If your business enters into contracts with public sector entities for the provision of IT or related services, you will be familiar with the public sector tender and procurement processes. But are you familiar with what can be done to challenge the outcome of those processes?
Whether it is an issue with the application of the scoring criteria, or how the process has been conducted, your business may have the ability to challenge contract awards.
However, in order to do so effectively, your business will need to move quickly and ensure that it deploys the various legal tools available to it strategically.
What is the relevant legislation?
In 2025, the Procurement Act 2023 (the Act) came into force. This represented the most significant development to UK public procurement laws for over 30 years, replacing the well-established EU-founded regime under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (the PCR).
How long do you have to bring a claim?
The period during which a legal claim can be brought under the Act is very short and remains largely unchanged from the PCR. In summary:
If you are a supplier seeking to challenge an award, the period to bring a claim is just 30 days from when they knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of the circumstances giving rise to the claim. However, this may be extended for up to three months where the court considers there is a good reason to do so.
If you are supplier seeking to set aside a contract that has been entered into, the period to bring a claim is 30 days from the date it knew or ought to have known of the circumstances giving rise to a claim with a long stop date of 6 months from the date the contract was entered into.
However, the parties can enter into a standstill agreement which, in effect, extends the limitation period, allowing the parties an opportunity to resolve the dispute.
Can you prevent the authority from entering into a contract with another supplier whilst you challenge the decision?
Under the previous regime, contracting authorities were required to observe a 10-day waiting period following the issue of a ‘standstill letter’ to all tendering suppliers before entering into a contract with the preferred supplier. Claims issued prior to contract execution would trigger an automatic suspension of the procurement process.
The Act reduces the standstill period from 10 to eight working days, with the period now triggered by the contract award notice instead of the issue of a standstill letter. Claimants are no longer entitled to the benefit of automatic suspension up until the date of contract execution. This is a significant shift from the previous position and impacts upon strategic considerations.
What information do you have about the decision-making process?
There are various ways you can find out more about the decision-making process. One of them is that contracting authorities must publish a Contract Award Notice on a central digital platform, and an assessment summary to each supplier that submitted an assessed tender.
The assessment summary must include: (a) the scores awarded for each criterion; (b) an explanation of those scores; and (c) in respect of unsuccessful suppliers, the reasons why the contract was not awarded to them, together with the corresponding information at (a) and (b) for the successful tender.
The enhanced disclosure requirements are a positive development for suppliers looking for substantive grounds on which to base a potential challenge.
What remedies can you obtain when challenging an award?
In many cases, compromise solutions are reached with the relevant authority without a claim needing to be issued. However, if you do pursue a claim, the remedies available remain mostly unchanged from the previous regime. There are two main categories:
Pre-contractual remedies:
Where a contract has been awarded but not yet executed, a successful challenge may result in the court granting one of the following orders:
an order setting aside the relevant decision or action (including the decision to award the contract);
an order requiring the contracting authority to take specified action (such as reconsidering a decision previously made);
an order for damages (which may be granted in addition to any other order, and has historically encompassed lost profits arising from the breach and/or wasted bid costs); or
such other order as the court considers appropriate.
Post-contractual remedies:
Where the awarded contract has been executed, the available remedies are limited to damages and/or an order setting aside the contract (subject to certain conditions in the Act).
What does this mean for suppliers?
If you are concerned about a procurement decision, then given the short timeframes for challenge, it is critical to seek legal advice at the earliest possible opportunity to allow your advisors time to evaluate the claim and devise and deploy the optimum strategy.
The Act’s emphasis on transparency, creating a level playing field and the introduction of new obligations on contracting authorities, expands the scope for potential challenges.
You will however need to navigate the reduced standstill period, which now runs for 8 working days from the contract award notice, and the fact that automatic suspension is no longer available until the date of contract execution.
If you would like to find out more about how to make procurement challenges, contact Lizzie Williams and Jacky Lai.
Charlene’s podcast is aimed at successful professionals wanting to achieve their career goals without the stress. As a former lawyer turned executive coach, Charlène aims to guide individuals to a balanced career without sacrificing success.
In this episode, Howard shares his insights on workplace stress from navigating stress claims and discrimination to addressing burnout and fostering healthier workplace cultures. Howard, who is a leading expert on stress at work compensation claims and mental health in the workplace, provides his perspective which lies at the intersection of employment law and wellbeing.
With traditional commissions remaining hard to come by, producers are increasingly seeking branded content as an alternative ‘holy grail’ to getting their shows funded. But what exactly is it? And how does having a brand onboard interplay with broadcasters’ duties to the public?
ISN’T IT JUST THE SAME AS SPONSORSHIP?
Advertiser Funded Programming (AFP), means programmes created with the input of a brand – often financial but it can also be creative too. Branded content on the other hand, usually means programmes created by producers for a brand where the brand effectively acts as commissioner. Increasingly, the term “branded content” is used colloquially in the TV industry to mean either.
Crucially, AFP for traditional TV is where the brand buys into the existing editorial integrity of the programme and is looking to reach consumers by aligning with the programme’s existing values. As Jon Willers of The Development Network puts it, “branded content for Channel 4 must feel like something they would commission anyway”. In other words, the branding is complementary, or supplementary, to the story being told. Of course, there is branded content which starts with the brand and works backwards, but again, the final product isn’t intended to look and feel like an advert.
