by JLR, we worked closely with them to make a minor change to how we describe our Ranger tickets and Rover tickets.”

National Rail and Jaguar Land Rover have been approached for comment.

The row comes as JLR faces wider scrutiny. Earlier this month, US President Donald Trump claimed the company was in “absolute turmoil” following what he described as a “totally disastrous woke” rebrand. Trump criticised a recent advert featuring brightly dressed models, comparing it to “Bud Lite going woke”.

The company is also undergoing internal upheaval. In July, chief executive Adrian Mardell announced he would step down at the end of the year after more than 30 years at the firm. The business is in the midst of restructuring, with 500 UK management roles due to be cut as part of a voluntary redundancy programme.

JLR has committed to repositioning Jaguar as an electric-only luxury car brand from 2026, in what is regarded as one of the most transformative periods in its history.

Read more:
Jaguar Land Rover threatens legal action over National Rail’s use of ‘rover’ and ‘ranger’ ticket names

HMRC has admitted for the first time that it uses artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor taxpayers’ social media accounts as part of criminal investigations into tax fraud.

The tax authority said AI tools are used alongside the department’s traditional checks to analyse online posts, including those about expensive holidays or large purchases, if they appear inconsistent with a person’s declared income. Officials insist the technology is deployed only in criminal cases, with “robust safeguards in place” and within the law.

The disclosure comes amid growing concerns in Westminster over the expanding role of AI in tax enforcement and fears it could be used more widely in future.

Senior Conservative MPs have warned that reliance on automated tools could lead to mistakes, with inadequate human oversight.

Bob Blackman MP said: “If they start taking legal action against individuals based on that, it seems draconian… Without a human check, you can see there’s going to be a problem.”

Sir John Hayes, former security minister and chair of the Common Sense Group of Tory MPs, drew parallels with the Post Office Horizon scandal: “The idea that a machine must always be right is what led to the Post Office scandal. I am a huge AI sceptic.”

The AI monitoring tools operate alongside Connect, HMRC’s data analytics system used for routine tax investigations. Connect, introduced more than a decade ago, cross-references billions of data points – from bank transactions to property records – to flag potential tax evasion.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has set a goal of recouping £7 billion of the UK’s £47 billion “tax gap”, with HMRC officials last month publishing a strategy that envisions AI being embedded into “everyday” tax processes.

The department is trialling AI-powered “assistants” to help the public complete tax returns and to support compliance officers in reviewing them. If patterns in a return suggest false information, the system could issue a warning that might later be used as evidence if fraud is proven.

Concerns about AI’s role in decision-making intensified after a tribunal ordered HMRC to reveal by 18 September whether AI was used in assessing claims for research and development tax credits. The ruling followed a Freedom of Information request from tax expert Tom Elsbury, who argued AI might already be determining the outcome of some claims.

Ministers maintain there is always a human “in the loop” for decisions affecting individuals, and HMRC insists humans retain the “final say” in enforcement actions.

The Department for Work and Pensions has also trialled AI tools, with 20,000 civil servants using the technology to draft documents and summarise meetings. A government source said HMRC has approached around a dozen tech firms for proposals on using AI to help close the £46.8 billion in unpaid tax – much of it linked to offshore accounts.

A HMRC spokesperson said: “Use of AI for social media monitoring is restricted to criminal investigations and subject to legal oversight.”

“AI supports our processes but – like all effective use of this new technology – it has robust safeguards in place and does not replace human decision-making.

“Greater use of AI will enable our staff to spend less time on admin and more time helping taxpayers, as well as better target fraud and evasion to bring in more money for public services.”

Read more:
HMRC admits using AI to monitor taxpayers’ social media

The Ivy is facing a legal battle with a former waiter who claims the upmarket restaurant chain unfairly allocated him a share of tips and service charges – and refused to explain how his portion was calculated – despite a new law requiring fair and transparent distribution.

The part-time waiter, who resigned in June and asked not to be named, alleges constructive dismissal and says his share of a £31,562 monthly pot of tips and service charges at his branch was “totally unfair”.

