Contact | Search |

Category: Insights

The UK’s data protection regulator calls for urgent action to strengthen age assurance measures on social media and video-sharing platforms

Posted on by Dea Dragashi

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.

McLaren v Palou: key takeaways

Posted on by Anna Weeden

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.

Government consultation: the reshaping of sports sponsorships?

Posted on by admin

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.

Loot box crackdown in the UK: what you need to know

Posted on by Anna Weeden

What’s happened?

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.

If you would like to discuss this further, please contact Sophie Lewis and Kostyantyn Lobov.

AI, deepfakes and the protection of personality rights

Posted on by Anna Weeden

Increasingly, AI is being used to generate digital replicas, also known as “deepfakes”, of real-life 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.

In December 2024, the UK Government launched an “AI and Copyright” consultation. The Government sought views from the industry on whether “personality rights” legislation should be introduced, or if existing performers’ rights legislation should be amended in the UK to give individuals greater control over how their likeness or voice is used. The Government recognises that other countries have taken action, or proposals have been made, to address this issue. For example, in the United States, two bills were enacted in California in 2024 to protect performers regarding the use of digital replicas imitating an individual’s voice, image or personal attributes without consent (California Assembly Bills 2602 and 1836). In Denmark, a bill was proposed allowing individuals to own copyright over their physical likeness which includes face, body and voice.

There were over 11,500 responses to the Government’s AI and copyright consultation from a range of parties including creators and right holders, developers of AI models and applications, academics, researchers, cultural heritage organisations, and legal professionals. The Government will be submitting a full report and economic impact assessment of its consultation before Parliament on or before 18 March 2026.

Whilst it is currently unclear whether or not specific personality rights legislation will be introduced into UK legislation to protect an individual’s likeness or voice from being digitally replicated by AI, it is worth bearing in mind that there is a patchwork of existing civil rights in the UK that may be relevant to the use of digital replicas without the consent of the real-life individual. Enforcing these rights in the UK civil courts in the context of AI digital replicas is, however, currently untested.

The rights include:

  • Trade marks. A UK trade mark registration gives the holder the potential to sue for trade mark infringement in respect of signs that are similar or identical to which the trade mark is registered. A real-life individual may wish to register a trade mark using a portrait of their face to give them the potential avenue of bringing a trade mark infringement claim when a digital replica of their face is used without consent by an AI. Well-known figures have sought such trade mark registrations. For example, Jeremy Clarkson has recently obtained a UK registered trade mark comprising two photo portraits of his face. This approach has also been taken in other jurisdictions, for example Dutch models Rozanne Verduin and Yasmin Wijnaldum have registered portrait photos of their faces as EU trade marks.
  • Passing off. If the public is misled into thinking a real-life individual has endorsed a product or service via a digital replica, the tort of passing off may be helpful to bring a stop to what the digital replica is doing.
  • Misuse of private information. If the real-life individual can establish that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information contained in the replica (which may, depending on the circumstances, include private events, or intimate scenes etc), then this tort may be helpful in relation to any unauthorised publishing of such information via the digital replica.
  • Data protection. Data protection legislation may also be helpful to prevent the misuse of personal data (which may, depending on the circumstances, include an individual’s likeness/voice) that has been processed by the digital replica’s handler.
  • Defamation. If a digital replica uses the real-life individual’s likeness/voice in such a way that causes the individual serious harm, the individual may have grounds to sue for defamation.

For now, the Government’s upcoming report on the consultation is due to be published by 18 March 2026 and is eagerly awaited by practitioners and the creative industry. It is almost guaranteed to encourage more debate on the issue of an individual’s personality rights in the UK.

The new hospitality playbook: co-branding the guest experience

Posted on by Julia Krol

With a growing need to stand out in the luxury hospitality sector, high-end hotels are increasingly collaborating with fashion houses, sports icons and other prominent brands to create exclusive guest experiences.

These partnerships are more than just marketing exercises; they are a strategic response to changing consumer expectations and the competitive landscape of modern luxury.