The key difference between AFP and sponsorship is that usually with AFP, there is a deeper relationship with the programme makers (the producer and broadcaster) and the programme itself. The Branded Content Marketing Association describes it as “any means by which an advertiser can have a deeper relationship with programming product beyond traditional media activity”. This definition requires a funding relationship with the programme or series that goes beyond sponsorship because the funding goes directly into production. Effectively, it is programming that wouldn’t exist without the brand partner. Sponsors, on the other hand, rely on the right programme being available, and only then are they able to secure sponsorship on it.
WHO OWNS THE IP?
Typically, in AFP, brands do not take a share of the intellectual property rights in the programme as they perceive the value of the partnership to lie in the exposure and reach it provides for their brand. This is good news for producers as it leaves them free to exploit the format and the like, subject to any terms agreed with the broadcaster. However, this position may be changing, at least in the digital space, as brands get savvier to the potential upside in owning a share of the IP-pie. Some might even be interested in a share of net revenues from producers’ exploitation of the programme on the secondary market after the initial broadcast. With negotiations wide open, it’s all to play for. For public service broadcaster (PSB) deals, though, under the Terms of Trade, the producer must remain the owner of the IP in the shows (which means that certain brands who are entering the AFP space for the first time may need to have their expectations managed).
HOW DOES BRANDED CONTENT WORK FOR THE PSBS WITHIN THE OFCOM RULES?
The BBC has historically shied away from any type of brand involvement in its shows, primarily due to restrictions on its funding and operational framework. The BBC is funded by the licence fee, which is public money provided by Parliament. It is prohibited from using these funds for services that are wholly or partly financed through advertisements, sponsorship, or other alternative funding methods, unless prior written approval is granted by the Secretary of State. This restriction ensures that the BBC remains independent and free from commercial influence, maintaining its public service remit. That being said, commercial arms of the BBC do engage in brand-funded content, like BBC StoryWorks which commissions branded content for the non-UK market.
The other PSBs however, have previously engaged in a fair level of AFPs, but the last few years has seen a huge rise as the climate for fully funding their shows remains challenging. A good example is Cooking With the Stars in partnership with Marks & Spencer; DNA Journey with Ancestry; and John and Lisa Down-Under with Trailfinders.
However, the PSBs fall under the jurisdiction of Ofcom, meaning any branded-funded content they show needs to comply with the Ofcom Broadcasting Code (the Ofcom Code).
PRODUCT PLACEMENT UNDER THE OFCOM CODE
Product placement involves the inclusion of a product, service or trade mark within a programme in return for payment or other consideration.
Product placement is permitted in certain types of programmes, such as films, TV series’, entertainment shows, and sports programmes, provided it complies with the rules set out in Section 9 of the Ofcom Code. These rules require that product placement does not compromise editorial independence, is not unduly promotional and is clearly signalled to viewers through a universal product placement logo displayed at the start, end and after advertising breaks in the programme. This means that whilst certain brands may want to have control over how their products are featured in content, the extent to which they can do so is limited under the Ofcom Code meaning their expectations need to be managed accordingly.
SPONSORSHIP UNDER THE OFCOM CODE
Under the Ofcom Code, the sponsor may not influence the editorial content of the programme. The sponsorship must be clearly identified and there must be a clear distinction between editorial content and advertising to maintain transparency and consumer protection. Whilst we said above that AFP and sponsorship are not the same, the sponsorship rules in the Ofcom Code may well still apply to brand-funded content.
SO, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
In short, setting aside the BBC (which is subject to additional restrictions) branded content for the PSBs is permitted provided producers successfully navigate and adhere to the standards and transparency requirements of the Ofcom Code.
WHAT ABOUT STREAMING PLATFORMS?
For the PSBs’ digital offerings, like Channel 4, BBC iPlayer and ITVX, the regulatory landscape is currently different than for their PSB main channel counterparts, as the Ofcom Code itself does not apply. The same is true for streamers like Netflix and Amazon Prime. Instead, VOD services are currently regulated by the ODPS (On-Demand Programme Services) Rules which impose alternative broadcast standards. Whilst the ODPS Rules on sponsorship and product placement are broadly similar to the Ofcom Code, they are slightly lighter with regards to how VOD services are allowed to implement them. For example, under the Ofcom Code, product placement must be editorially justified and signalled with a ‘PP’ logo. That being said, the ODPS Rules for signalling requirements must only ensure that viewers are adequately informed about product placement – there is no strict format requirement. This means an ODPS would be able to use its end credits to disclose a promotional consideration.
The Media Act 2024, now in force, gave Ofcom the power to create a new Ofcom code which will apply to Tier 1 Video On-Demand (VOD) services (the VOD Code), This would cover the PSBs’ VOD offerings as well as independent streaming services like Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney+ etc. Will this tighten up the rules on branded content in the online space? Based on current thinking, the new Ofcom code will not focus on these areas meaning ODPS will continue to be governed by the existing ODPS Rules.
