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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In a GC100 poll of 106 companies in September 2024, 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.
What are the key risks?
AI tools lack the ability to differentiate between different types of contexts and tones, cannot exercise discretion, and may fail to properly identify commercial nuances and stifle candid discussions.
Confidential and sensitive discussions may become disclosable in future litigation or regulatory contexts, as part of subject access requests, or during due diligence processes. AI tools may not be able to identify legally privileged information, which could lead to an inadvertent loss of privilege.
Without careful review, there is a risk AI would not deliver a formal record of decisions made that is accurate and impartial.
When using AI tools that rely on third-party providers, organisations face the risk of data breaches and confidential information leaks.
How can you mitigate these risks?
The most effective risk-mitigation measure is to ensure human review by an employee of an appropriate level. This ensures there is a clear, accurate, and concise outcome with careful consideration being given for any inclusion of commercially sensitive or legally privileged information.
Companies should conduct thorough due diligence on any AI providers, including understanding the extent to which the provider uses data inputted by users for AI development or training activities and any processes that can lead to a leak of confidential company information.
Companies should also ensure suppliers are compliant with all relevant data protection regulations and have adequate security systems in place to ensure their AI tools do not increase the company’s exposure to cyber-attacks/data breaches/leaks.
Organisations should establish robust consent and communication processes regarding the use of AI tools internally and externally. Companies should think carefully about having AI tools as a default setting and providing the opportunity/awareness around opting out of such use.
Key takeaway
Consider carefully whether the benefits of using AI tools outweighs the significant risks. If used, human oversight, comprehensive diligence on AI providers, and clear guidance is essential to protect organisations.
It seems the changes to UK immigration policies in summer were just the beginning, as the Home Office has decided to gift us with an early Christmas present of further changes: some that have been recently implemented and those due to be implemented early next year. This was also echoed by the Home Secretary in the foreword of the latest consultation document, A fairer pathway to settlement: “it is clear the pace and scale of migration in this country has not just been unprecedented but also destabilising”.
‘Earned settlement’
On Thursday 20 November, the Home Office released a policy document outlining the proposed framework of ‘earned settlement’ ahead of the government consultation. Most requirements outlined are subject to consultation. The consultation is open until 12 February 2026 and the intention is to implement the changes in the April 2026 Statement of Changes.
WHO IS NOT AFFECTED?
Individuals with pre-settled or settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme will not be affected by these changes. This also applies to applicants with permission as the parent/partner/child of a British citizen that meet the “core family requirements”, unless there are factors that could increase the qualifying period i.e. use of public funds/criminal convictions.
10-year baseline to settlement
The proposed baseline for settlement in the UK for all other individuals will be 10 years, and there will be a set framework of minimum requirements that someone applying for settlement will be required to meet. Aside from the “contribution” dimension, these are not subject to consultation. The requirements (subject to consultation) are as follows:
Suitability: Must meet the general grounds of refusal found in the new Part Suitability section of the Immigration Rules. Must not have any current litigation, NHS, tax or other government debt.
Integration: Must meet the English requirement at level B2 and pass the Life in the UK test.
Contribution: Must have made National Insurance contributions by way of an annual salary or income of over £12,570, held for three to five years (this is currently subject to consultation).
Factors that can reduce the minimum settlement period
Where an individual may qualify for more than one reduction, the qualifying period will only be reduced by the larger figure, meaning the below factors cannot be combined.
Separately, it is worth noting that there are also factors that could increase the individuals qualifying period i.e. receiving public funds – five/10-year increase; overstaying: 20-year increase.
Will these proposed changes have a retrospective or retroactive effect?
One of the worries for those already in the UK is whether these changes will apply to them, or whether they will only apply to people coming to the UK after these changes take effect.
Unfortunately, we have no clarity on this yet. The policy states that it will apply to all immigrants, including people already in a route to settlement, but it also states that the consultation will look at whether to introduce transitional provisions for people already in a route to settlement and if so, what they should look like.
A summary of further updates to UK Immigration
If you have any questions in relation to any of the above, please get in touch with our immigration lawyers.
The Court of Appeal has upheld the invalidation of adidas’ UK “three stripe” position trade marks.