In an article for Tatler Address Book’s Experts’ Corner, managing associate Emily Miles examines the legal frameworks underpinning these innovative collaborations and the key issues that brands, hotels and personalities must navigate to ensure such ventures are successful. Emily highlights the importance of robust contractual foundations, intellectual property considerations and reputation risk management, alongside operational, tax and financial considerations.

As the intersection of hospitality, fashion and sport grows, these partnerships provide exciting opportunities for differentiation and growth. However, as Emily notes, success requires more than creative flair; it demands meticulous legal planning and alignment of values.

Read the full article on the Tatler website here.

Experts’ Corner is part of Tatler Advisory: a trusted network of influential private client experts, all at the pinnacle of their profession.

ERA 2025: the new Act and the entertainment industry

Posted on by Anna Weeden

After the twists and turns of its parliamentary journey in 2025, and many amendments later, the long-awaited Employment Rights Act 2025 is now law. We unpack what this means for employers in the film, TV and entertainment sectors for the year ahead. 

UNFAIR DISMISSAL CHANGES

Turning first to the biggest change, unfair dismissal rights. The Labour Government’s aspirational ‘day one’ right not to be unfairly dismissed did not become law. However, the changes are still significant.

From 1 January 2027, employees will need six months’ service to bring a claim for ordinary unfair dismissal (rather than the current two years), meaning anyone continuously employed on or before 1 June this year will have protection from unfair dismissal from the start of 2027.

The current statutory cap on compensation for unfair dismissal, a year’s pay or £118,223, will also be abolished.

This is a big moment in employments rights. Although moving from ‘day one’ to ‘six months’ feels like a welcome compromise, employers must take greater care to get recruitment practices right, assess fit early on and take decisive action when things do not go to plan.

For film and TV companies, who hire staff short term for specific productions, careful thought will need to be given to employment status and termination processes when a production wraps or projects come to an end.

Equally significant is the removal of the compensation cap. Employers are used to the comfort of the statutory cap representing a worst-case scenario for unfair dismissal claims, but such claims will have a higher potential value. In the entertainment industry, where talent, presenters, and behind the camera executives are on significant salaries, this change really will matter.

TRADE UNION EMPOWERMENT

The Act has promised modernisation of trade union legislation, and with this comes a shift of power back to the unions. The Government’s union proposals have largely made it into the final law, with the result that unions will have more freedom to access members and workplaces, call industrial action and secure recognition.

Major changes begin to take effect in February 2026 (with some immediate changes for the public sector before then). In relation to industrial action including strikes, unions will need a simple majority vote to take action, any mandate will last for 12 months, instead of six months, and the notice of industrial action will reduce from 14 to 10 days.

This change to the law is of particular relevance for the film and television industry at the moment, given British Equity’s indication late last month that it may hold a statutory ballot on industrial action if terms cannot be agreed regarding AI. This followed a poll of British Equity members in December, with 75% turnout, where 99% of members indicated that they would refuse to be scanned on set without AI protections.

During 2026, a framework will be introduced giving trade unions stronger rights of access to workplaces from October 2026, both physically and through digital communications with employees.

More detail will follow in Regulations over the coming months.

Union agreements and relationships form an integral part of employment terms and arrangements for many businesses in the entertainment industry. It will be important for employers to fully understand the enhanced union rights and consider how this impacts their own union engagement and industrial relations strategies.

FAMILY FRIENDLY AND LEAVE RIGHTS

Day one rights have been introduced for family and other types of leave, with most expected to come into effect in April this year, or in early 2027.

These include: an entitlement to at least one week of bereavement leave, including for early pregnancy loss; paternity and parental leave rights from day one of employment; and statutory sick pay applicable from the first day of absence.

Rates of pay in respect of such rights remain low or uncertain. Statutory sick pay is capped at £123 per week, and a significant increase is not currently contemplated. The day one rights in respect of maternity and paternity leave do not extend to statutory pay, with employees still needing a period of continuous service for eligibility.