HOW ABOUT YOUTUBE, INSTAGRAM AND TIKTOK?
YouTube is the home of long-form branded content; Instagram and TikTok are the home of short-form branded content and clips. Brands and producers make use of all of them as part of a cohesive, multi-platform branded strategy.
Crucially, none of the above Ofcom or ODPS Rules currently apply to YouTube, TikTok or Instagram. A recent Government announcement has confirmed that video-sharing platforms like YouTube, will not in and of themselves be designated as Tier 1 VOD (though some individual channels on YouTube with a high number of subscribers, like the PSB’s own YouTube channels, may be caught).
Instead, branded content on these types of platforms is subject to the CAP Code. This is a separate set of rules governed by the Advertising Standards Authority which states that, where a brand has editorial control, there must be clear labelling to allow viewers to easily recognise the content as an advert, and messages should not be conveyed surreptitiously. On social media sites, influencers must use clear labels like “#ad” to ensure transparency where they are posting a brand-funded video.
WHAT NEXT FOR BRANDED CONTENT?
Branded Content shows no sign of waning. Whilst the regulatory landscape continues to evolve, producers, broadcasters and brands remain set on navigating the rules and reaping the benefits that collaboration between traditional TV indies and brands can bring.
We are experts in advising on both sides of the fence as well as advising on deals with broadcasters where there is brand involvement. Our advice ranges from deal-making and structuring, contract drafting, negotiation and advice on the regulatory regime. If you are a TV production company, agency or a brand working on a branded content or AFP project, please get in touch.
The Government has published its much-anticipated Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, which follows a consultation that ran from 17 December 2024 to 25 February 2025.
The consultation received 11,520 responses from a broad range of stakeholders, including creators, rights holders, and AI developers, with widely different sentiments on how the future of copyright law should be shaped to accommodate AI.
The report is not a statement on the Government’s plans to reform the law but instead signals that it will continue to consider the questions raised by AI for stakeholders in the UK, including those in the creative industries. The conclusion of the report is that there is little the Government can do without further investigation: it identifies limited consensus amongst stakeholders and notes that the international and technological pictures are sufficiently fast moving that legislating at this stage would be premature. This is similar to the conclusion that the Government reached after its prior consultation on AI (launched in 2022).
Although the report is inconclusive on what the future will look like, the fact that the Government has no plans to pursue a broad-brush text and data mining exception (TDM) in the near future is a win for IP rights holders and the creative industries more broadly. The detailed analysis provided by the Government also gives some insight on the direction of travel and will assist in any action that those impacted by AI may want to take to shape the future of copyright law in the UK:
The Government believes that rights holders should be “fairly remunerated” for the value added to the AI supply chain but, for now, there will be no new copyright exception for AI training:
The Government has ditched its previous preferred approach of a broad TDM exception with an opt-out mechanism. This is following strong opposition from the creative sector. The Government plans to gather further evidence and monitor developments before deciding whether and how to act. Rather than legislative intervention, the Government’s immediate focus is on developing best practice around transparency of training inputs, which it sees as a prerequisite for both rights enforcement and a functioning licensing market. The Government aims to test commercial models for licensing as part of the “Creative Content Exchange” announced last year, and plans to launch its operational pilot platform by Summer 2026.
The report also offers a summary of the alternatives to a broad TDM exception, which were put forward by industry respondents to the consultation. These include a “focused exception” to copyright that would support commercial science and research (an extension of the existing non-commercial research exception), or a public interest exception that would permit AI tools to ingest copyright content for the purposes of detecting harm. The Government is clear that any exception would only apply to material that had been lawfully accessed (i.e., not pirated) and suggested that – if such an exception were to be brought into law – it might include a statutory remuneration model for rightsholders.
Computer-generated works protection likely to be scrapped:
The Government states that its preferred approach would be to remove copyright protection for wholly computer-generated works with no human author, while retaining protection for AI-assisted works where a human has contributed creatively. It says that this is consistent with the principle that copyright “should incentivise and protect human creativity”. This reflects the fact that the majority of respondents were in favour of scrapping the provisions.
The Government is to consider merits of introducing a “personality right” to combat digital replicas:
The report identifies digital replicas (i.e., AI-generated imitations of a person’s voice or likeness) as an area where existing copyright and performers’ rights provisions are inadequate. The Government intends to “explore options” to combat the risks of impersonation for both artists and the general public, including whether creating a new “personality right” may be the most appropriate step. In the meantime, the report acknowledges that more well-known artists may be able to protect their voice or likeness via the tort of passing off or via registered trade marks, but for lesser-known artists and the general public, this will be insufficient.
On Saturday Formula 1 (F1) announced the decision to cancel the Bahrain and Saudi Arabia Grands Prix due to the conflict in the Middle East.
While the human cost of the conflict is immeasurable and far outweighs any sporting consideration, the cancellation of multiple races will nonetheless have significant consequences for F1.
The sport is reported to face losses in excess of £100m as a result of the cancelled races – a figure that is likely to be substantially higher once sponsor compensation and other stakeholder claims are factored in, given the loss of value arising from a shortened season.
