Compliance v. challenge: options for challenging rulings of the Advertising Standards Authority

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is the UK’s regulator of advertising across all media, with its Council having responsibility for enforcing the Advertising Codes of the Committees of Advertising Practice (the CAP Codes). The CAP Codes not only reflect consumer protection laws, but they also include ad industry self-imposed rules. The CAP Codes are structured to include both various general requirements that all advertising in the UK must meet, together with specific requirements when advertising particular sensitive/higher-risk goods or services (e.g. alcohol, healthcare products and tobacco) and making regulated types of advertising claim.

New restriction to telephone canvassing in France: Updated

By Stéphanie Faber on November 3, 2026 Posted in Advertising, Data Protection, France, Marketing, Telecoms

The original version of this post was first published on 21 July 2026. This updated post reflects changes since the original publication date

Since 11 August 2026, the prior consent of all consumers in France is required for any telephone marketing from any caller regardless of their industry sector.

Under the Law n° 2025-594 of 30 June 2025 on “Combating All Forms of Fraud Involving Public Aid”, telephone canvassing of consumers (whether carried out directly or through a third party) is prohibited unless the organisation has first obtained the individual’s prior consent.

In order to obtain consent, the caller must be able to demonstrate that it has obtained a valid consent. The requirements for obtaining consent are those of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), i.e. it must be free, specific, informed, unambiguous and revocable.

Is pleading awareness necessary to survive a motion to dismiss in a DTSA vicarious liability lawsuit?

By Victoria Smith and Sam Deka on October 22, 2026 Posted in Trade Secrets

Courts in the District of Arizona and the Northern District of California recently ruled differently on whether employer awareness is required for pleading vicarious liability for trade secrets misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA).

The principles of respondeat superior apply in analyzing vicarious liability for trade secret misappropriation under the DTSA because the statute does not expressly address vicarious liability. Tort statutes that are silent as to vicarious liability are interpreted in the context of and incorporate ordinary tort-related vicarious liability rules. Traditional respondeat superior principles allow an employer to be held vicariously liable for a tort committed by its employee if the employee’s acts were committed “within the course and scope of the employment.”

UK regulator launches call for evidence on agentic AI

By David Naylor, Simon Jones and Paul Jinks on October 19, 2026 Posted in Artificial Intelligence, Data Protection, UK

On 8 October 2026 the UK Information Commission (ICO) opened a call for evidence on the application of existing UK data protection laws to “agentic AI” systems [The ICO’s call for evidence on agentic AI | ICO]. This call for evidence will remain open for receipt of submissions until 20 November 2026.

This latest announcement forms part of the ICO’s wider focus on AI governance and signals that agentic AI represents another major area of its focus with a report exploring the application of agentic AI specifically in the adtech ecosystem expected later this year [https://www.linkedin.com/posts/information-commissioner%27s-office_every-time-an-ad-is-delivered-a-complex-activity-7465070783212687362-WWTU?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAJRar4BQ-R16wOqceUsZ7UYI74kdmvnWb8].

Br(e)aking news: Germany’s last minute EmpCo transition rule

By Dr. Sandra Mueller on October 9, 2026 Posted in Advertising, Consumer Law, Europe, Germany, Marketing

Since 27 September 2026, the rules of the Empowering Consumers Directive (EmpCo Directive) apply in the EU Member States. The EmpCo Directive aims to tackle unfair commercial practices that mislead consumers and prevent them from making sustainable consumption choices, such as practices associated with the early obsolescence of goods, misleading environmental claims (“greenwashing”), misleading information about the social characteristics of products or traders’ businesses, or non-transparent and non-credible sustainability labels. We previously reported on this important piece of EU Green Deal legislation and its impact on your IP strategy: No Need to Hush? – The EU EmpCo Directive’s very real impact on your IP strategy | Global IP & Technology Law Blog

Copyright update: The Fifth Circuit says “no” to the Ninth Circuit server test and “maybe” to URLs as copyright management information (CMI)

By Sam Deka and Victoria Smith on September 21, 2026 Posted in Copyright

The Internet is, at its core, a system of knowledge consisting of files stored on computers that are linked and made accessible to the public by URLs. The Fifth Circuit recently addressed the balance of making knowledge accessible and protecting the rights of copyright owners.