He claims that for 43 hours’ work in March he initially received £46.34 in gratuities and service charges, later increased to £97.45. By his estimate, his hours accounted for around 2% of the total worked by staff that month – yet he received less than 1% of the total funds collected.

The Ivy disputes his calculations, describing them as “inaccurate and misleading”, and says an independent consultancy oversees its distribution process. The company has branded the ex-waiter a “disgruntled and discredited” former employee and vowed to challenge the claims at an April 2026 employment tribunal.

Under the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023, 100% of service charges collected in a venue must be shared among workers in a fair and transparent way, and employees have the right to know how tips are allocated and distributed.

The Ivy, owned by Richard Caring’s Troia (UK) Restaurants, says it complies with the legislation via a “tronc” system, in which staff are allocated “tronc points” that determine their monthly share. However, employees are not told how those points are decided or how their allocation compares with other team members’.

A company spokesperson said: “We absolutely refute all the claims that are being made and will provide all the evidence necessary to disprove these allegations to the employment tribunal. We introduced a fair and transparent scheme after consultations with staff that is overseen by employee representatives and an independent, third-party business.”

The Ivy says revealing individual tronc allocations could breach employee privacy.

Employment lawyer Michael Newman of Leigh Day says the case could test the strength of the new legislation: “This was introduced to make the system fairer. Either the company has avoided it, or the law hasn’t achieved its purpose. This case could clarify if employers must provide more detail on service charge distribution.”

The waiter’s payslips did not separate personal tips from service charges, nor reveal how his share compared to kitchen staff or managers. He claims repeated requests for clarification from late 2023 went unanswered.

In April, he received a warning over alleged performance issues, which he disputes, and says he filed a formal request for details of his tip allocation around the same time. He resigned two months later.

The outcome of the tribunal could have far-reaching implications for hospitality employers and staff, potentially forcing greater transparency over how tips and service charges are divided.

Read more:
The Ivy faces legal challenge from waiter over share of tips and service charges

The UK government is moving to ban non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) that prevent employees from speaking out about alleged workplace harassment or discrimination, under newly published amendments to the Employment Rights Bill (ERB).

The change, announced on 7 July 2025, means that any clause in a contract or settlement agreement that attempts to silence an employee from disclosing or alleging harassment or discrimination will be legally void, unless the agreement falls under a narrow, as-yet undefined, exception.

The amendment marks a major shift in employment law, with serious implications for HR teams, legal advisers and employers who routinely rely on confidentiality clauses as part of workplace settlement agreements.

“When your life, as well as your family’s, has literally been ruined it results in a substantial claim,” said William Clift, Senior Associate at Winckworth Sherwood LLP, writing on the legal update.

The proposed ban will apply to any employment agreement — including employment contracts, settlement agreements, or exit packages — that seeks to restrict workers from making:
• Allegations of harassment or discrimination, or
• Disclosures of information about harassment, discrimination, or the employer’s response to it.

The provisions will apply even in cases where no specific details of the alleged conduct are provided. For example, a vague statement such as “I was harassed by my manager” may still be protected under the new rules.

Significantly, the ban applies to:
• All protected characteristics under the Equality Act, including age, sex, race, disability, religion, sexual orientation and gender reassignment.
• Allegations involving fellow employees, including disclosures about the treatment of colleagues.
• Employer responses to such allegations — for example, failure to investigate, retaliation, or attempts to silence a complainant.

Notably, victimisation claims and failures to make reasonable adjustments are not explicitly covered, and it remains unclear whether this is an oversight or intentional.

It’s also uncertain whether an employer’s offer of a settlement agreement itself could be viewed as part of the “response” to discrimination — and thus made subject to the disclosure protections.

The legislation leaves the door open for certain NDAs to remain valid if they meet the definition of an “excepted agreement”. However, the Secretary of State has not yet defined what these will include. Until secondary regulations clarify the criteria, all NDAs that restrict disclosures about harassment or discrimination risk being unenforceable.