Depending on how the war unfolds, cancellations to further races could follow – in particular rounds 23 and 24, in Qatar and Abu Dhabi, could be at risk.
Mass race cancellations are not unprecedented, with the Covid pandemic resulting in races being cancelled or held behind closed doors. The prospect of a reduced racing calendar has therefore been front of mind for stakeholders negotiating contracts with rightsholders including F1 and the teams in recent years.
This has led to sophisticated stakeholders – in particular drivers, sponsors and broadcasters – digging into the force majeure provisions in their contracts with rightsholders, which can relieve a party of its obligations if they are unable to perform due to circumstances outside of its control. Sponsors and broadcasters will often try to negotiate these clauses to ensure they are entitled to a pro-rata refund of the fee for the affected Season if races are cancelled, while drivers will be keen to ensure their fee is unaffected by circumstances outside of their control.
Rightsholders will be reluctant to make these changes, given the loss of income, and there will be many cases where unequal bargaining power, or a willingness to get the deal done will leave parties who signed up to rightsholders’ standard terms without legal recourse.
While many cases will be resolved on a commercial level, with substitute rights granted at other races to maintain partnerships and key relationships in a sport that is notoriously a “small world”, the soaring commercial success of F1 and the ever increasing values of commercial deals means it would be unsurprising if the 2026 Season is marred by high-profile litigation.
Brands negotiating new sponsorship agreements with sports rights holders (including F1 teams), or renewing existing arrangements for the 2027 Season onwards, will now be minded to dig into force majeure provisions to ensure there is a satisfactory mechanism – which may include substitute rights or expert determination of the value of the lost rights – to ensure their interests are protected if races are cancelled.
In 2026, buzzwords like digital-first, micro-dramas, the creator economy and vodcasts will face their moment of truth; Paramount’s Warner Bros. Discovery deal could reshape UK PSBs – will Sky and ITV tie the knot, and what about a BBC-Channel 4 merger? AI’s influence will grow with the anticipation of the first fully AI-generated feature film and increased use of generative tools by UK broadcasters.
The year is off to a flying start and the first 2026 edition of our UK film and TV newsletter covers how shifting viewing habits will see ad-supported streaming rise, cinema admissions decline and more YouTube experimentation, and discuss how studios will adapt by testing vertical drama formats while broadcasters strengthen partnerships with global streamers.
HARBOTTLE HIGHLIGHTS
Harbottle & Lewis and Animation UK Partnership
We are excited to announce our brand-new partnership with UK Screen Alliance /Animation UK as their exclusive legal sponsor for 2026.
Since its inception, UK Screen Alliance, in partnership with Animation UK, has championed the strengths of the sector, playing a pivotal role in securing the introduction of the UK’s Film and High-End TV tax relief in 2013. More recently, the UK Screen Alliance and Animation UK persuaded the UK government to introduce an uplift in respect of Animation and VFX in the Audio-Visual Expenditure Credit.
Keep an eye on our LinkedIn to learn more about how we’ll be working with UK Screen Alliance /Animation UK over the next 12 months. And if you’re a member, you may be seeing more of us in the near future!
GROWTHLAB AND INDIELAB INNOVATION AWARDS 2025
2025 marked Indielab’s 10th anniversary, and as part of our ongoing partnership, we joined their Growthlab conference in November for the launch of their first Innovation Awards. Edward Lane, Clare McGarry, Katerina Capras, and Caitlin McGivern all attended and Ed had the honour of presenting the award for ‘Outstanding Indie of the Year’ to CPL Productions, the creative force behind MAFS UK, Love is Blind, 90 Day Fiancé, and A League of Their Own, among others. It was a fantastic day and evening celebrating some of the most exciting innovation and creativity across UK television and digital-first content.
CONTENT LONDON
Our annual industry “Harbottle Happy Hour” returned this year and was held at the German Gymnasium in King’s Cross. This was a great opportunity to catch up with friends, clients and contacts during one of the busiest weeks in the industry calendar.
WOMEN IN FILM AND TV AWARDS 2025
Back in December, Sarah Lazarides, Abigail Payne, Catherine Flood, and Caitlin McGivern attended the Women in Film and TV Awards, joined by key contacts and clients at our annual table. The awards celebrate the outstanding female talent across the film and television industry, and it was a pleasure to be part of such an inspiring event.
INDIELAB CONTENT FUTURES ACCELERATOR 2026
We are continuing our long-standing partnership with Indielab into 2027 as the exclusive legal sponsor of their Content Futures 2026 Accelerator.
This year, the newly rebranded Content Futures programme will focus on technology, branded entertainment, digital platforms and the global TV market, supporting participants in reaching their goals in distribution, funding, and investment.
INDUSTRY UPDATES
PACT/EQUITY UPDATE
UK film and TV performers vote overwhelmingly for AI protections
Equity’s indicative ballot in December saw 99.6% of participating performers vote to refuse digital scanning on set without stronger AI protections. Although not legally binding, the result prompted Equity to push Pact for improved proposals focused on explicit consent, transparency and fair compensation, building on standards set by SAG AFTRA. Pact has now issued a revised counterproposal that strengthens provisions around synthetic performers and maintains that existing protections, combined with UK GDPR, already offer comprehensive safeguards. Pact has also rejected claims that producers are selling biometric data to third parties, noting no evidence has been found, but has agreed to review GenAI market practices on a regular basis.