The Court of Appeal has rejected adidas’ attempt to overturn a 2024 High Court ruling that invalidated a number of its iconic “three stripe” position trade marks. Thom Browne, who had been sued by adidas for trade mark infringement in relation to the use of four stripes, had counterclaimed to invalidate adidas’ marks.
The core problem for adidas was that the trade marks were not precise enough: if they were retained, adidas would be granted too broad a monopoly on the placement of three stripes on garments.
Adidas’ marks covered three stripes applied to various garments. Images and written descriptions sought to identify the positions and proportions of the marks. So called “position trade marks” must satisfy the criteria for valid trade marks, including being clear and precise and consisting of a single sign.
The High Court had previously decided that, as a result, adidas’ marks for the three stripes along the arm of a jacket, down the leg of a tracksuit, and along the side of a vest, were invalid. It is worth noting that only certain of adidas’ position marks were found invalid. Its registrations for the three stripes as they appear on trainers, for example, were held to be and remain valid.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court’s earlier decision, concluding that adidas’ trade marks did not identify a single and clearly defined sign and were uncertain.
To be valid, a trade mark must unmistakably define its own monopoly. This clarity, the Court said, is crucial so that competitors and consumers can understand where the boundaries of a trade mark’s protection lie. As adidas’ position marks left room for variation in the possible placement and proportions of the three stripes on the garments, they did not meet this requirement.
This decision highlights the importance of precision when applying to register trade marks, and, particularly, position marks which (as the name suggests) get their distinctive character in part from clearly defined positioning. The High Court had been correct to decide that a trade mark cannot grant a broad monopoly over ambiguous variations of the placement of a design, as that uncertainty gives the trade mark owner an unfair advantage of its competition.
Brand owners, in the fashion industry and otherwise, who rely on position marks should carefully review their portfolios to ensure that each registration clearly reflects the exact way in which the mark is used and is precise. When filing for new trade marks, brands should ensure that the representations and descriptions of the marks are highly specific about where and how the mark appears on a product. General or decorative motifs, such as three stripes, cannot be broadly protected unless their representation in the trade mark application is precise and unambiguous.
Synonymous with the recent change in seasons, the UK production industry is currently in a state of transition. Collaboration is on the up with a rise in co-productions, streamers and broadcasters joining forces, and traditional content businesses working alongside content creators and digital-first start-ups.
The third edition of our UK film and TV newsletter covers key industry updates including the Warner Bros. Discovery takeover, Pact/Equity negotiations, AI advancements, UK indie tax credit impacts, Trump’s proposed film tariff, microdramas, the creator economy, children’s TV inquiries, major legal cases, and new data and immigration updates affecting the sector.
HARBOTTLE HIGHLIGHTS
Edinburgh TV Festival 2025
In August, Minty Hamer and Julika Schmidt attended the Edinburgh TV Festival, which brought together leading voices across the television industry through a wide range of events and sessions.
It was a great opportunity to reconnect with clients and meet new faces from across the sector. Some sessions acknowledged the challenges faced by the industry in dealing with the traditional commissioning ecosystem – some even describing it as “medieval” – and proposed ideas for change in the marketplace.
Additionally, the international potential for new shows remained a key focus, however it became clear that the ideas grounded in authentic, local perspectives continue to resonate the most.
MIPCOM 2025
Broadcast quoted MIPCOM’s director, Lucy Smith, describing this year’s MIPCOM as “the biggest step change in a generation” owing to the creator economy being at the forefront of the event, with YouTube taking up more conference space than ever before.
The chatter in the air reflected the current themes in the market – budgetary constraints, collaboration being necessary between everyone in the industry to get things made, and the industry pivoting into new areas such as microdramas.
Ed and Clare met up with clients and contacts including distributors, production companies, financiers and union representatives. Deals may be slower and harder to come by, but there was certainly still an appetite for business, on-the-ground meetings and networking in Cannes.
CONTENT LONDON
We are looking forward to attending Content London again in December. We will be hosting our ‘Harbottle Happy Hour’ drinks on the evening of 2 December in Kings Cross so please get in touch if you would like to join us.