These proposals build on a growing legislative and regulatory crackdown on NDAs used to conceal wrongdoing. Additional measures taking effect later this year include:
• 1 August 2025: NDAs that silence victims of misconduct in higher education will be banned.
• 1 October 2025: NDAs preventing disclosure of criminal conduct to legal or law enforcement bodies will also be rendered void.

Currently, many employers include ‘carve-outs’ in NDAs that allow workers to report criminal offences or cooperate with investigations. These remain essential, as failing to do so could breach Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) guidelines and render clauses invalid under whistleblowing protections.

However, the new ERB amendments go further by rendering void any NDA that prevents workers from repeating allegations of harassment or discrimination to anyone, regardless of whether a financial settlement has been agreed.

This presents a challenge for employers who rely on NDAs to resolve disputes quickly and discreetly. Some may become less inclined to offer settlement agreements, particularly in cases where reputational risk is high, and employees may prefer to resolve matters privately.

As Clift notes, “if some employers become unwilling to agree a settlement as a result of this ban, employees’ only recourse may be to bring an Employment Tribunal claim — a process that is lengthy, public, and costly.”

While employers may see increased litigation risk, many in the legal and HR community view the change as an overdue rebalancing of power in the workplace, following years of high-profile cases in which NDAs were misused to silence victims of harassment and discrimination.

These reforms align the UK more closely with growing international efforts to protect whistleblowers, victims of misconduct, and promote transparency in employment practices.

Read more:
NDAs banning harassment and discrimination disclosures to be void under new UK workplace reforms

The UK government is to ban the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) that silence employees who experience harassment or discrimination in the workplace, under landmark changes to the Employment Rights Bill.

The new amendments, tabled ahead of the Bill’s return to the House of Lords next week, will void any confidentiality or non-disparagement clauses that prevent victims – or witnesses – from speaking out about inappropriate or abusive conduct. The move has been widely welcomed by campaigners, including Zelda Perkins, former PA to Harvey Weinstein and founder of Can’t Buy My Silence.

Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said: “We have heard the calls from victims of harassment and discrimination to end the misuse of NDAs. It is time we stamped this practice out – and this government is taking action to make that happen.”

The changes are part of a broader effort by ministers to modernise workplace protections and tackle poor working conditions. Employment Rights Minister Justin Madders added: “These amendments will give millions of workers confidence that inappropriate behaviour in the workplace will be dealt with, not hidden.”

NDAs were originally designed to protect commercial secrets, but in recent years have been used by some employers to gag employees from speaking out about mistreatment. High-profile abuse scandals – from Harvey Weinstein to institutional cases in the UK – have exposed the misuse of NDAs to silence whistleblowers and victims.

Under the new rules, confidentiality clauses that seek to prevent a worker from speaking about harassment or discrimination will be null and void. Employers will also be allowed – and encouraged – to publicly support victims without legal risk.

The legal change follows years of pressure from campaigners and MPs. Sarah Owen, chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, and shadow transport secretary Louise Haigh have supported the campaign, while Perkins said the changes would “put the UK at the forefront of global protections.”

“This is a huge milestone,” Perkins said. “Above all, this victory belongs to the people who broke their NDAs, who risked everything to speak the truth when they were told they couldn’t.”

However, legal experts warn there may be unintended consequences. Nikola Southern, employment partner at Kingsley Napley, said: “While the ban on NDAs in harassment cases is a welcome step for transparency, it could reduce victims’ control over their own confidentiality. Some individuals may want to protect their identity, and employers may become more reluctant to settle.”

She added that employers should now urgently review template contracts and settlement agreements to ensure they are compliant.

The proposed NDA ban builds on other reforms included in the Employment Rights Bill, which forms part of the government’s wider “Plan for Change” aimed at updating UK labour laws for a modern economy.

If passed, the legislation will mark a significant shift in how workplace misconduct is handled, replacing silence and secrecy with transparency and accountability.

Read more:
Government bans NDAs that silence harassment and discrimination victims