New Pact Equity TV Agreement rates card
As of 1 January 2026, the new rates card under the TVA is now in effect. Pact and Equity have also agreed to extend the current rates under the CFA until 5 April 2026.
EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT 2025
After the twists and turns of its parliamentary journey in 2025, the long-awaited Employment Rights Act 2025 is now law. Read our note to see what this means for employers in the film, TV and entertainment sectors: ERA 2025: the new Act and the entertainment industry.
NEW DIRECTORS UK BLANKET AGREEMENT
The updated agreement, effective from 1 July 2025, keeps commercial fees for PSB and Sky commissions at current levels and introduces a 3% net revenue share from year eight on profitable, fully recouped programmes.
Producers do not need to include this in individual contracts, as it applies automatically unless a separate deal is less favourable. The agreement covers all new and returning commissions after the effective date and will be reviewed in 2028.
RIGHT TO WORK CRACKDOWN
Proposed Home Office reforms could see companies face fines of up to £60k per casual worker if they fail to carry out right to work checks on freelancers, extending existing obligations beyond standard employment contracts and hitting sectors reliant on short term labour such as film and TV. Experts warn that gaps in verification processes could create significant financial and reputational risk, and the clear message for employers is that right to work checks must be completed for every individual engaged, regardless of contract type or duration.
OFCOM STATEMENTS
In November 2025, Ofcom released two significant publications relating to the implementation of the Media Act 2024, which is expected to result in substantial changes in the media landscape by 2027. Ofcom’s report focuses on how streaming services that are available in the UK protect their audiences and further identifies areas for improvement.
Disney Partners with OpenAI’s generative platform to license iconic characters
Disney is making more than 200 characters, along with costumes, props and vehicles from Marvel, Pixar, Star Wars and classic animations available on OpenAI’s Sora platform, allowing fans to create AI generated videos and images. Disney also plans to use OpenAI technology internally to support new products and enhance Disney Plus, with both companies stressing responsible AI use and a commitment to protecting creators’ rights while expanding storytelling and audience engagement. This is BIG news, especially given Disney’s historic reputation of being super protective over its IP.
No changes to the UK’s AI legislative framework
The UK has made no major changes to its AI framework following its government consultation, confirming it will retain a flexible, non-binding, sector based approach rather than introduce formal legislation (for now…). Although the consultation highlighted gaps and the need for more support, the government has kept its non-statutory model and committed funding to strengthen regulators instead of creating binding obligations. With other regions introducing comprehensive AI laws, the UK’s slower approach risks ongoing uncertainty for the creative sector seeking clearer rules on responsible AI use.
Getty v Stability AI: UK Appeal set to shape copyright & AI in 2026
Getty Images has been given permission to appeal its case against Stability AI. Getty’s original claims centred on the alleged use of millions of its images to train Stable Diffusion, but the primary infringement claim was dropped after the court accepted that training took place outside the UK.
After the primary claim fell away, Getty instead argued that making the model available for download in the UK amounted to importing an infringing copy, which the court rejected on the basis that Stable Diffusion does not contain copy’s of Getty’s works. The court recognised the issue as both novel and important and allowed an appeal on the meaning of an infringing copy, leaving open future arguments about AI training and primary infringement.
The Court of Appeal’s decision will be key in determining the reach of English copyright law reaches into global AI development.
IT’S ALL ABOUT COLLABORATIONS
BBC announces new strategic partnership with YouTube
The BBC is expanding its YouTube presence with new digital first programming, including targeted channels for children and young adults such as Deepwatch and channels featuring content from Operation Ouch, Horrible Histories, Horrible Science and Deadly 60. The partnership aims to boost the visibility of major BBC brands and deliver trusted news through global channels, live story streams and new storytelling formats to reach younger audiences who do not consume traditional BBC content. It also includes a UK wide creator development programme, with around 150 media professionals receiving YouTube training through workshops and events led by the National Film and Television School.
Netflix and Spotify’s video podcast partnership: a strategic move
Netflix has partnered with Spotify to bring a slate of established video podcasts to the SVOD platform, supporting its strategy to expand engagement through more diverse and timely formats. The selected shows sit within genres where Netflix already has a strong presence or ambitions to grow, including sport and true crime, and are intended to complement its mix of appointment viewing and more casual background content. The move is aimed at positioning the service more competitively against platforms like YouTube in the live and interactive space. While some questions remain about how this fits with Netflix’s premium brand, the partnership offers creators new distribution opportunities and opens the door for further live or timely formats.
Netflix and Sony expand exclusive movie pact
Sony and Netflix have expanded their Pay 1 deal into what they describe as an industry first worldwide arrangement that will roll out as Sony’s individual territory licences expire, giving Netflix exclusive first post theatrical rights to Sony films. The deal builds on their existing agreements in the US, Germany and Southeast Asia and is expected to reach full global availability by early 2029.
