Contact | Search |

Author: Anna Weeden

Statutory paternity pay under the ERB: Lucy Burrows’ article published by Employee Benefits

Posted on by Anna Weeden

“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.

Tattle Life legal saga shines a light on the murky world of ‘gossip’ forums

Posted on by Anna Weeden

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.

Read the judgment on damages and further reporting.

Joint Controllers, TC Strings, and OpenRTB: Unpacking the Belgian Market Court’s Appeal Decision on IAB Europe’s TCF

Posted on by Anna Weeden

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:
    1. It is associated with other data points (e.g., IP address) that can identify a user.
    2. 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.

Less healthy food advertising restrictions pushed to early 2026

Posted on by Anna Weeden

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.

Partnership with SXSW London as their Official Legal Services Supplier

Posted on by Anna Weeden

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.

Cyber attacks on UK retailers: Michael Yates’ comments featured in the Financial Times

Posted on by Anna Weeden

“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.

Behind the lens of April 2025: UK Film and TV insights

Posted on by Anna Weeden

We are pleased to share that we have launched the first edition of our UK film and TV newsletter.

This debut edition includes some brief updates on important changes affecting the industry, and some spotlight articles that delve deeper into M&A activity in the industry as well as the impact of the government’s new Employment Rights Bill.

If you would like to sign up for future editions, please get in touch.

HARBOTTLE HIGHLIGHTS

Broadcast Summit 2025

Partner Ed Lane and managing associate Clare McGarry attended the Broadcast Summit on 2 April.

Their key takeaways were as follows:

  • “Fewer, bigger, better” is still a popular phrase, and there was lots of chatter about consolidation within the indies market.
  • Alternative funding models are the thing, including brand-funded content (if you can access it!)
  • Despite the difficult climate, there was positivity in the air both in terms of commissioning and M&A activity improving.

Indielab TV Accelerator 2025

We continue our partnership with Indielab in 2025 and will be hosting the Indielab TV Accelerator throughout April, May and June. This three-month programme is designed to help individuals develop the skills and networks needed to take their indie to the next level across the evolving TV and content ecosystems. It also offers the chance to collaborate with new industry partners, and gain insights from experts in the field.

Bafta Elevate 2025/6

On Friday 28 March, we had our first session with the talented new BAFTA Elevate cohort. Partner Sarah Lazarides and managing associate Clare McGarry focused on how producers and directors should look to protect their IP and secure their position, particularly when entering into co-productions. In the coming months, more of our lawyers will provide tailored sessions designed to share essential industry knowledge and expertise.

INDUSTRY UPDATES

HETV: Hot off the press

A pretty punchy report from the House of Commons CMS Committee was released on 10 April which contains recommendations which, if implemented, have the potential to transform upend the industry. The stated aim: to protect and reshape the UK indies market.

Here are some highlights:

  1. Enhanced tax incentives for HETV to match the new independent film tax credit.
  2. Terms of trade for streamers, “akin to the PSB terms of trade”.
  3. Greater support for freelancers, including a commissioner for freelancers.
  4. A distribution tax relief and a reduction in VAT on cinema tickets, to support struggling cinema numbers.
  5. A controversial 5% levy on streamers’ UK subscriber revenue to rebalance the HETV market.
  6. Increased funding for the UK Global Screen Fund.
  7. Government should abandon its proposed data mining exception for AI training, plus a stronger framework for AI which should “consider the interests of copyright holders, creatives and audiences”.

Update on PACT/Equity negotiations

Pact and Equity are continuing to meet and progress discussions. In the meantime, interim fee increases have been approved across both the Cinema Films Agreement and TV Agreement for 2025.

New UK independent film tax credit now officially available

From 1 April 2025, the new UK Independent Film Tax Credit which forms part of the AVEC became officially available – it has a net rate of 39.75% (overall equating to 29.25%) and it applies to films with budgets up to £15m and which began principal photography on or after 1 April 2024.

Equity issued open letter to the industry on AI training

In February, Equity published an open letter to the industry on AI training. This was a call to arms to industry stakeholders stressing the need for an urgent conversation to ensure that any exploitation of rights-protected content in the context of AI is carried out with recognition of performers’ property rights and applicable data protection laws.