BAFTA Elevate 2025/6
On 22 September, we hosted another session for the current BAFTA Elevate cohort. Clare McGarry and Amy Bradbury alongside James Jones (director of Antidote) and Dominic Harrison (Channel 4) explored defamation and other legal issues that filmmakers working in documentary need to be aware of to assess and mitigate risk, whilst maintaining their journalistic integrity.
The session sparked insightful discussions and a Q&A that left everyone with plenty to reflect on and take forward in their work.
INDUSTRY UPDATES
WARNER BROS. DISCOVERY’S POTENTIAL TAKEOVER
Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) has become the centre of a growing acquisition battle, with several major players expressing interest in its assets. Paramount Skydance, led by David Ellison, has made multiple offers – most recently at $24 per share and including a proposed co-CEO role for WBD’s David Zaslav – all of which have been declined. In response, WBD has confirmed it is actively exploring strategic options, including a full or partial sale, as well as a potential separation of its streaming and cable businesses.
Netflix, despite publicly downplaying interest, has reportedly been given access to WBD’s financial data room, suggesting a possible bid focused on WBD’s valuable IP. Paramount and Comcast (who are also busy looking at ITV’s broadcasting business!) are also said to be evaluating opportunities, each with different strategic goals. Paramount’s potential merger with WBD could create a formidable streaming entity, combining HBO Max and Paramount+ with a combined subscriber base of over 200 million.
UPDATE ON PACT EQUITY NEGOTIATIONS
Negotiations between Pact and Equity on the Cinema Films Agreement (CFA) and TV Agreement (TVA) are still ongoing. In July, Equity responded to Pact’s previous counterproposals, with some key points resolved. This includes a minimum three-year term for both agreements, with negotiations starting again after two years. Pact and Equity were also aligned that artists should be given the first opportunity to dub in English, with certain caveats for production needs still being finalised.
Discussions are also ongoing on issues such as rest periods, overtime provisions and health and safety protections. For the TVA, Equity wants 12-hour minimum rest periods for actors, which Pact says it can’t agree to due to concerns from its members. Pact and Equity met in early November to discuss working patterns under the TVA.
Streaming rights and residuals continue to be a focus, whilst AI provisions are being handled separately, with Equity pushing for strong protections around performer consent, data use, and transparency. At the end of October, key terms on Generative AI were tabled by Pact with Equity – we will give you more detail on this in our next round-up. October / early November also saw Pact and Equity meet to discuss terms for residuals.
Regular meetings are scheduled through the end of the year, and Equity members will vote on the final deal and all financial terms once they are agreed.
BROADCASTERS AND STREAMERS TEAM UP
Disney and ITV signed a deal in July billed as a ‘first of its kind’ initiative to share a curated selection of content across their respective streaming services. Disney+ now carries a promotional selection of titles from ITV under the banner ‘Taste of ITVX’ that includes shows such as ‘Mr Bates vs The Post Office’ and ‘Love Island’ whilst ITV now hosts shows such as ‘The Kardashians’ and ‘Lilo and Stitch’. Around 70-100 hours of content from each streamer’s library have been shared since 16 July. Their goal is to drive subscriptions from demographics outside of each platforms’ typical audience. The partnership, along with other similar deals like Channel 4 and UKTV in the UK and Netflix and TF1 in France, suggest this type of content-sharing arrangement may become a broader trend as the streamers continually evolve their businesses and their place in the market.
Valid questions are being raised about whether Netflix and other similar streamers teaming up with traditional channels will scupper the opportunity for shows to benefit from a secondary rights window, and whether this will in turn put traditional financiers off funding shows if this new model interrupts their ability to recoup against secondary distribution income.
AI UPDATE
We keenly track updates in the AI legal landscape so that we can keep you up to date with the latest. So, what’s new?
In July, the Government announced an AI and copyright working group, with representatives including Open AI, Meta, Amazon and Sony Music Entertainment. The group will focus on the impacts and opportunities of AI, whilst trying to find common ground on key issues. This suggests the Government doesn’t want to be too bullish about bringing in new legislation and is treading this sensitive topic cautiously and slowly.
Meanwhile the Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) has been developing an AI licensing framework to ensure fair compensation for creators. This could help bridge the gap between rightsholders and big tech developers by ensuring that rightsholders are paid if their works are used to train AI models.