This means immediate costs to businesses are not duly onerous, although employers should note there is an ongoing wider Government review on the parental leave and pay system, although the review stage will not conclude before 2027. 

For many employers in the entertainment industry, these reforms won’t mean significant changes, as many already offer over and above statutory entitlements. However, for smaller employers and productions with staff on short or fixed term contracts, it will be important to be aware of the changes and how they may impact policies and different staff groups.

AND THE REST…

The above is a snapshot of three key aspects of the Act likely to be especially relevant to the film, TV and entertainment industries, but there is a raft of further reforms to be aware of.

You can read our overview of the changes here and we will share further insights and webinar offerings as more details emerge.

The takeaway from here is that whilst there are undoubtedly reforms of significance, and employer clients need to use the coming year to get ready for the changes, businesses should not be unduly worried. Being informed and prepared will help the creative sector successfully navigate and manage risk in this new landscape.

Please reach out to our head of film and television and partner, Sarah Lazarides, for more information or training requests about employment law changes and their potential impact.

The Employment Rights Act is now law: what this means for employers and employees

Posted on by Anna Weeden

After a complex journey through Parliament, the Employment Rights Act has officially passed into law. While many of its provisions will require further detail through regulations following consultations scheduled for 2026, some key points are already clear. This new legislation heralds significant changes to employment rights and obligations, with important implications for both employers and employees.

Key changes to unfair dismissal rights

The most notable change concerns unfair dismissal rights, which will no longer be a ‘day one’ right contrary to the Government’s initial proposal. Employees must now complete six months of service before being eligible to bring a claim for unfair dismissal. This new service requirement will take effect from 1 January 2027 and will therefore apply to employees who start work on or before 1 June 2026, provided they are still employed on 1 January 2027.

In a surprising twist, the current statutory cap on compensation for successful unfair dismissal claims has been abolished. Currently, compensation is capped at the lower of one year’s pay or £118,223, effectively limiting pay outs for higher earners. With the removal of both caps, claim values could increase significantly, particularly for higher-paid employees, unless new limits are introduced through future regulations. This unexpected development has raised concerns among employers and could dramatically alter settlement negotiations and tribunal outcomes.

These changes come at a time when the Employment Tribunal system is already experiencing chronic delays, with many cases taking more than a year to reach a hearing. The removal of compensation caps may further exacerbate these delays, as higher-value claims could crowd out lower-value cases. Employers are advised to address any performance or conduct issues promptly, ensuring any necessary terminations occur well before January 2027 to avoid potentially higher claim costs.

Family and leave rights: a day one entitlement

The Act also introduces day one rights for family and other types of leave, expected to come into effect sometime in 2027. These rights include:

  • Bereavement leave: Employees will be entitled to at least one week of bereavement leave, which will apply to early pregnancy loss as well as all other types of bereavement.
  • Parental leave: Employees will have the right to 18 weeks of unpaid parental leave from day one of employment, to be taken any time between the birth of a child and their 18th birthday. Currently, low uptake of this leave is attributed to the fact that it is unpaid.
  • Maternity and paternity leave: These rights will also apply from day one, with no obligation for employees to disclose pregnancy or impending parenthood during recruitment.
  • Statutory sick pay: Employers will be required to pay statutory sick pay from the first day of illness, ending the current three-day waiting period. However, the statutory sick pay rate remains low, capped at £123 per week, with no indication of significant increases.

Trade Union rights: A shift in the balance of power

The Act introduces major changes to trade union rights, which will take effect from February 2026, with some immediate repeals for public sector workers. Key changes include:

  • The removal of restrictions on the number of employees allowed to picket their employer’s premises.
  • A reduction in the notice period for strike action from 14 days to 10 days.
  • An obligation on employers to provide all employees with written information about their right to join a trade union.