Titles covered include Sam Mendes’ four-part Beatles project due in 2028, Spider Man: Beyond The Spider Verse, the live action Legend of Zelda adaptation, Sony Pictures Animation’s Buds and The Nightingale, with Netflix also licensing select Sony feature film and television library titles.
The last few days has brought big news on two of the most exciting “will they, won’t they” storylines we’ve had since Ross and Rachel. Paramount pipped Netflix to the post on Warner Bros Discovery and – hot off the press – Banijay Entertainment and All3Media have finally confirmed their merger of equals. Yes, please welcome to the stage (deep breath) Paramount Skydance Warner Bros Discovery and Banijay Entertainment All3Media. I am sure that someone is, as we speak, working on some better names.
Yes, big deals are back!
Paramount is forking out $111bn for Warners and the combined Banijay/All3 will be the largest production group outside of the US. We’ve also in recent months had French studio Mediawan’s acquisition of Peter Chernin’s The North Road Company and Sky and ITV in talks to do a $2.2bn tie-up.
After years of lacklustre M&A activity, what’s going on? Well, in this modern era, scale is survival. These are defensive moves. The move to streaming as the dominant business model has made access to huge amounts of content paramount. Audiences have never had more choice, and streamers have responded by competing for the best, most enduring IP. Scale also gives you pricing power and better terms.
The broader macroeconomic environment is still uncertain, inflation remains stubbornly high and interest rates are not coming down as quickly as expected. Uncertainty is the new paradigm. This should mean less M&A. The fact that we are seeing these big deals means all is not well. The Attention Wars aren’t going great for traditional media: competition from YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, purveyor of parasocial relationships OnlyFans and prediction markets has meant those selling more traditional content are fighting over an ever-shrinking pool of attention. People are spending less time watching long form content and subscriber growth has slowed.
These megadeals are really about securing a bigger slice of a smaller pie.
The question now for Paramount is whether it can get past the various regulatory hurdles and close the deal – this is only the beginning of a long process, in the course of which AI may have transformed (even more) the world of content. Meanwhile, Netflix’s share price has skyrocketed, telling us all we needed to know about the market’s view of the deal (at one point its share price has dropped by more than the $82bn it had bid for Warners). Netflix also receives a $2.8bn break fee for its troubles; not bad for a few months’ work.
At the smaller end of the market, we are seeing good levels of activity and hope to be able to talk about a number of cool things we’ve been working on soon. The main driver of the deals we’re doing is more positive: larger businesses acquiring indie expertise and experience in areas they want to expand into – it’s all about backing talent and giving them the resources to meet their full potential.
Until next time!
IP, THEREFORE I AM?
Increasingly, AI is being used to generate digital replicas, also known as “deepfakes”, of reallife individuals. This is often for commercial use, including on social media, to promote products and services. This is of particular concern for actors and celebrities, whose images and likenesses are widely available and accessible online, meaning that there is an abundance of source material for AI systems to draw from.
Intellectual property managing associate, Daniel Prim, shares his insight on how this development might unfold in the UK and its impact on the creative industry on our website.
On 12 March 2026, the UK’s data protection regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office (soon to be Information Commission) (ICO) has published an open letter to social media and video-sharing platforms operating in the UK calling on them to urgently strengthen their age assurance measures.
This comes as part of the ICO’s ongoing efforts to ensure that children under the age of 13 are not accessing services that are not designed for them. The ICO has also begun engaging directly with high-risk platforms, including TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, and X (formerly Twitter), to assess their current age assurance practices. These companies have been asked to demonstrate their compliance with the ICO’s expectations within the next two months.
The issue
The digital age of consent under UK data protection laws is 13 years old and if you process the personal data of a child under the age of 13, parental consent is required. The ICO’s call to action is part of its Children’s Code strategy, which aims to ensure platforms prioritise the safety and privacy of children. In an open letter addressed to these platforms, the ICO highlighted that its Children’s Code strategy work identified the inadequacy of current practices, such as relying on self-declaration to verify users’ ages. This method is easily bypassed and exposes under 13s to risks, including the unlawful collection and use of their personal data without appropriate safeguards.
Background
The ICO’s Children’s Code is a statutory code which is taken into account when the ICO consider if an online service has complied with its data protection obligations under UK data protection laws and can also be used in evidence in court proceedings, and the courts must take its provisions into account wherever relevant. Generally, if you don’t conform to the standards in this code, you are likely to find it more difficult to demonstrate that your processing is fair and complies with UK data protection laws.
The Children’s Code applies to relevant information society services (ISS) which are likely to be accessed by children. An ISS is any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by electronic means and at the individual’s request as a recipient of services. Age verification and parental consent should be compatible with the approach to age-appropriate application under this code. If you verify age and parental authority, then you need to do so in a privacy-friendly way.
What does the ICO expect?
The ICO emphasises that modern, privacy-conscious age assurance technologies are now widely available and therefore, should be implemented without delay. Examples of such technologies include facial age estimation, digital identification, and one-time photo matching. These tools provide a more accurate and secure way to verify user ages while complying with UK data protection laws.
Most platforms in the UK already set a minimum age of 13 for users, but the ICO points out that failing to enforce this minimum age breaches UK data protection laws. Where social media and video sharing platforms allow under 13s to access their services, they generally have no legal basis for processing the personal data of these children under UK data protection laws without parental consent.
The ICO expects social media and video-sharing platforms to adopt robust age assurance measures to uphold their own terms of service and protect children. If your service is not suitable for children under a minimum age set out in your terms of service, the IC state you should therefore prevent access to children under your minimum age by implementing an effective age gate. Such measures must comply with data protection principles, including being lawful, fair, proportionate, and secure, while also collecting the minimum necessary personal data.
Regulatory action
The ICO has made it clear that it will monitor industry practices and is prepared to take further regulatory action if necessary, such as reprimands and fines of up to £17.5m or 4% of annual turnover for the previous year whichever the greater. Recent enforcement actions, such as fines issued to Reddit (£14.47 million) and MediaLab (owners of Imgur) (£247,590), underscore the ICO’s commitment to holding platforms accountable for failing to protect children’s personal data and allowing access to services which are not meant for them.
The ICO’s efforts to improve online safety are supported by its strategic collaboration with His Majesty’s Government (HMG) under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The MoU, led by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Cabinet Office, formalises the ICO’s partnership with the government to protect personal data while enabling responsible innovation. The ICO has also highlighted the importance of robust age assurance standards through initiatives like the Age Check Certification Scheme (ACCS). This scheme tests and certifies age verification technologies such as biometric verification and age estimation software to ensure compliance with data protection and privacy standards.
What next?
The ICO recognises that protecting children online requires coordinated efforts across the regulatory landscape. It is working closely with Ofcom, which enforces the Online Safety Act, to address these challenges. A joint statement from the two regulators, outlining their coordinated approach to online safety and data protection, is expected in March 2026.
HMG is also consulting on children’s use of digital technology, including setting a minimum social media age, restricting risky features like autoplay, raising the digital age of consent, improving age verification, making mobile phone guidance in schools statutory, and offering clearer parental controls and guidance. This consultation closes on 26 May 2026.
The ICO is also concerned about how platforms process children’s data to generate recommendations, particularly when it leads to harmful or addictive content. Investigations into TikTok and Meta regarding their recommender systems are ongoing, demonstrating the ICO’s focus on ensuring that children’s personal data is used responsibly.
While this open letter currently only applies to social media and video-sharing platforms, it is anticipated that such robust age assurance measures will be expected from other platforms and services likely to be accessed by children but not meant for them. For example, online marketplaces, dating apps, diet and health technologies, ticketing platforms for age-restricted events and more. These platforms, though not designed for younger users but may attract them, soon may be required to take proactive robust steps to prevent underage access by implementing effective safeguards rather than just self-declaration.
If you would like more information, please feel free to reach out to one of our dedicated data protection and interactive entertainment lawyers, or if you would like keep up to date on the latest in data protection, please subscribe to our quarterly newsletter, The Data Download.
In a well-documented High Court case, McLaren has been awarded millions of dollars in damages after driver Alex Palou reneged on an agreement to drive for the Arrow McLaren IndyCar Team, and to provide reserve and test driving services to the McLaren Formula 1 team.
This case provides interesting lessons for teams, athletes, agents and brands relating to agreements between teams and their elite athletes, and commercial agreements with brands and suppliers.
In particular, this case shines a light on the following issues.
Agreements with athletes
SIGNING ON FEES
Any element of an athlete’s fee that is payable in consideration of their signature is likely to be unrecoverable by their team, as was the case in McLaren v Palou, in which the Court ruled that the signing on fee was a literal reward for Palou’s agreement to sign the contract. From the team’s perspective, it would typically be considered reasonable to ensure all fees are expressed as subject to performance by the athlete, payable in instalments, and refundable if the Driver defaults.
TERMINATION RIGHTS
If an athlete is entering into a contract in order to achieve a specific outcome, whether that be securing a Formula 1 seat or a regular starting position in a football’s team’s lineup, they should be advised not to rely on promises and non-contractual representations, but instead to consider ways to hold the team accountable contractually. For example, termination rights linked to the team’s failure to support an aspiring Formula 1 driver in his journey by offering him a certain number of rookie test sessions, or including a footballer in a certain number of starting lineups during each season, can help the athlete to exit a relationship that is not working, and avoid protracted, expensive legal proceedings such as McLaren v Palou. That being said, this case has demonstrated that contracts can, and regularly are, broken in sport. If a relationship is not founded on mutual trust, making the wrong long-term commitments can be career defining.
LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION
In McLaren v Palou, McLaren claimed it had suffered substantial losses relating to its Formula 1 and IndyCar teams and their commercial agreements with third parties. These alleged damages far surpassed the fees payable to Palou under the driver agreement. Careful drafting can help athletes to avoid liability for losses that do not directly result from the athlete’s breach. As a minimum, if the team’s bargaining power is such that the athlete is on the hook for losses associated with the team’s agreements with third parties, the athlete should resist providing indemnities in this regard and should require the team to agree to an express obligation to take steps to mitigate its losses. In circumstances where an athlete is being courted by another team, the athlete should take a leaf out of Palou’s book, requesting an indemnity to shield the athlete from incurring these sorts of losses.