Separately, in September, over 70 signatories, including Sir Paul McCartney and Sir Elton John, accused the Government in an open letter of ignoring copyright violations by AI companies. They claim the use of copyrighted works is undermining the £127bn creative industries and violates creator’s human rights. The Government responded to say that the creative industries’ concerns were being taken “seriously” and a report into the impact of potential changes would be published by the end of March 2026.
Last week, the much-anticipated judgment in the Getty Images v StabilityAI case concluded that Stability AI’s model is not an “infringing copy”. However, the ruling left certain questions surrounding the legality of AI training unresolved.
Our AI experts explore the landmark ruling in the summary here.
STEEP RISE IN UNDER £20M UK FILMS SUBMITTED TO BFI AFTER INDIE TAX CREDIT GREEN LIGHT
The BFI have reported that the number of films with production budgets under £20m applying for BFI certification rose by 27% year-on-year across the first six months of 2025 (417 films vs 328 in 2024). This increase coincides with the introduction of the Independent Film Tax Credit (IFTC) in October 2024 (as part of the new Audio-visual Expenditure Credit regime), which offers enhanced relief for low-budget films. Low-budget films can now benefit from an enhanced credit of 53% (equating to an actual relief of just under 40%, on up to 80% of qualifying expenditure) versus the standard credit rate of 34% (25.5% in actual relief). There have been some voices in the industry calling for an equivalent enhanced tax credit to be applied to TV productions, not just theatrical, but there’s no indication that the Government will be introducing this.
EQUITY VS SPOTLIGHT
The legal dispute between the UK actors’ union, Equity, and prominent talent directory service, Spotlight, concluded in early September with a High Court ruling in favour of Spotlight.
The case focused on Equity’s claim that Spotlight (an organisation providing a service which allows performers to market and advertise their own skills) operates as an “Employment Agency” and therefore should be subject to stricter regulatory requirements, especially in relation to its subscription fees.
The court eventually agreed with Spotlight’s position that it does not actively find work for its subscribers, who either represent themselves or engage agents for that purpose, and so is not an agent. Accordingly, Spotlight is not subject to restrictions on charging work-seekers for their fees.
The ruling highlights the distinctions between platforms that facilitate connections between individuals (i.e. directories), and those that actively provide employment services, setting an important precedent for similar disputes in the future.
WARNER JOINS MIDJOURNEY CASE
In June, Disney and NBC Universal filed a joint lawsuit against generative AI startup, Midjourney, alleging copyright infringement. They claim Midjourney displayed images on its platform that were AI-generated and copied the IP of well-known films such as Star Wars, Shrek, The Simpsons, and Toy Story.
Disney’s Chief Legal Officer, Horacio Gutierrez said: “we are bullish on the promise of AI technology and optimistic about how it can be used responsibly as a tool to further human creativity, but piracy is piracy, and the fact that it’s done by an AI company does not make it any less infringing.”
In September, Warner Bros Discovery also entered the fray, separately suing Midjourney for using iconic characters from the studios’ works to generate images of Batman, Superman and Scooby-Doo, among other characters. They allege that Midjourney have recently “eliminated guardrails that blocked users from creating videos that infringe on its IP”.
As of 5 November 2025, according to a joint stipulation filed by the parties, Warner Bros. Entertainment, Disney and NBC Universal have agreed to consolidate their separate but related lawsuits against Midjourney. The case remains ongoing; no hearings have taken place yet, and no settlements have been reached. However, a Scheduling Conference has been ordered. The studios are seeking a jury trial and a preliminary injunction, while Midjourney has denied any infringement is asserting a fair use defence.
NEW INQUIRY INTO CHILDREN’S TV AND CONTENT
The Culture, Media and Sport Committee launched an inquiry in July asking how future generations of children can continue to have access to high-quality British-made programming. This was in response to children watching less television in favour of online apps and websites, with knock-on effects for those in the creative industries who wish to create original high-quality content aimed at the children’s market. It also focused on concerns for the well-being of the young children consuming this newer content which is not subject to the same level of regulation.
The inquiry closed for submissions at the start of September. While no official publication date for the final report has been announced, the Committee has confirmed that further updates will be provided in due course.