In Emmerich Newspapers, Inc. v. Particle Media, Inc. (d/b/a Newsbreak) (5^th Cir., Aug. 27, 2026), copyright owner Emmerich sued Particle for copyright infringement based on Particle’s Newsbreak news aggregator website which links to news from Emmerich’s publications and others. Emmerich claimed that (1) Particle infringed Emmerich’s public display rights under the Copyright Act; and (2) Particle’s uniform resource locators (URLs) removed copyright management information (CMI) from Emmerich’s URLs which Emmerich contends were protected from unauthorized alteration or removal under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Updated guidance on unfair terms in UK consumer contracts and notices: Consumer-facing IP businesses should take note

By Carlton Daniel and Paul Jinks on August 18, 2026 Posted in Consumer Law, Contract, Intellectual Property, UK

The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has published updated guidance on unfair consumer contract terms and notices under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) [Unfair contract terms – GOV.UK].

The revised guidance comes when consumer protection is receiving renewed and high-profile regulatory attention following the introduction, in April 2025, of the CMA’s new direct enforcement powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 [A New Era for Consumer Law and Regulation | Global IP & Technology Law Blog]. For the first time, rather than having to go through the courts, the CMA now has the power to enforce directly breaches of consumer law. The regulator can also unilaterally impose (significant) fines and other penalties where it determines a breach has occurred, as a number of businesses have already found to their cost.

New guidance published on liability for AI harms under English and Welsh common law

By Carlton Daniel, Paul Jinks and David Naylor on August 12, 2026 Posted in Artificial Intelligence, UK

Last month, the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT) published its much anticipated Legal Statement on Liability for AI Harms under English law (the Statement).

Whilst the Statement is not legally binding, its authors are a panel of eminent legal professionals and scholars. As such, the Statement carries a high-level of credibility and we would expect to see it cited in due course as the volume of AI cases coming before the courts increases. The Statement therefore provides valuable guidance on how the courts are likely to apply existing common law principles to a variety of AI scenarios.

The authors’ overall conclusion will reassure many organisations. English law is not starting from scratch on AI liability. Existing principles of contract, negligence, professional liability and misrepresentation are generally capable of dealing with AI-related disputes.

We consider below some of the key findings from the Statement.

Patent infringement litigation update: eBay’s abolition of the presumption of irreparable harm for permanent injunctions applies to preliminary injunctions

By David Elkins and Sam Deka on August 10, 2026 Posted in Patent Litigation, Patents

Background

Until 2006, district courts routinely granted permanent injunctions, along with damages, to prevailing patent owners after trial on the grounds that irreparable harm was presumed. The Supreme Court’s decision in eBay v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 393–94 (2006), represented a sea-change in patent infringement litigation. The decision abolished the presumption of irreparable harm caused by infringement, holding that a patent owner must establish all four parts of the traditional test for permanent injunctive relief: “(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.”

Beyond the technology: protecting value in AI contracts

By Natasha Maric on August 5, 2026 Posted in Artificial Intelligence, Intellectual Property, Technology

AI is increasingly being embedded across almost every part of an organisation. From software development and customer service to marketing and product innovation, organisations are investing heavily in, and becoming heavily reliant on, AI tools and systems.

But as AI adoption grows, so does a familiar pattern: the most valuable assets are often not the technology itself rather the real value lies in the underlying data, know-how, business intelligence and outputs that flow into and from AI systems. However, many AI systems are still being procured using contractual frameworks designed for traditional software or SaaS. As a result, organisations can overlook provisions or issues that have a significant impact on the value they ultimately derive from their AI investments.

In that context, key areas that deserve particular attention when reviewing and negotiating AI contracts include: