We have advised the management team of British indie games studio The Chinese Room on their buyout from Sumo Digital.
The studio is known for first-person narrative-centric games such as Dear Esther, Everybody’s Gone to the Rapture, and recent BAFTA-award-winning Still Wakes the Deep.
On working with Harbottle & Lewis, studio director at The Chinese Room, Ed Daly commented: “Ed Lane and the team at Harbottle & Lewis were a great help throughout the process. It was important to find advisors with an understanding of the game development business and I look forward to our continuing to work together in this next exciting phase for the studio.”
Ed Lane added: “We are delighted to have been able to support Ed and the whole team at The Chinese Room on their journey towards independence – we can’t wait to see what they do next! Against the backdrop of a challenging few years for independent games developers, this is a massive ‘good news story’ and we are proud to have played a small part – indies are a key part of what we do.”
Today marks another significant change to the UK immigration rules. On 1 July 2025, the government released a ‘Statement of Changes’ to the immigration rules that take effect today, 22 July 2025.
This has given little time for individuals and companies to not only understand the changes, but to also ensure that they submit the relevant applications required prior to the changes being implemented. These changes are extremely significant for sponsored employees and companies that maintain a Sponsor Licence or intend to obtain a Sponsor Licence to employ future migrant employees.
Skilled Worker
The ‘Skilled Worker route’ allows employers to sponsor individuals that are from overseas to work in the UK, provided they meet certain requirements. Over the past few years, the government has continued to make changes to this route, particularly to the salary thresholds and the skills threshold. Given these changes, the rules have become needlessly complex and difficult to comprehend, and today’s changes have not helped the situation.
The general salary threshold for those that are applying for leave to enter the UK as a Skilled Worker or for ‘Leave to Remain’ in the UK have increased. A summary of the difference in threshold pre 22 July 2025 to present can be seen below:
Please note that if applying for settlement in the UK, the general threshold for Options A-D have also been increased to the new general threshold post 22 July 2025.
Changes to Skilled threshold
In order to assess if an individual’s role is eligible for sponsorship by an employer, the employer is required to review the role against a list of occupation codes that are provided by the Home Office as a guideline. This list is accessible and known as the Appendix Skilled Occupation List. Currently, this list incorporates RQF level 3-6 roles. However, as of today (22 July 2025), 180 occupation codes will be removed from this list, including those that are RQF level 3-5, and only RQF level 6 roles will remain. There is, however, an Immigration Salary List that provides a list of jobs where a reduced salary threshold applies to Skilled Worker visa applications. This list will remain until 31 December 2026 and will include RQF level 3-5 roles. There will also be a new list that will be known as the ‘Temporary Shortage List’ which will be reviewed regularly by the government and will only be in place until 31 December 2026. Roles listed here will be within RQF level 3-5 but can be removed at any time.
There are transitional arrangements for individuals that are already in the UK with leave as a Skilled Worker or who have applied to this route with a Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS) before 22 July 2025. Those that are in an occupation code that no longer forms part of the new ‘RQF Level 6 Occupation List’, but are performing roles that are in RQF level 3-5 roles, can remain employed in the UK, with the option to switch or change employers. There are, however, certain roles that are RQF level 3-5 whereby the individual must continue to work for the same sponsor.
6135 Care Workers and home carers and 6136 Senior Care Workers
Sponsored employers can no longer sponsor such individuals from overseas. Transitional provisions apply to those already in the UK under these occupation codes.
Dependants
As of today, those that are being sponsored within an RQF level 3-5 role will not be able to bring their dependant partner or child to the UK. However, if you are already in the UK with permission as a Skilled Worker within the RWF level 3-5, you can continue to extend your dependants leave or apply for ‘Indefinite Leave to Remain’. Note that there are some exceptions that apply to children.
Other working routes
The Global Business Mobility Routes (GBM) and ‘Scale Up route’ will also see changes to the minimum salary threshold:
for a senior or specialist worker from £48,500 per year to £52,500
for a graduate trainee from £25,410 per year to £27,300
for a UK expansion worker from £48,500 to £52,500
‘Scale Up route’ from £36,300 to £39,100
How do these changes affect the creative industries?
The theatre industry will be significantly impacted by these changes, particularly theatre companies who sponsor actors, writers, musicians and dancers.
Starting today, employers intending to sponsor a dancer as a Skilled Worker can only do so temporarily until 31 December 2026. This applies to skilled classical ballet dancers or skilled contemporary dancers who meet the standards required by internationally recognised UK ballet or contemporary dance companies.
Therefore, post 31 December 2026, such individuals will be required to be sponsored under the ‘Creative Worker route’. This creates restrictions on theatre companies that may require the individual to be in the UK on a long-term basis due to the Creative Worker Visa only allowing someone to be sponsored for two years at a time, meaning the visa will continually need to be renewed.
Interestingly, actors, entertainers and presenters have been removed from the occupation list completely, and those already in the UK as a skilled worker under this code will only be eligible to extend their leave in the UK. Individuals from overseas will no longer be eligible to apply under the ‘Skilled Worker route’.
Further proposed changes
If the above is not enough to get your teeth stuck into, we should say that this is not the end of the proposed changes to UK immigration rules. The government are set to provide an update regarding the following:
Earned settlement and citizenship: The government is proposing to extend eligibility to settlement from five years to 10 years for more work routes. Exemptions may apply to those that are able to demonstrate contributions to the UK economy.
Study routes and graduate routes: Reforms are set to tighten the student and graduate routes aiming to prevent these pathways from being used as a means to settle in the UK. While changes to the graduate route are still under review, the proposed reforms include reducing the duration of stay under the graduate route from two years to 18 months, with the possibility of additional restrictions being implemented.
If you have any questions in relation to any of the above, please get in touch with our immigration lawyers.
After a quiet few months on the journey of the Employment Rights Bill, the last couple of weeks have seen a flurry of employment law updates. There has been a lot to unpack, so we’ve summarised the latest timeframes and changes in an update of the ‘need-to-knows’ for right now.
What’s the current status?
The Bill has been making its way through the parliamentary journey to becoming law over recent months. The Bill is now in the ‘report stage’ in the House of Lords, after which it will return for a third reading and further consideration of the proposed amendments. The latest amended version of the 318-page Bill was published on 24 June 2025.
What’s the timeframe?
On 1 July 2025 the government published its UK employment law roadmap for the delivery of changes, so we now have more certainty on implementation dates. The key takeaway is, with the phased implementation, that most changes are going to take longer than expected to become law.
Although a handful of changes will take effect shortly after the Bill receives Royal Assent, most will be implemented during a lengthy phased delivery plan. Some of the most significant are:
April 2026: ‘day one’ rights to paternity leave and parental leave; ‘day one’ right to statutory sick pay and removal of earnings threshold for this; enhancement of whistleblower protection; trade union recognition and balloting changes.
October 2026: enhanced duty to take ‘all’ reasonable steps to prevent harassment; changes to the law on fire and rehire; further expansion of trade union rights.
2027: introduction of ‘day one’ protection from unfair dismissal; changes to the law on zero-hour contracts; enhanced rights for pregnant workers; statutory bereavement leave; umbrella company regulation.
What can be seen immediately is that it will take longer than expected for some of the biggest changes to become law, with key measures such as ‘day one’ unfair dismissal rights being pushed into 2027. This means more planning and preparation time for businesses to determine how best to navigate the changes in their organisation. Consultations about the proposed changes will commence shortly and we expect those to continue into 2026.
What’s new or changed recently?
On 7 July 2025, a number of proposed changes were detailed for the Bill, with some attracting considerable press attention over the last few days. We’ve outlined the most significant updates from the latest draft below, as a summary of the recent amendments. (Not all measures are mentioned in this briefing; we have focussed on what has changed in the latest version of the Bill).
For all of the categories below, it is important to emphasise that these are proposals only. They may not make it into the final Bill and are subject to change.
For those who want some further topical reading, press coverage and commentary can be viewed here.
Update: Bereavement leave for families who face pregnancy loss
A statutory right to bereavement leave has been part of the proposals from the early stages, but the latest amendments confirm that bereavement leave will be extended to a stillbirth or loss of a child in the first 24 weeks of pregnancy. This has been referred to as ‘miscarriage leave’ in some press coverage and has been welcomed by many charities and campaigners.
This means that employers may see the right to bereavement leave taken up more than initially expected, given the estimated statistic that more than one in five pregnancies sadly end in miscarriage. Companies will need to update policy and practice accordingly when the time comes.
Update: A ban on NDAs (including in settlement agreements) which cover harassment and discrimination
This is a significant amend for employers to note; non-disclosure agreements and similar deals (including settlement agreement terms) will be void if they prohibit an individual disclosing details of discrimination or harassment. Confidentiality clauses may still be permissible, at the request of the employee only, although the detail of this is yet to come. What’s clear is that this change aims to make ‘cover up culture’ a thing of the past.
Of course, some clients are ahead of the curve on this, and already have a ‘no-gagging’ policy for any settlement or exit terms where there has been a complaint or claim of discrimination or harassment. For others, this will be a real step change. All employers will need to start thinking about their commitment to culture, good training and transparency in preparation for this change.
Update: Changes to whistleblowing laws
The amendments include significant changes to the protected disclosure or ‘whistleblowing’ laws, if they are passed and included in the final bill. In brief, these include changes to what qualifies as a ‘protected disclosure’, a tightening of the public interest requirement, a new offence of intentionally or recklessly subjecting a whistleblower to a detriment and a proactive duty on larger employers to take reasonable steps to investigate any protected disclosure.
This is one to watch and the finer detail of the proposed enhanced whistleblower protection, currently scheduled to become law in April 2026, still seems ‘up in the air’ at this time.
Update: The fire and rehire ‘ban’
The ban on ‘fire and rehire’ (the practice of dismissing an employee for refusing to agree to a variation of their contract and rehiring on the employer’s preferred terms) has attracted criticism that it would make it difficult for employers to make routine organisational changes where needed.
The latest proposals seek to temper the ban, in particular with a proposal that it will only prohibit ‘restricted variations’ to include pay, pension, hours and holiday. There are also proposed changes as to how the proof of financial distress (where fire and rehire is permitted) will be assessed and the consequences of unlawful dismissals in this situation, with this no longer being automatically unfair, but assessed by a reasonableness test.
The amendments importantly allow for variation clauses in employment contracts. Employers could consider checking their contract terms; if their standard templates don’t include a right to vary terms and conditions, it would be advisable to think about updating those now.
Update: New proposed rules on zero hour worker contracts
Changes to what the Government term ‘exploitative’ zero hour contracts have been a headline change in the Bill. These are casual employment contracts which do not guarantee any minimum working hours. The latest amendments water down an originally proposed ban on these contracts, so that employees can request guaranteed hours, but there is no duty on the employer to offer them. Again these are proposed amends only which may not be backed by the Government, so we could yet see a return to the more far reaching reforms for zero hour contracts as originally outlined in Bill.
The review of the parental leave system
Separately from the changes in the Bill, on 1 July the Government also launched a full review of parental leave and pay. The review will look at the whole family friendly leave system, including maternity and paternity leave, shared parental leave; adoption leave and others, and will also review the statutory pay system. We will keep clients updated as the review progresses.
We will continue to track the developments of the Employment Rights Bill and will issue further updates as the Bill gets to the final consideration stage and we have more detail on final proposals and implementation.
The UK production industry is showing cautious optimism, with increased investment into the country, despite challenges like tight budgets and Channel 4’s shift to in-house production. AI dominates discussions, with legal disputes and policy changes signalling its transformative impact.
The second edition of our UK film and TV newsletter covers key industry updates including production trends, AI developments, and further updates to the Employment Rights Bill.
HARBOTTLE HIGHLIGHTS
South by Southwest London (SXSW)
We attended SXSW London, their debut festival in London, and were proud to partner with them as their official legal services supplier. Our lawyers were there throughout the week, attending and chairing insightful panels and talks.
Cannes Film Festival
In May, Sarah Lazarides,Peter Armstrong, Abigail Payne, Clare McGarry and Emma Riggs attended Cannes Film Festival. We caught up with clients and other contacts from around the world, attending numerous events around the Croisette, including those generously hosted by Coutts, Sargent Disc, Fintage House and Saffery. Some reports mention the bars and restaurants being less packed than usual, and of there being a feeling of frugality reflective of the industry as a whole, but we found there to be a good buzz in the air and the festival felt “in action” after a few quiet years in the post-Covid wake.
National Film and Television School
On 3 June, Clare McGarry, Octavia Henderson-Cleland and Julika Schmidt ran a negotiation workshop for talented students from the National Film and Television School. It was a lively and engaging session, on key topics which producers at all stages of their careers need to know about.
On 24 June, Ed Lane hosted a further session for students with serial TV entrepreneur Paul Sandler covering investment readiness and how an investment process works. We ended with a mock negotiation of a term sheet which included some excellent role playing from all concerned.
Indielab TV Accelerator 2025
We have been proud sponsors of the Indielab TV Accelerator for almost a decade, and the 2025 edition came to a close on 11 June.
The day began with Ed Lane, together with Tom Manwaring and Alex Reed-Brewer from Helion Partners, offering insights into the current investment landscape and how to attract investors. Ed was later joined by Harbottle & Lewis associates Katerina Capras and Minty Hamer, who covered investment readiness and the investment process.
We then all attended the closing drinks at Barclays to celebrate this year’s cohort.
BAFTA Elevate 2025/6
As part of our support for BAFTA’s Elevate programme, Ed Lane chaired a panel of indies and investors at BAFTA on 17 June.
On the panel were Nischal Randev (BBC Studios), Caroline Percy (Channel 4 Indie Growth Fund), Derren Lawford (DARE Pictures) and Ed Kellie (ScreenDog Productions).
It was a lively and insightful discussion on starting an indie and the investment journey, with some excellent questions from the floor.