Other reforms

The Act also introduces a range of other significant reforms including:

  • Zero-hours contracts: Employees on zero-hours contracts will, in certain circumstances, have the right to guaranteed hours, and employers will be required to give reasonable advance notice of working hours.
  • Pay gap reporting: Employers with more than 250 staff will face extended paygap reporting obligations, aimed at addressing inequalities.
  • Menopause policies: Employers with over 250 employees will also be required to adopt and publish formal policies to support employees going through menopause.
  • Fair work agency: A newly created fair work agency will enforce rights related to minimum wage, sick pay, holiday pay, and modern slavery. However, further details are awaited regarding the extent to which this agency will replace employment tribunals for claims in these areas.

What’s next?

While the passing of the Employment Rights Act into law provides some clarity, much remains uncertain. Several consultations are underway, with more expected, and the start dates for many provisions have yet to be confirmed.

What is clear, however, is that the Act represents a significant shift in the balance of rights and obligations in employment relationships. Employers should take proactive steps to prepare for these changes, including reviewing policies, addressing current employee issues, and planning for the impact of these reforms on their business operations.

As more details emerge, employers will need to stay informed and adapt to ensure compliance with this transformative piece of legislation.

Technology Briefing – December 2025

Posted on by admin

Welcome to our inaugural technology briefing, designed to keep you updated on the latest legal and regulatory developments in the technology sector.

In this edition, we explore the implications of the Getty Images v Stability AI ruling, practical steps for managing AI risks, and the latest updates in data protection law. We also examine new measures aimed at tackling ransomware threats and provide guidance on safeguarding sensitive information following the ChatGPT share feature breach.

Additionally, we showcase our collaboration with legal AI platform Legora, and share key highlights from recent industry events, including the SCL AI Conference and the ITechLaw European Conference.

IN RECENT NEWS

Model behaviour: Stability AI’s model is not an “infringing copy”, but legality of AI training remains unresolved

In the recent judgment in Getty Images v Stability AI [2025], the High Court considered whether the generative AI model Stable Diffusion infringed copyright in works owned by/licensed to Getty Images, and further whether the model outputs infringed Getty Images’ trade marks. Getty argued that millions of its images had been used without permission to train the Stable Diffusion model, and that the model itself was therefore an infringing copy of the works.

Read more >

Managing risks and opportunities with AI

In a GC100 poll of 106 companies, 8% of respondents reported they already regularly used Co-Pilot and Teams Premium for transcription of initial draft minutes; since then, there has been an influx of providers in the market that can prepare agendas, summarise discussions, and draft lists of action points. Before employing such AI tools in your company, it is essential to consider whether the use of AI is appropriate, and, if so, whether all the necessary risk-mitigation steps have been taken.

Read more >

HARBOTTLE HIGHLIGHTS

Early adopters of Legora

Legora recently announced the completion of a Series C round of $150 million at a $1.8 billion valuation. We were the third law firm in the UK to partner with Legora earlier this year.

It is a secure, purpose-built legal AI designed for lawyers to streamline legal workflows and enhance productivity. The solution accelerates legal reviews through AI-powered playbooks that enhance legal reviews, guiding juniors in the process.

The solution is capable of reviewing, comparing, and summarising lengthy documents, as well as extracting critical clauses, and analysing their content to support decisions on matters of law and risk.

Read more >

SCL annual conference

We attended the 2025 Society for Computers & Law (SCL) AI Conference: AI Law – what every business (and their lawyers) needs to know. As ever, the event was fully booked and offered a fantastic day of insightful discussions and debates on the development, interpretation, and implementation of AI law across businesses, government and the legal industry.

iTech Law

On 30 October, partner Lizzie Williams spoke at the ITechLaw Association‘s 2025 European Conference. As a member of iTechLaw and its Dispute Resolution Committee, Lizzie appeared on a panel to share her insights and experience on commercial disputes involving AI. The conference brings together legal professionals, tech innovators and industry leaders from around the world to discuss key topics and challenges in tech law including AI, data privacy and cybersecurity. 

Safeguarding your business in the wake of the ChatGPT share breach

In today’s fast-paced digital landscape, businesses are increasingly leveraging Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT to streamline operations.