TRUMP REPEATS THREAT TO IMPOSE 100% TARIFF ON FILMS MADE OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES
Donald Trump took to his social media network, Truth Social, to reiterate his view that the American film industry had been stolen by the rise in foreign-made films; “like stealing candy from a baby”. This is the second time that the president has threatened to impose a 100% tariff on films made outside of the United States, having claimed in May that the American film industry was dying “a very fast death”.
As with the initial proclamation, there is a lack of detail how the tariffs might be imposed or when they might come into force, with the industry quietly hoping that this issue disappears into the background of the US government’s broad agenda.
If the tariff ever becomes more than headline-grabbing rhetoric, key questions to answer will include what constitutes an ‘American’ film, particularly in the context of global streamers, and the fact that several major films produced by US studios were shot outside of the US (Wicked and Gladiator II being recent examples). The UK Government is waiting for details of any potential tariff before it decides how to respond. We will keep you updated of any concrete plans to impose these tariffs, but please get in touch if you would like to discuss this further.
The television and media landscape is undergoing a profound shift. Where traditional broadcasters and studios once exclusively dominated, now content creators, originating from platforms like YouTube, TikTok and Instagram, are emerging as some of the most powerful forces in entertainment. Their profound influence is being recognised across the UK, highlighted by the recent launch of an all-party parliamentary group (APPG) to represent UK creators and influencers. These online platforms enable creators to cultivate direct relationships with audiences and bypass traditional gatekeepers, retaining complete control over their content.
Microdramas — or “verticals” — are one of many new forms of content reshaping the entertainment landscape. These bite-sized film episodes, designed for mobile viewing, gained popularity in China during the pandemic and have since expanded globally. In 2024, US revenues reportedly reached $819 million, though this pales in comparison to China’s reported $7 billion market during the same period.
The sector has already attracted significant investment and strategic partnerships. Fox Entertainment recently announced an equity investment in Holywater, a Ukrainian tech start-up specialising in vertical video. The deal commits Fox to creating over 200 vertical video titles for Holywater’s My Drama app over the next two years.
Elsewhere, Night Train Media and Spirit Studios have announced a funded development deal to produce a new vertical microdrama series for worldwide digital distribution by Night Train Digital. Meanwhile, in India, Mumbai-based Balaji Telefilms has partnered with Indian microdrama platform Story TV, aiming to establish microdramas as a mainstream format across the continent. And with Omdia projecting that microdramas will generate $11 billion in global revenues by 2025, this new wave of content evolution is unlikely to slow down soon.
THE DATA ACT 2025
The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 became law in June 2025, with changes due to come into force over time.
It introduces targeted reforms to the GDPR and other data and privacy law, with the aim to reduce compliance burdens and support smart data access.
Changes include updates to data processing rules and new cookie exemptions, as well as changes to the complaints procedure if an individual believes their data protection rights have been infringed. Previously, the individual could go straight to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), but now they will have to raise their complaint with the data controller, such as their employer, before escalating it to the ICO. There are also new obligations on organisations as to how they should deal with these complaints.
Please get in touch with our data experts if you would like to know more.
IMMIGRATION UPDATE
For production companies bringing overseas personnel to the UK on the Skilled Worker visa scheme, standard sponsored applicants must now earn at least £41,700 per year and work in a role that requires a bachelor’s degree. A number of creative roles will continue to be part of the scheme until the end of 2026, including dancers, set designers and producers, due to being included on the Government’s ‘Temporary List’.
Actors can no longer be sponsored under this route unless they already hold Skilled Worker status. The Creative Worker and Creative Worker concession routes are not affected by these changes and will continue as before.
In summary, this sees a tightening on some of the rules allowing overseas personnel to come into the UK to work on film and TV projects.
Please get in touch with our immigration experts if you would like to know more.
In the recent judgment in Getty Images v Stability AI [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch), 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.
Crucially, the court was not considering whether copyright was infringed during the training process of Stable Diffusion, as those claims were not pursued to trial by Getty due to a lack of evidence of training having been taken place in the UK. Instead, the High Court decided on the much narrower issue of whether the trained Stable Diffusion model is itself an “infringing copy” of the copyright works trained on. If the model was an infringing copy, under secondary copyright infringement law, its import into the UK would have infringed Getty’s copyright, even though the model had not been trained in the UK.