INDUSTRY UPDATES
HOT OFF THE PRESS! GOVERNMENT RESPONDS TO CMC REPORT ON THE HETV AND FILM INDUSTRY
In our last edition, we reported on the CMC’s report into the state of the industry, which included recommendations of a 5% levy for streamers, a new HETV tax credit for independent TV, terms of trade for streamers, and scrapping the government’s plans to include a “data mining exemption” for copyright infringement. The government has now responded. The response dovetails with the government’s new Creative Industries Sector Plan (see article below). In short, most of the headline grabbers from the CMC report have not been agreed. Some key takeaways:
The government supports the sentiment of the CMC report and appreciates the challenges faced by the industry, acknowledging the “need to ensure the resilience of our domestic sector”.
The government has not committed to introducing terms of trade or the 5% levy on streamers, saying: “we want a healthy, mixed film and TV ecology and we welcome inward investment, including from SVoD services. One of the benefits of a mixed ecology is that producers can strike deals both with streamers, which typically involve higher upfront fees, and with PSBs, whose terms of trade mean that secondary rights normally remain with the producer”.
The DCMS will appoint a “creative freelance champion” to advocate for the sector’s freelancers within government.
Short courses in England will be introduced, funded through the Growth and Skills Levy, in areas like digital, artificial intelligence and engineering.
VAT relief on cultural activities, which would include cinema entry, has not been agreed.
The government has committed to providing its response to its consultation on copyright and AI in the coming months. They reminded readers that the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 contains a number of updates and a report on the use of copyright material for AI training will be coming within nine months of Royal Assent.
No commitment has been made to analyse the benefit of an uplifted HETV Audio-Visual Expenditure Credit for domestic productions with budgets of £1 million to £3 million per hour.
£75m funding for film and TV sectors: creative industries sector plan
In June, the government revealed its £75m “Screen Growth Package” for the film and TV industry, part of its Creative Industries Sector Plan.
The UK Global Screen Fund will be increased to £18m yearly to develop international business capabilities, enable co-productions and showcase independent UK screen content worldwide.
£10m will be put towards the National Film and Television School’s facilities and training programmes, unlocking £11m in investment from industry and private supporters, including from the Walt Disney Company, the Dana and Albert R. Broccoli Foundation and Sky.
Funds are being made available to a “significantly expanded” BFI Film Academy, to open the industry to people from underrepresented backgrounds, with opportunities for filmmaking work experience and training.
£25m is going to companies in the augmented reality and motion capture technology space, to fund research and development labs, and showcase spaces.
As well as the Screen Growth Package, £150m will be given to Mayoral Strategic Authorities, to support the creation of regional screen agencies and production funds.
The true impact of the investment remains to be seen and will become clearer over time.
AI, AI, AI…
It’s been an especially turbulent quarter in the world of AI. In case you missed it:
1. Trade Unions call for an independent AI regulator. The Trades Union Congress (TUC), which represents Pact and Bectu, wants an independent regulator to be set up to manage how AI is integrated into society. The aim: a new creative industry AI taskforce to bring together creative workers, unions and technologists, transparency on AI training data, consent-based use of creative work, fair pay when creative content is used to train AI models and stronger protections against deepfakes.
The TUC has voiced strong opposition to the government’s plans to include an exemption in the law allowing AI developers to train their systems on copyrighted protected materials without permission, unless creators explicitly opt out.
2. The Data (Use and Access) Bill passes. This was passed on 11 June after much “ping ponging” between the House of Commons and House of Lords. The House of Lords tried to introduce a change forcing AI companies to declare their use of copyright protected materials for the training of AI models, including transparency regarding scraping. This was rejected by the House of Commons, who said this was not the appropriate place to deal with these issues, in particular because (a) they are running a separate consultation on AI and the creative industries (the results of which we are eagerly awaiting) and (b) a specific AI bill is in the works. Sceptics might say this shows the government siding with AI companies over creatives and displaying their fear of getting left behind if the UK stifles any technological advancements of AI.
3. Major players flex their litigation muscles.
Two major cases to be aware of:
Disney and Universal sue Midjourney:
The first US majors to sue an AI company.
They allege that Midjourney has not ceased its ‘calculated and wilful’ unauthorised infringements, despite requests to stop and adopt technological measures to prevent the practice.
Subscribers to Midjourney can create images from text that are reproduced and made available for download. The studios referenced pictures of Yoda and other characters from franchises being generated through the AI tool.
An excerpt from the complaint called Midjourney “the quintessential copyright free-rider and a bottomless pit of plagiarism”.
The studios are seeking maximum statutory damages and injunctive relief.
Getty goes to court: Getty Images’ landmark case against Stability AI officially began in June. Getty accuses Stability AI of using its copyrighted images to train Stable Diffusion, Stability AI’s system which generates images from inputs. Getty says Stability AI illegally scraped millions of images from its website. However, Getty dropped its primary copyright claim on 26 June as a “pragmatic” move, leaving the trade mark, passing off and secondary copyright infringement claims still on the table.