However, recent developments surrounding the now-discontinued “share” feature of ChatGPT should serve as a critical reminder of the importance of robust data governance and proactive measures to safeguard sensitive information, such as personal data and confidential business information.

Read more >

New measures announced to tackle ransomware attacks: what does this mean for business?

Earlier this year, the UK government unveiled a set of measures designed to curb ransomware attacks and protect critical public and private sector services. Following public consultation, these steps aim to dismantle the business model of cyber criminals while fortifying national resilience against cyber threats.

Read more >

Data protection update

This update outlines key changes, including the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, which introduces reforms like a new lawful basis for data use, cookie exemptions and complaint procedures. The UK’s data adequacy status is likely to be extended to 2031, a Court of Appeal ruling confirmed compensation for non-material damage is recoverable, and plans for a secure digital ID scheme are underway. ICO consultations and enforcement actions on data breaches are also highlighted.

Read more >

Please contact our technology experts if you would like to discuss anything in this briefing.

Ofcom gives weight to the Media Act

Posted on by Anna Weeden

Yesterday, Ofcom released two significant publications relating to the implementation of the Media Act 2024, a piece of legislation bringing substantial changes to the media landscape by 2027. In this article, we summarise the key points and practical implications.

Review of Audience Protection Measures for Streaming Services

What has Ofcom published?

Ofcom has published a comprehensive report examining how streaming services (also known as on-demand programme services, or ODPS) protect their audiences. This covers major platforms including Disney+, Amazon Prime Video, BBC iPlayer and Now.

Why does this matter?

The Media Act introduces new standard requirements for streaming services available to UK audiences. Ofcom now has the power to examine and report on the measures providers are using to protect audiences, and to identify areas for improvement.

This review is part of Ofcom’s broader work implementing a new content standards code, anticipated to be named the Tier 1 Standards Code for designated Tier 1 services.

What did Ofcom find?

Ofcom assessed the following audience protection measures (APMs):

  • Age ratings
  • Content warnings
  • Parental controls
  • Age assurance mechanisms

Some good news: the current implementation of APMs is broadly adequate across the sector.

Areas for improvement:

  • Better user guidance: services should provide clearer information on how to find and use protection tools.
  • Enhanced content warnings: viewers want more detailed warnings, particularly episode-specific information for serialised content.
  • Cross-device consistency: parental controls need to work reliably across all platforms and devices.
  • Proportionality: protection measures should balance safety with user experience and not intrude on data privacy.

What should streaming services consider?

  • Review current APMs against Ofcom’s findings.
  • Consider how available protection tools are communicated to users.
  • Assess whether parental controls function consistently across all devices.
  • Ensure approach is tailored appropriately for UK audiences.

Ofcom plan to conduct a further review of APMs used by Tier 1 services once the Secretary of State has announced how Tier 1 services should be determined.

Channel 4 Commissioning Policy Guidance

What has Ofcom published?

Following public consultation, Ofcom has published final guidance on Channel 4’s commissioning obligations under the Media Act.

Why does this matter?

The guidance establishes clear requirements to ensure fair access, transparency and competition in Channel 4’s commissioning process. This creates a more level playing field for independent producers and increases accountability.

What are the key requirements?

Channel 4 must publish an annual Statement of Commissioning Policy covering:

  • In-house production separation: how Channel 4 maintains appropriate separation between its commissioning and in-house production activities.
  • Programme submissions: clear processes for how external programme proposals are handled.
  • Dispute resolution: transparent mechanisms for resolving commissioning-related disputes.
  • Annual reporting: year-on-year progress tracking to demonstrate accountability.

What should you consider?

If you work with or supply content to Channel 4:

  • Familiarise yourself with the new transparency requirements.
  • Understand the dispute resolution mechanisms available to you.
  • Monitor Channel 4’s annual statements to track changes in commissioning approach.

Next steps

These developments represent important steps in the evolving regulatory framework for UK media services. We will keep you updated as these changes get implemented along with other aspects of the Media Act.

If you have any questions about this article, please reach out to managing associate, Clare McGarry.