Raising the Stakes: New gambling advertising rules in Ireland

By Jane O’Grady on February 20, 2026 Posted in Gaming & Gambling

Introduction

The new Gambling Regulation Act 2024 (“GRA”) signifies a major change to the law on betting and gambling in Ireland. Replacing legislation that is nearly 70 years old, the GRA has been described by the Irish government as “historic”. It is being implemented on a phased basis and key features include:

Establishing the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Ireland (“GRAI”) to licence, supervise and control gambling activities in Ireland.

A new licensing model for gambling, betting and lotteries covering:
- Business to Consumer (B2C) gambling licences for operators of gambling services
- Business to Business (B2B) gambling licences to sell, supply or advertise sales of gambling products or gambling related services
- Gambling licences for charitable or philanthropic purposes

The GRAI recently announced that it has started the application process for B2C licences. It envisages that the other licence models will be implemented at a later phase. The GRAI will have powers to impose and enforce obligations on all licensees of gambling services in relation to how they advertise and sponsor and arrange inducements to gamble.

Sector-wide Review of the Online Video Content Creation Sector by the French Competition Authority

By Stéphanie Faber on February 20, 2026 Posted in Advertising, Artificial Intelligence, Competition and Markets Authority, e-Commerce, France, Internet, Marketing

The French Competition Authority has published Opinion No. 26-A-02 of 18 February 2026, concerning the functioning of competition in the online video content creation sector in France. See the press release

The online video content creation sector is now an integral part of the French audiovisual industry, having rapidly grown to over 150,000 professional creators in 2024.

The sector brings together many interdependent actors; creators (the majority of very small size), talent agencies, advertisers, platforms and audiences, which raises several competition competition-related challenges.

Greenhushing: The Indirect Consequence of the Crackdown on Greenwashing?

By Carlton Daniel and Paul Jinks on February 10, 2026 Posted in Advertising, ASA, Marketing

The authors wish to thank Joshua Saunders for his contributions to this post.

The term “greenwashing” was first coined by Jay Westerveld in 1986 when criticising the hotel industry’s practice of encouraging guests to re-use towels to “save the environment”. At the time, the term failed to gain much traction, however, fast-forward 40 years and it is at the forefront of regulators’ minds with barely a week passing without reports of enforcement action being taken against businesses accused of making vague or unsubstantiated environmental claims, as many businesses casually claiming to be “green” or “sustainable” have found to their detriment.

For example, Nike was recently reprimanded by the main UK advertising regulator, the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA),for claiming that a range of its tennis polo shirts were made of “sustainable materials”, despite the fact that Nike did prove that they were made from at least 75% recycled materials (see: Nike Retail BV – ASA | CAP). The regulator basically wanted to see proof that the clothing range would have zero detrimental impact on the environment before signing off on a “sustainable” claim. Similarly, Superdry (amongst others) were held in breach of the ASA’s CAP Code for using “sustainable” claims on the basis that a high-level of substantiation and clarity is required if retailers and advertisers wish to make such bold statements. Again, much could be said in defence of such advertising, but the lack of sufficient qualifying wording in that case proved fatal (see Supergroup Internet Ltd – ASA | CAP).

Environmental claims made in advertising must comply with both the general rules applicable to any advertising claim under the CAP Code (in the case of non-broadcast adverts) or BCAP Code (in the case of television and radio adverts) alongside specific rules under each Code relating the making of environmental claims [Environmental claims: General “Green” claims – ASA | CAP].

Result-Oriented Patent Claims Dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) as being Ineligible

By Alex Wolcott on February 9, 2026 Posted in Intellectual Property, IP Litigation, Judiciary, Patents, Technology, US

In a precedential opinion analyzing eligibility of software and web-based patents, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a patent infringement complaint in US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC. The Court examined key issues in patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, particularly for web conferencing-related software claims that recite functional or result-oriented language.

US Patent No. 7,679,637 (the ’637 patent) covered a web conferencing system with “time-shifting capabilities,” whereby a participant could watch a web conference a) in real time, b) with a delay while still in progress, or c) after the web conference had concluded. Participants could also adjust the playback speed of the web conference, and simultaneously view multiple data streams, such as video, shared documents, websites, and chat. In response to allegations that Google infringed many of the ’637 patent claims, Google filed an early motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the asserted claims were ineligible under Section 101 by reciting an abstract idea with no inventive concept. The district court granted Google’s motion and dismissed the case, leading to the appeal.

As with most cases involving subject matter eligibility, the Court applied the two-part test from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, with Alice Step One asking whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea, and Alice Step Two asking whether the claims recite an “inventive concept.”

The EU Digital Networks Act: Revolution or Evolution of EU Telecom Law?

By Francesco Liberatore on January 29, 2026 Posted in EU Commission, Technology, Telecoms

At a Glance:

As proposed, the DNA would bring major changes to the EU’s digital infrastructure and telecom framework. In particular, the EC inter alia proposes to introduce the following:

A copper network switch off by 31 December 2035 (earlier in regions where 95% fibre coverage would be achieved, and affordable retail connectivity would be available).

The Single Passport Authorisation: a single EU Member State notification procedure could be used for providing services throughout the EU. Member States would not be allowed to set additional requirements.

EU satellite authorisation: a single EU autorisation for satellite services.

European Table of Allocation of Satellite Frequencies: an announced future framework to provide transparency to satellite operators as to which spectrum to access for specific satellite services.

Radio spectrum rights of unlimited duration and a “use it or share it” general approach to the radio spectrum (with exclusive rights only applied “where necessary and justified”).