PACT resists changes to terms of trade
Ofcom is considering revising its guidance for PSBs set out in the Commissioning Codes of Practice, commonly referred to as the “Terms of Trade”. Their plans include allowing PSBs to seek ‘matching rights’ as well as changes regarding negotiation practices with indie producers.
Pact believes that this change would impact the balance of power between producers and PSBs, particularly within the indies sector. The union has urged its members to write to their MP to highlight what they see as a move that would hinder the ability of producers to retain and exploit their IP.
PACT/Equity negotiations
The contract negotiations between Pact and Equity for both the Cinema Films Agreement (CFA) and the TV Agreement (TVA) are ongoing. Pact sent the TVA counterproposal to Equity on 4 April and the CFA counterproposal to Equity on 25 April. Here are some highlights:
Pact is pushing back on all changes to working hours and turnaround requirements following industry feedback.
Pact and Equity are aligned that all artists should be given the first opportunity to dub in English, however, Pact has proposed some language in its response that is broad enough to allow for production exigencies.
In respect of calls from Equity to curtail customary option/exclusivity terms from series regular cast deals (which Equity believes keep actors off the market), Pact has requested that Equity provide the wording they wish to include in the TVA so they can consider this issue further.
Pact has told Equity that it would not be realistic to ban “on or about” dates from TV performer deals, but has instead proposed including block-by-block engagements within the TVA and making it clear that artists are not on first call until dates are nominated.
Equity provided initial responses to Pact’s counterclaim on 23 May and Pact was due to meet with Equity w/c 9 June to discuss the CFA counterproposal. A further meeting will be arranged for Pact and Equity to discuss AI, Special Stipulations and exclusivity clauses.
On AI, Pact has sent to Equity questions relating to Equity’s open letter on AI training and GDPR. Pact hopes that the responses to these questions will enable it to understand the basis of Equity’s AI claim and build on this to aid negotiations.
For further details regarding Pact’s counterproposals under the CFA and/or the TVA, please get in touch directly.
PACT/Equity & PACT/Bectu rates increase
Pact/Equity
From 6 April, Pact and Equity agreed a 3% interim minimum rate increase under the CFA.
These rates will remain in place until the new CFA (currently being re-negotiated – see above) is signed or for a period of six months (i.e. until Sunday 5th October), whichever comes first.
With respect to the TVA, Pact and Equity had already agreed to the minimum rates being increased by 3.5% with effect from 1 January and then by a further 3% with effect from 1 January 2026.
Rate increases for stunt personnel under the CFA and TVA remain subject to the broader ongoing negotiations between Pact and Equity.
Pact/Bectu
New rates under the Construction Crew Agreement between Pact and Bectu also came into effect from 1 April, which have been adjusted to reflect the rise in the Consumer Price Index from 2.5% to 2.6%. The Construction Crew Agreement only applies to major motion pictures (theatrical and SVOD) with production budgets in excess of £30 million.
There are nine key principles providing a baseline of good practice for how directors and producers can work together, including “the director having a right to consultation” and “the director having a right to the appropriate credit”. The Directors and Producers Forum say that the guidelines can act as a reference point to ensure the director’s role is clear and respected.
It’s chocks away for Channel 4! The news that Channel 4 plans to create a standalone in-house production business has been met with strong opinions from many quarters of the indie sector. But how significant is this shift really?
The reaction is not surprising given Channel 4’s founding mission to support the independent production sector, which it has done for over 40 years via a focus on commissioning shows from indies and allowing indies to retain all rights (i.e. it has not been interested in developing or acquiring IP).
Alongside that, Channel 4 has (to date) been prohibited from holding more than a minority equity stake in indies. Through its Indie Growth Fund (launched in 2014) it has funded and supported a host of indies, including Warp Films (Adolescence). In supporting these indies, Channel 4 was effectively acting as a venture capital fund, looking to fund at an early stage and then exit (ideally with a decent return). It has indeed exited a number of those investments, most recently Eagle Eye who were acquired by ITV Studios in late 2024.
The minority stake ‘venture capital’-style approach allowed indies to take on early stage investment and then look to sell to a wide range of potential buyers. This gave flexibility, and potentially, with enough competitive tension, a higher valuation for the business. On the flipside, often where a trade investor (like BBC Studios or Banijay) are making early stage investments, there will be a path to majority ownership built in to the deal. This deprives the indie of options later down the line.
With Channel 4’s shifting approach, the industry may have lost something pretty rare – an investor well-versed in the industry but comfortable with the founders retaining strategic control and focused on supporting indies to exit rather than looking to take full ownership or build an in-house production arm.
Only time will tell how this new, unbridled Channel 4 will operate. Will its new inhouse production arm truly be separate to commissioning, with no preferential arrangements (we hear that both teams will be in the same office space – commissions at the water cooler, anyone)? Or will its increased indie quota (up to 35% from 25%) soften the blow enough for a sector still reeling from the commissioning slowdown?