Commercial agreements with brands or key suppliers
KEY INDIVIDUALS
In cases where major commercial agreements are contingent upon the presence of key individuals in the team, suppliers, brands and teams should weigh up the benefits of making this contractual. From the supplier or brand’s perspective, this would provide them with clear recourse – and ideally the ability to exit – should the key individual leave the team.
From the team’s perspective, in the event of the athlete’s breach of contract leading to the sponsor or supplier terminating the agreement, the team will have a more straightforward claim against the athlete given the causal relationship between athlete’s breach and team’s loss. Better still, if the team is concerned about the athlete honouring the contract, an indemnity could be sought to cover anticipated losses. That being said, the benefits of naming key individuals in commercial agreements should be assessed on a case-by-case basis taking specialist legal advice, particularly as the risk of losing the athlete in a non-breach scenario could leave the team exposed.
PERFORMANCE BONUSES
A brand will often try to include a performance-related element in sponsorship deals. This might be tied to the fee or a break clause where a certain level of performance is not achieved. While the team may be confident of achieving the performance milestones, circumstances outside of the team’s control such as a key team member’s departure (or failure to join the team as expected) could compromise the team, leading to lower than expected revenues or the departure of key partners. In McLaren v Palou, the Court determined that McLaren could not recover all of its losses linked to failure to achieve performance bonus milestones, citing the inherent uncertainty in projecting performance outcomes notwithstanding the Driver’s talent. That said, it may be preferable for a team to agree to a lower overall guaranteed fee, over a higher fee that encompasses performance-related elements.
Our sports team has extensive experience advising teams, athletes, agents and brands on agreements with elite athletes, as well as commercial deals with brands and suppliers. For more information, please get in touch.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport have this week announced a plan to consult on a ban of unlicensed gambling operators sponsoring British sports teams. This will form part of the government’s consultation on sports sponsorship, to be launched in the spring.
This could bring about an intriguing change in sports sponsorship, particularly in respect of the sponsorship of Premier League football clubs, several of whom have unlicensed gambling operator brands on their front of shirts. While the Premier League members have voluntarily committed to removing all gambling branding from the front of shirts by the end of this current season, there was an assumption that those brands would move to shirt sleeves and other club inventory.
With a political wind behind the announced consultation to tackle the illegal gambling market, it seems more of a case of ‘when’ a ban on unlicensed gambling operators will come into force, rather than ‘if’.
This may create greater opportunities for other brands and sectors to increase their presence in football, both on front of shirts and across wider club inventory freed up by a departure of unlicensed gambling operators.
It could see a return of more alcohol brands (possibly promoting low or non-alcoholic products) to the Premier League – Guinness returned to the front of a football shirt for the first time since 1986 as part of its sponsorship of WSL2 club Bristol City Women using its Guinness 0.0 brand.
A local focus could also become more prevalent drawing on the historical and geographical connections between club and local sponsors – P&O Cruises landed on the front of shirt for Southampton last year in the Premier League.
Alternatively, there may be an opportunity for both established and challenger brands who have not previously partnered with football clubs to enter the market. This may be at a reduced price compared to current levels given the potential amount of inventory that could be available.
In any case, front of football shirts might look a little different in the not too distant future.
On 26 February, the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), the UK’s advertising regulator, issued an Enforcement Notice concerning the disclosure of loot boxes in mobile game advertising and app store listings. For these purposes, “loot boxes” are random-item generators that can be acquired with real money, or with virtual currency obtainable only through real-money purchases. The notice was prompted by the ASA’s concern that mobile game publishers are failing to adequately disclose the presence of loot boxes in their games.
The ASA will begin actively monitoring compliance from 26 May, with targeted enforcement action to follow.
What is an Enforcement Notice?
An Enforcement Notice is essentially a warning to the relevant sector that the regulator intends to focus on this issue more intensively starting from the relevant date, giving the relevant businesses an opportunity to ‘get their house in order’.
We can expect a string of adjudications from the ASA (which enforces the CAP and BCAP Codes) on this subject in the months to come.
What are the rules?
Under CAP Guidance, the presence of loot boxes in a game is considered material information. This means the presence of loot boxes must be presented to consumers before they purchase or download a game (particularly for those with gambling-related vulnerabilities).
This can be achieved with a disclosure statement such as “Includes random-item purchases” or “Contains loot boxes” in a prominent location within advertising and app store listings.
Players should not need to expand hidden sections or scroll through game descriptions to find it. Note that built-in app store labels such as “Offers In-App Purchases” are not generally sufficient on their own. Loot box disclosures must be presented prominently alongside, or as part of, any in-game purchasing information.
What should I do now?
If your game incorporates loot boxes, review your advertising and app store listings to ensure the appropriate disclaimers are included.
Bear in mind that the global loot box regulatory environment is fragmented. This is largely due to a lack of harmonisation of gambling regulation and consumer protection laws across many jurisdictions that have developed in different directions over time. Territories with a particular interest in regulating and taking enforcement action in relation to loot boxes include Brazil, Netherlands, Poland, Belgium and recently there has been action in the US. It is a good time to reflect on your global loot box approach, and update any internal policies.