The transformation of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (“BEREC”) Office into an Office for Digital Networks (“ODN”) supporting both BEREC and a new Radio Spectrum Policy Board.

The establishment of an EU numbering plan.

A voluntary conciliation procedure facility for dialogue on technical and commercial arrangements. The facility would be led by national authorities in cooperation with BEREC, which would provide opinions on individual cases.

A shift away from mandatory network fees that had previously been explored.

Strengthened network resilience, preparedness and mandatory testing obligations.

A Year On from UK Government Consultation on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence

By Carlton Daniel, Mike Llewellyn, Paul Jinks and Richard Armitage on January 22, 2026 Posted in Artificial Intelligence, Copyright, Intellectual Property, Technology, UK

The authors wish to thank Joshua Saunders for his contributions to this post.

In February 2025 we reported on the UK government consultation on potential changes to UK copyright legislation in light of AI, Clock is Ticking for Responses to UK Government Consultation on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence | Global IP & Technology Law Blog. That consultation invited interested parties to submit their views on four potential options under consideration, those options range from “option 0”, simply doing nothing and leaving UK copyright legislation in its currently uncertain state when it comes to the use of copyright materials to train AI models, through to options which would either require specific consent from rights holders in all cases (“option 1”) or allow consent to be assumed by AI developers unless a rights holder objects, subject to developers being transparent about what materials have been used in training (“option 3”).

When inviting responses, the government indicated its preferred approach was option 3 in order to strike a balance between both the interests of rights holders and AI developers. However, many high-profile rights holders disagreed with that view and engaged in a well-coordinated campaign against any change which might result in their work being used without permission to train AI models.

The success of that campaign to date is reflected in the progress update on the consultation published by government in December 2025, Copyright and artificial intelligence statement of progress under Section 137 Data (Use and Access) Act – GOV.UK. The publication has revealed that over 11,500 responses were received (an usually high number) and that of the circa 10,000 responses submitted via the government’s online “Citizen Space” portal, 88% of those supported option 1, with more of those respondents supporting option 0 of simply doing nothing (7%) than the government’s preferred option 3 which was supported by a mere 3% of those respondents.

Protecting Your Trade Secrets in 2026 to Outlast Your Diet, Your Gym Membership, and Even Your Willpower!

By Christopher Adams, Anna Fraser and Rachael Harris on January 20, 2026 Posted in Data Protection, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation, Trade Secrets, US

January: the season of fresh starts—when we swear we’ll finally hit the gym, drink more water, and unearth last year’s journal from beneath a mountain of good intentions. Maybe, just maybe, we’ll put down our phones long enough to soak up some actual daylight. In the business world, January offers the perfect opportunity for a different kind of resolution: the one that keeps your competitors from getting their hands on your secret sauce or eggnog recipe (or any other trade secret) all year long.

That’s right—it’s time to give your trade secrets a New Year’s checkup (no gym membership required) with resolutions that will keep your company’s confidential know-how safe and sound. Each of the following New Year’s resolutions aligns with trade secret issues we regularly address.

The Agentic AI Revolution – Managing Legal Risks

By Samuel Tibbetts and Simon Jones on January 20, 2026 Posted in Artificial Intelligence, Cybersecurity, Europe, Intellectual Property, Internet, Metaverse, Technology, UK

Meta’s eye-catching end-of-year acquisition of Manus, a Singapore-based developer of AI agents, for a purported value of more than $2 billion[1], reflects a wider sector shift towards the development and deployment of semi-autonomous, outcome-focused, software agents, which are capable of performing complex tasks without direct and constant human input.

The Meta deal notably follows Salesforce’s acquisition, earlier in the year, of Convergence AI, a London-based AI agent developer, together with the launch of a wide range of agentic AI solutions by major tech players and start-ups with each of AWS, Databricks, IBM, Google, Microsoft, Palantir and Salesforce all releasing new agentic AI solutions in 2025.

From Black Forest Ham to Black Forest Cuckoo Clocks: The EU’s New System for the Protection of Geographical Indications for Craft and Industrial Products

By Dr. Sandra Mueller on December 29, 2025 Posted in Europe, European Union Intellectual Property Office, Intellectual Property

On 1 December 2025, the EU’s new legal framework for the protection of geographical indications for craft and industrial products (CIGIs) has become operational with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) opening the application process. Whilst EU-wide GI protection was previously available only for certain wine, spirit drinks, agricultural and food products, producers of craft or industrial products, such as natural stones, woodwork, jewelry, textiles, lace, cutlery, glass, porcelain or musical instruments, can now apply for the registration of their product name as a CIGI. This is a breakthrough for local producers, often family businesses, providing them with an easily accessible, effective tool to safeguard the authenticity of their goods and combat counterfeits and other unfair commercial practices.

USPTO Reminds Applicants and Examiners That Declaration Practice Exists for Rejections Under Section 101

By Michael Lew on December 16, 2025 Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent Litigation, Patents, Technology, Uncategorized, US, USPTO

Readers will recall that the Deputy Commissioner for Patents issued a memorandum on evaluating patent claims for subject matter eligibility in August, which we blogged about previously. The August 2025 Memorandum noted that a patent application “does not need to explicitly set forth the improvement [to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field], but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.”

In responding to rejections under Section 101 for ineligible subject matter, it is often useful to be able to argue that the Specification describes a technical solution to a technical problem that constitutes an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field. In instances in which the specification does not explicitly set forth an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field, and such an argument is not explicitly supported by the Specification, 37 C.F.R. 1.132 provides an avenue to provide additional evidence to establish the eligibility of claims under Section 101.