‘Sex’ in the Equality Act: impact on Film & TV
In April, the Supreme Court gave a judgment on the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010. Widely reported in the mainstream press, and generating considerable debate, we explain the judgment and how it relates to practices in the workplace.
The case of For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers concerned the meaning of the terms “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) in light of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. It decided that these terms refer to biological sex. This means that if someone identifies as trans, they do not change sex for the purposes of the EqA, even if they have a Gender Recognition Certificate.
The decision is an important development in the entrenched conflict between those on either side of the trans rights and gender critical debate. Unless future legislation changes the position, the judgment puts the meaning of sex in the EqA in unequivocal terms. Sex = biological sex.
So what does this mean for UK film and TV companies, who are employers or engage freelance cast and crew on productions? We’ve identified some key areas where this judgment will have an on the ground impact for clients.
Click here to read the full article by senior associate, Lucy Burrows.
Employment Rights Bill: Update
The long-awaited Employment Rights Bill is now set for phased implementation, with consultations beginning in summer and autumn 2025. As part of the government’s “Plan to Make Work Pay,” the Bill’s landmark reforms will be rolled out gradually over the coming years. Whilst delays in parliamentary approval have slowed its progress, the Bill is now seemingly moving forward.
For the film and TV industry, the most significant changes are as follows:
Reforms to expand Statutory Sick Pay to include the lowest-paid workers. Expected date of implementation (EDI): April 2026.
Granting workers day-one protection against unfair dismissal (which had been expected to take effect in October 2025). EDI: 2027 (date to be confirmed).
Banning ‘exploitative’ zero-hour contracts. EDI: 2027 (date to be confirmed).
Introducing enhanced flexible working rights. EDI: 2027 (date to be confirmed).
Employers can be reassured that the changes will not take immediate effect, with many of the reforms now expected to come into force later than originally anticipated. Further details on these policies, along with the exact timeline for implementation, will be provided once the consultations have concluded.
You can read more on our coverage of the Bill and its impact on the film and TV industry on our website.
“Even with paternity leave available from day one of employment, the proposals compare woefully to the paternity offerings from our European neighbours. Pre-eminent House of Lords peers have pushed for amendments for better-paid rights for fathers and co-parents. We will have to watch this space as the bill returns to the Commons, but no doubt this, like so many issues, could meet with reluctance to increase the costs of the bill’s changes any further.”
Senior associate Lucy Burrows’ article on the treatment of statutory paternity pay under the Employment Rights Bill has been published by Employee Benefits. The full article can be found here.
Employee Benefits is a UK digital publication which provides HR, reward and benefits professionals with industry news, tax and legislation updates and in-depth articles on all aspects of employee reward and benefits.
A 45-page ‘gossip’ thread about two influencers filled with anonymous abusive comments, has sparked a four-year battle to unmask the operator of the website Tattle Life.
In 2021, a couple targeted by Tattle Life users complained to the website and in 2023, commenced a case for defamation in Belfast’s High Court, obtaining default judgment and damages. Following a further court hearing this month, they publicly revealed the identity of the website’s anonymous owner, having resorted to private investigators in their effort to unmask the individual.
The website is one of many forums now offering a place where people can post purportedly anonymous “gossip” about influencers and celebrities. The practice is also popular on social media websites like Reddit and Instagram with whole sub-Reddits, threads and accounts dedicated to the practice.
Although this activity is advertised and defended online by users as mere gossip, the judge in this case found that it was anything but and said:
“They (the claimants) have both been grossly defamed and severely harassed by these posts. The destruction of reputation and the harassment has caused very severe upset and distress.”
Going on to find the website’s motivation was solely commercial, the judge added:
“This is clearly a case of unpeddling untruths for profit”.
The claimants were awarded £75,000 each for general and aggravated damages, and £75,000 each in exemplary damages making a total of £300,000. They also received an indemnity legal costs order.
It is reported that the couple also obtained a freezing order over the website’s lucrative advertising revenue of £1,077,173 in an effort to enforce the damages award against the owner, an English citizen reported to be living in Asia.
The judge criticised the slow nature of the process by which the claimants were forced to seek justice:
“This should not happen and there should be a speedy way to get to the bottom of these incidents with a view to closing these sites down and preventing such online vilification and abuse being perpetrated over a significant period of time and even being perpetrated after court proceedings have been issued.”
Those affected by abusive or harassing ‘gossip’ threads are often met with a lack of response from the sites involved, many of which are based in the US. Legal action is often the only effective recourse in these cases.
On 14 May 2025, the Belgian Market Court (part of the Brussels Court of Appeal) delivered a landmark judgment in the case concerning IAB Europe’s Transparency and Consent Framework (TCF).