The letter provides some background on the current issues (specifically that most AI models being used have been trained on vast quantities of (often rights-protected) materials, which have been scraped from online sources without consent from or compensation for creators and performers) before going on to summarise its interpretation of the legal position on performers’ rights under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act and data protection rights under the GDPR. Whilst the legal analysis produced by the union is open to debate in certain areas, Equity has flagged in its letter that it considers the current activities of AI companies to constitute a breach of existing IP rights. Where performers’ rights are breached, Equity has said it will robustly defend members, including via the courts if necessary. It is worth noting that the government is running a consultation on whether to update IP laws to allow for the commercial data mining of protected works by AI companies, which would circumvent some of the issues raised by Equity in this letter. The government’s request for the public to feed into its consultation has now closed and we are eagerly awaiting the outcome.

Pact is seeking feedback from its members before planning to respond to Equity.

BBC published protocol for generative AI content

In January, the BBC established a new editorial guidance policy for generative AI in its content creation. The guidelines emphasise three core principles: (i) acting in the best interests of the public; (ii) prioritising talent and creatives; and (iii) being open and transparent with audiences about the use of technology.

The BBC has emphasised that, subject to certain exceptions (such as where AI is the subject of the content and its use is illustrative), generative AI must not be used to directly generate news content or factual journalism, as a key aim is to build audience trust and to prevent dissemination of biased, false or misleading information.

The BBC has experimented with the technology through various pilots which has led
to AI being used to generate subtitles and live text pages, and for translation
purposes.

UK introduced ESTA-style VISA

The government has introduced a new Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) scheme, which is a security measure for visa-exempt travel similar to the US ESTA. This may be relevant for overseas individuals travelling to the UK for a production. The ETA is aimed at strengthening border security and streamlining entry procedures for visitors.

As of 8 January 2025, citizens of 49 countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia and Japan, must obtain an ETA before travelling to the UK. European Union nationals will need an ETA starting from 2 April 2025.

Travellers can apply for an ETA through the UK ETA app or online. The application requires personal details, travel information and a valid passport. The decisions are usually made within three working days.

The ETA costs £10 and is valid for multiple entries to the UK over a two-year period or until the relevant individual’s passport expires, whichever is sooner.

It should be noted that the ETA is not a visa and does not grant the right to enter the UK; it merely authorises travel to the UK. Upon arrival, travellers will still need to meet the entry requirements set by UK Border Force officers. For the most current information and to apply for an ETA, please refer to the government’s guidance here.

High Court dismissed TV formats copyright infringement claim

In a recent case in the UK, the High Court considered the extent to which TV formats can be protected by copyright. Comedian Joshua Rinkoff created a comedy show “Shambles” which involved a live comedy night, combining short clips of stand-up comedy with behind-the-scenes narrative in the form of a sitcom. Rinkoff claimed that the Baby Cow Productions’ series “Live at the Moth Club” copied this format.

In considering whether a format can be protected as a dramatic work, the judge cited the fact that there were at least two conditions which must be met. First, there must be a number of clearly identified features which, taken together, distinguish the show from others of a similar type. Secondly, those distinguishing features must be connected with each other in a coherent framework which can be repeatedly applied so as to enable the show to be reproduced in recognisable form.

The High Court dismissed the claim for copyright infringement finding that: (a) there was no copyright in the series; and (b) even if there were, there was no infringement. The case highlights the challenges of claiming copyright protection for a format, which to date, has not been found to subsist in a TV format in this jurisdiction. It is a reminder of one of the fundamental principles of copyright law in England and Wales, in that it protects the expression of an idea, but not the idea itself, and the importance of clearly defining and documenting unique elements to establish protectable works.

UK Film and TV production bounces back (for some)

Film and high-end TV production in the UK is officially bouncing back from its slowdown in 2023, felt during and immediately following the Hollywood writers’ and actors’ strikes. According to the British Film Institute, which compiles the official data, the total spend on film and TV production last year (based on the year in which principal photography started) reached £5.6 billion ($6.9 billion), which represents a 31% increase from 2023 when £4.23 billion ($5.37 billion) was spent.

Wicked was the highest-grossing release in the UK in 2024, with box office sales of £59.6 million. 65% of total UK production spend on film was accounted for by productions from the five major U.S. studios and the three major US streaming platforms (Netflix, Apple and Amazon), also representing a 49% increase in spend in 2024 versus 2023. A few of the films which were shot by these studios and streamers in the UK last year include The Running Man, Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery, How to Train Your Dragon, Project Hail Mary, and Jurassic World Rebirth.

But whilst the studio landscape is coming back strong, the picture is mixed for Indies. Pact released a major report into the state and future of the indies TV sector, outlining shrinking production company numbers, a loss of talent and threats to “niche” genres such as specialist factual – times are tough and much of the industry is still feeling it.

IN THE SPOTLIGHT

M&A: here to stay?

Written by partner Ed Lane.

M&A activity had, in the past 12 months or so, been confined to the bulge bracket – witness the mega merger between Skydance Media and Paramount and the sale by Warner Bros. Discovery and Liberty Global of All3Media to Redbird IMI. Deals at the lower end of the market have been harder to come by – until recently, that is. In the past few months, we’ve seen Mediawan take a majority stake in Slow Horses and indie See-Saw and ITV Studios pick up majority stakes in indies Eagle Eye and Moonage Pictures.

We have also seen a raft of so-called ‘start-up deals’, where investors back talent in a new venture, including BBC Studios’ backing of Samphire Films.

At a more macro level, further consolidation amongst the larger media players and streamers is expected as consumers tire of a deluge of content – Disney recently announced it was merging Hulu + Live TV with competitor Fubo TV. Heavyweights such as Comcast/NBCUniversal and Warner Bros. Discovery are expected to separate out and look for options in relation to their cable network division.

That being said, the macro-economic conditions – primarily interest rates – are not looking as auspicious as they were at the start of the year. Interest rates had been expected to come down reasonably quickly as the global economy got back to business after the Covid-19 pandemic and related supply shock, and prior to this, they had been on a steady downward trend. However, President Trump’s economic policies, in particular the imposition of wide-ranging tariffs, may halt that return to normality.

Employment rights: A once in a generation shift

The Employment Rights Bill, described by the government as “the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation”, has been making progress through parliament over the last few months. Senior associate Lucy Burrows delves into the latest round of amendments to the Bill and how they provided further insight into what lies ahead for the film and TV industry.

Read the full article here.

Changes to consumer laws and B2C engagement take effect

Posted on by Anna Weeden

The Digital Markets Competition and Consumer Act 2024 (DMCCA) came into force on 1 January 2025, and is now in effect, bringing with it significant changes to consumer law since the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Snapshot of the DMCCA

Outright ban of “unfair commercial practices”. The DMCCA overhauls existing consumer protections under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations and introduces several new provisions aimed at enhancing consumer rights and processes. This includes the outright banning of certain unfair commercial practices such as drip pricing and those in relation to fake or concealed incentivised consumer reviews.

Changes to subscription rules. The DMCCA also tightens the rules around B2C subscription contracts, adding new requirements for subscription services to comply with, however these changes are not expected to come into force until Spring 2026.

Strengthens the role of the CMA. The CMA will now be able to directly investigate suspected infringements and issue enforcement notices without the need for lengthy court proceedings. The DMCCA brings with it the ability for the CMA to impose penalties of up to 10% of global turnover. This is a significant shift from the previous regime which largely required court involvement for enforcement actions.

Phased implementation

The first set of changes relating to consumer law are now in effect, and the CMA has published guidance on unfair commercial practices that are banned by the DMCCA and subject to enforcement action. It is worth noting that many of these “unfair commercial practices” are not new in principle, but the main difference now is that the CMA has the ability to investigate and impose penalties for breaches of these rules. The CMA has also published guidance on how it will enforce the DMCCA. For the first 12 months, the CMA will target particularly harmful behaviours to consumers such as aggressive sales practices that prey on consumers in vulnerable positions, fees that are hidden until late in the buying process, information being given to consumers that is objectively false, unfair and unbalanced contract terms and fake reviews.

What can we expect next?

The CMA will likely start the first wave of its investigation and enforcement, focusing on the “most egregious” breaches of the DMCCA. The CMA has indicated that it will be consulting further on drip pricing this year, including in relation to fixed-term period contracts. We expect this further guidance in relation to drip pricing to be published this autumn. Look out for our further articles on the impacts of the DMCCA on influencer marketing, prize draws and competitions and subscription services.

New statutory right to neonatal care leave and pay: key takeaways

Posted on by Anna Weeden

The new statutory right to neonatal care leave came into effect on 6 April 2025. This allows parents to have additional time off to be with a baby who is receiving neonatal care.

Under the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023, eligible parents can take time off work to be with a baby who is receiving neonatal care. This new right introduces a leave and pay entitlement for qualifying working parents, with the aim of providing better support to those families and an element of income protection.

Neonatal care leave

Neonatal care leave is a day one right for employees; it does not apply to workers or self-employed contractors. It also only applies to parents of babies born on or after 6 April 2025.

Qualifying parents (including fathers, non-birthing, adoptive and surrogate parents) who have a baby admitted to neonatal care up to the age of 28 days may be eligible for neonatal care leave after their baby has been receiving care for seven days or more. 

The entitlement is to one week’s leave for each week a baby has neonatal care, up to a maximum of 12 weeks. Neonatal care leave must be taken as seven consecutive days, so parents have to take a minimum of one week.

Neonatal care leave is additional to other types of family leave, and each parent has their own leave entitlement. This means that fathers and non-birthing parents now have a specific right to leave, allowing them to spend more time with their baby receiving neonatal care. Where parents do not meet eligibility criteria, they may be able to rely on other forms of statutory leave, such as parental leave or time off for dependents.

Both neonatal leave and pay (see below) can be taken in two tiers; Tier 1 is while a baby is still receiving care plus a week after, and Tier 2 is within 68 weeks of the birth. Neonatal leave can therefore be accrued and taken at a later date. The notice an employee must give their employer depends on whether they are taking Tier 1 or Tier 2 leave.

The leave is not limited to the time when a baby is in a neonatal hospital unit. It can also apply to certain neonatal care after leaving hospital or to palliative/end of life care.

Neonatal care pay

Additionally, eligible parents may be entitled to up to 12 weeks of neonatal care pay if they have 26 weeks of continuous service with their employer and meet the minimum National Insurance earnings threshold (for April 2025-26, this is an average of £125 per week gross).

The current statutory rate for neonatal care pay is £187.18, although of course it is open to employers to offer an enhanced pay entitlement under their own workplace policies. 

Next steps

Employers should consider whether to introduce a specific policy on neonatal care leave and pay, or how their existing policies may need updating. They may also wish to consider communicating the new entitlement to managers or employees more generally.

For further information, advice on a specific situation or to update your own workplace policies, please contact our employment team.

The future of UK Employment law in the film and TV industry: 2025 and beyond

Posted on by Anna Weeden

The Employment Rights Bill, described by the government as “the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation”, has been making progress through Parliament over the last few months. The latest round of amendments to the Bill has provided further insight into what lies ahead.

A headline change is the day one right not to be unfairly dismissed. This is expected to be subject to an initial period of employment, when a lighter touch procedure for dismissal can be used. The details of the process and the period haven’t been confirmed, but nine months has been suggested. For companies who hire in crew and talent for specific productions or projects, this could mean significant change is needed in practices for recruitment and terminations.

The Bill outlines further updates to workplace harassment laws. Employers are already under a positive duty to take “reasonable steps” to prevent sexual harassment and must implement measures to assess and mitigate the risk of sexual harassment. The Bill strengthens the law to require employers to take “all reasonable steps” ( “all” being the key word) and introduces liability for third party harassment. Many production companies are already thinking ahead to this duty, with risk assessments that extend to third party harassment, but this will be one to revisit as the detail emerges. What is clear is that solely relying on the roll out of ED&I training is no longer enough.

Other changes of significance include: the introduction of day one rights in respect of statutory sick pay, paternity leave and parental leave; a right to bereavement leave; and enhanced maternity protections. Dismissals of employees who are pregnant, on maternity leave or during a six month return to work period, would be prohibited, other than in specific circumstances. New flexible working rights are also proposed, meaning that an employer can only refuse flexibility requests where it has a “reasonable” basis to do so. As expected, these changes move the law towards stronger rights and protections, and work life balance, for working people.

Far reaching changes are also expected in respect of restrictions on zero-hours contracts (including the right to request guaranteed hours and reasonable notice of work schedules) and the practice of ‘fire and rehire’. For some sectors these will mean huge upheaval; for those in film and TV it will depend on their current use of such practices. The Bill also bolsters collective rights, including introducing changes to the trade union recognition framework and the ability of unions to take industrial action, developments which could be very significant for the media industry.

And what of the anticipated single status of worker? The government originally proposed to remove the (often confusing) distinction between ‘employees’ and ‘workers’, which would mean that if someone was not a genuinely self-employed freelancer, they must be an employee. Again, this would be particularly relevant to production companies, who may be in the practice of engaging crew as workers. For now, this change does not appear in the Bill, but further consultation is expected in 2025.

So, what next? Most legal changes won’t come into force until 2026, but it’s never too early to start preparing and thinking especially about recruitment and dismissal processes, and how this might need to change in your organisation. In the meantime, we’ll watch this space as the Bill moves through Parliament and the devil in the detail comes into sharper focus, with further updates to come.