The case centred on allegations that IAB Europe violated the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, or AVG in Dutch) through its data processing practices within the TCF. This judgment follows an earlier decision by the Belgian Data Protection Authority (APD), which found several breaches of the GDPR and imposed a €250,000 fine on IAB Europe.
CASE BACKGROUND
IAB Europe is an international non-profit association aiming to bring compliance to the digital advertising and marketing sector. They developed the TCF to promote adherence to the GDPR when internet sites or applications use the OpenRTB protocol.
On 2 February 2022, the APD found that IAB Europe’s TCF violated GDPR and fined IAB €250,000. Key findings included:
The TC String (user preferences signal) is personal data.
IAB Europe is a joint controller for both the creation and subsequent processing of the TC String.
Lack of a valid legal basis for processing TC Strings as the TCF did not obtain explicit and informed consent from users, nor could it rely on legitimate interests due to the large-scale and intrusive nature of the data processing involved.
Failure to fulfil transparency obligations and not adequately informing users about its role as a data controller, the purposes of data processing, or the recipients of their data.
Inadequate security measures and lack of mechanisms to prevent manipulation of consent signals.
Failure to conduct data protection impact assessments.
Failure to appoint a data protection officer.
Incomplete register of processing activities.
On 4 March 2022, IAB Europe challenged the APD’s decision before the Belgian Market Court, disputing its role as a joint controller and the APD’s legal analysis on the TC String being personal data.
On 7 September 2022, the Belgian Market Court made an interim ruling, confirming the procedural irregularities in the APD’s investigation. It referred two preliminary questions to the CJEU:
Does the TC String constitute personal data under GDPR?
Is IAB Europe a joint controller for processing TC Strings and subsequent data uses?
On 7 March 2024, the CJEU judgement confirmed that:
the TC String may constitute personal data if:
It is associated with other data points (e.g., IP address) that can identify a user.
IAB Europe has reasonable means to access such data.
IAB Europe may be a joint controller for the creation and use of TC Strings if it influences the processing’s purposes and means.
IAB Europe is not a joint controller for subsequent processing (e.g. personalised advertising) by third parties.
The case was sent back to the Belgian Market Court for factual verification and further examination which this article explains.
FINDINGS OF THE MARKET COURT
Are TC Strings Personal Data?
TC Strings are unique codes containing users’ consent preferences.
The Market Court referenced the preliminary ruling of the CJEU in March 2024, which clarified that TC Strings, when linked to identifiers such as IP addresses, allow for user identification.
In paragraph 48 of the judgment, the Market Court stated that “the fact that IAB Europe itself would not have the reasonable means to proceed with Identification because it cannot make the link between a TC String and the IP address and would not have direct access to the personal data, is in itself irrelevant”.
As such, the Market Court confirmed that a TC String is personal data within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the GDPR.
Is there any processing of personal data?
IAB Europe, as the managing organisation and central figure in the digital ecosystem, determines the storage and dissemination of the TC String.
Under the TCF Technical Specifications, the TC String is shared with Consent Management Platforms (CMPs) in two ways:
By storing it in a shared global consent cookie on IAB Europe’s consensu.org domain; or
By storing it in a CMP-chosen system for service-specific consent signals.
The Market Court found that storing the TC String in a shared cookie and making it available via the consensu.org domain clearly constitutes processing of personal data under GDPR.
The Market Court further explained that, regardless of the consent cookie or domain, processing of personal data occurs in the TCF, including:
User preferences being collected by CMPs (along with the user’s IP address);
User preferences being structured and ordered in a TC String; and
The TC String being stored, distributed, and shared with TCF participants.
Should IAB Europe’s Role in the TCF be considered as a Data Controller?
Paragraphs 62-75 of the judgment confirms that it is clear that IAB Europe has real decision-making power, both over the purposes and means of processing and this given its overriding control over the operation of the TCF:
IAB Europe acknowledges its responsibility for the TCF in its own documentation – such as “Frequently Asked Questions” on the TCF (version 2.0) – noting that this judgment only focusses on v2.0 as IAB Europe’s TCF v2.2 already includes updates to address compliance concerns raised.
On determining the purpose and means of these processing operations, IAB Europe indeed exercises a decisive influence. IAB Europe has a shared purpose with the other participants for the processing of personal data, which incidentally all have the same, which is to ensure that user preferences are captured in a structured way and then shared with all other participants. Even though many TCF participants may be competitors, when it comes to the processing of user preferences under the TCF, they all have similar interests, which are also similar to those of IAB.
The Market Court states that “the concept of a data controller in this case just does have to interpreted broadly, since IAB Europe is the only one who, as it itself states, manages and administers the TCF and can therefore resolve the issues identified by the Dispute Resolution Chamber, after consultation with all other EU regulators.”
The Market Court confirmed that IAB Europe is a joint data controller with TCF participants for storing the consent preferences of the affected users in the TC String.
If yes, is IAB Europe a Joint Controller for the processing of personal data in the context of OpenRTB?
The Market Court assessed whether IAB Europe with the TCF “influences” the further processing of personal data under OpenRTB.
The APD argued that IAB Europe’s TCF and OpenRTB are inherently interconnected. It claimed that IAB Europe facilitates an ecosystem where consent preferences are collected and shared for further processing by third parties (e.g. publishers and adtech vendors). As such, the ADP considered IAB Europe and participating organisations to be joint controllers for both the collection and dissemination of consent data.
The Market Court identified inconsistencies in the ADP’s reasoning. Although the ADP acknowledged that IAB Europe does not act as a data controller for processing under OpenRTB, it nevertheless implied such responsibility in its decision. The Market Court found that the Appellants had limited the scope of their arguments to the TCF, no evidence was provided to establish IAB Europe as a joint controller for OpenRTB processing and it lacked influence over this stage of data use..
It concluded that the APD failed to demonstrate that IAB Europe acts as a joint data controller for processing operations under OpenRTB as not all processing stages fall under their control.
OUTCOME
The Market Court upheld the €250,000 fine imposed by the APD, deeming it proportionate and justified under Article 83 of the GDPR. It also confirmed the corrective measures requiring IAB Europe to bring its processing activities into compliance.
The Market Court dismissed most of IAB Europe’s grievances but acknowledged procedural flaws in the initial decision. It upheld the APD’s sanctions regarding TCF operations but clarified that IAB Europe is not responsible for OpenRTB operations – annulling the APD’s decision in part.
IAB Europe is ordered to pay the costs of proceedings, estimated at €7,848.84, and other contributions totalling €424.
IMPLICATIONS
This Judgment clarifies that even entities without direct access to personal data can be held accountable as data controllers if they influence the purposes and means of processing.
For the adtech industry, this ruling reinforces the GDPR principles and in particular supports the requirements to:
carefully examine consent mechanisms to ensure they are transparent, freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous;
ensure the use of consent frameworks like the TCF does not create ambiguity about their own roles and accountability in data processing operations;
provide users with clear, accessible, and understandable information about how their data is processed; and
minimise the processing of personal data by leveraging contextual advertising, privacy-enhancing technologies, and aggregated or pseudonymised datasets instead of third party cookies.
Today, the Government has announced that it intends to delay the effective date of the less healthy food regulations. The regulations, which ban TV ads for less healthy food or drink being shown before 9pm and online ads for these products, were due to come into force on 1 October this year.
Following heavy lobbying from the industry around the implications of ‘brand advertising’ (i.e. advertising a brand/company name even if unhealthy products were not shown), the Government has announced that it intends to make and lay a Statutory Instrument (SI) to explicitly exempt ‘brand advertising’ from the restrictions. To allow time to consult on the draft SI, the formal date that these new restrictions come into force has been extended from 1 October 2025 to 5 January 2026.
However, as per a voluntary agreement with the Government, advertisers and broadcasters have made a public commitment to comply with the restrictions as though they would still come into force from 1 October 2025. This means that, from 1 October 2025, the Government has said that it would expect adverts for specific identifiable less healthy products not to be shown on TV between 5:30am and 9pm or at any time online. This is a positive development for advertisers, particularly those that largely or wholly advertise products that fall within the ‘less healthy product’ category, who (it is expected) will be able to continue to advertise their branding without showing such less healthy products, at any time. This is of course subject to how the Government will define ‘brand advertising’, which we expect clarification on before the restrictions come into force on 5 January 2026 (subject to Parliamentary approval). However, advertisers will still be expected to comply with the general restriction and no longer advertise identifiable less healthy products on TV between 5:30am and 9pm or at any time online, as of 1 October 2025.
We have partnered with South by Southwest (SXSW) as the official legal services supplier for their debut London event, taking place from 2-7 June.
SXSW is a globally renowned annual industry event that began in Texas in 1987. Over the years, it has gained recognition for its dynamic conferences and festivals, which celebrate the convergence of technology, film, music, education and culture.
This partnership reflects the synergy between SXSW’s vision and our expertise in the media and entertainment industries, and we look forward to supporting and contributing to this celebration of creativity and innovation.
For more details about the event, please visit the official SXSW London website.
“Hacking a well-known retail brand generates leverage…because the victim will want to avoid brand reputational damage at all costs to stop eroding customer trust.”
Michael Yates’ comments on the recent cyber attack on Marks and Spencer, which is still causing havoc for shoppers of the popular retail brand a fortnight on, have been featured in the Financial Times.
Now that two other major household names have also been targeted and a police investigation has been launched, the article discusses why hackers decide to target such trusted brands.
The full article is available here to those with a subscription.