The High Court’s decision came down to the way in which Stable Diffusion was trained, and the relationship between the model and its training data. Stable Diffusion is a diffusion model, meaning its model weights are numerical parameters learned from training, not stored or compressed copies of its training data. The model does not contain any of Getty’s copyright images in any form whatsoever – and never has done – even though it may have been exposed to them during training. Getty’s secondary copyright claim failed as a result.
Although Getty lost its secondary copyright infringement claim, this was a highly fact-specific decision which related to this model of Stable Diffusion only. The High Court stressed this in its decision. Although it may be true that an “AI model which does not store or reproduce any copyright works (and has never done so) is not an “infringing copy””, this leaves the door open for an AI model that does store or reproduce copyright works (or has done so at some point) being found to be an infringing copy of its training data. Other model architectures that retain or reproduce their training data verbatim – which is more common for text models than image models like Stable Diffusion – may still be deemed infringing copies. In addition, there is scope for argument on whether a more liberal interpretation of what is an infringing copy should be adopted: in circumstances where the model has extracted the value and intellectual creation of copyright works, and in a manner that was not envisaged when the legislation was passed, why is this not reproduction of the underlying intellectual creation?
Further, as Getty dropped its training claims at trial, the UK courts are yet to decide on whether the training of AI models using copyright works in the UK infringes copyright. That question will need to be decided in a future claim involving an AI model that was trained (or at least partially trained) in the UK.
On the trade mark infringement claim, the court made a limited finding of trade mark infringement where early model versions of Stable Diffusion produced outputs with Getty-style watermarks.
If you’d like to speak to a member of the team about any of the issues raised by the judgment, please reach out to one of our AI experts.
The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUA Act) becomes UK law
The DUA Act, which received Royal Assent on 19 June 2025, reforms UK data protection laws and will be implemented in phases. Key changes include:
A new “recognised legitimate interests” lawful basis, exempting certain data uses (e.g., crime prevention and protecting vulnerable individuals) from a balancing test.
Exemptions to the need to get user consent to deploy non-strictly necessary cookie rules for low-risk purposes, such as fraud prevention.
Complaints must now be raised with data controllers first before escalating to the ICO, so policies and procedures should be updated to include a complaints and escalation mechanism for data protection issues.
UK’s adequate data protection law status likely to be extended to December 2031
UK GDPR, a UK-specific version of the EU GDPR, was deemed “adequate” by the EU, allowing free data flow between the UK and the EU (post Brexit). The adequacy decision, initially expiring in June 2025, was extended to December 2025 following the DUA Act, which made changes to data protection rules in the UK. The European Commission reviewed the UK’s updated data protection framework and concluded it still meets the “essential equivalence” standard, likely extending adequacy until 27 December 2031, with reviews every four years.
Court of Appeal decision on compensation claims for personal data breaches
On 22 August 2025, the Court of Appeal delivered a significant judgment in Farley and Others v Paymaster (1836) Ltd (trading as Equiniti) [2025] EWCA Civ 1117. The case arose from the misaddressing of annual benefit statements (ABS) for 432 police pension scheme members, sent to outdated addresses. Claimants alleged distress and anxiety over potential misuse of their data. While 14 confirmed their ABS had been accessed by unauthorised third parties, the High Court had ruled proof of third-party disclosure was necessary.
The Court of Appeal reversed this decision, holding third-party disclosure is not essential for data protection claims. Mishandling personal data itself constitutes an infringement of GDPR rights. Compensation is recoverable for non-material damage, including anxiety, if the fear of misuse is objectively reasonable. Hypothetical or speculative fears cannot be compensated. The case now returns to the High Court to assess the reasonableness of the appellants’ fears and any psychiatric injuries.
UK’s digital ID scheme
The scheme aims to simplify access to government and private services (e.g., welfare, childcare, renting) and reduce identity fraud, streamline verification, and toughen employment checks. The scheme is centred around free digital IDs stored securely on phones with biometric security (photo). Data includes name, date of birth, nationality/residency status, photo with biometric security. Address may be added post-consultation. The scheme will require employers to check IDs for right-to-work. The police will not be able to demand to see the digital ID. The UK Government state that the data will be stored on devices with encryption and credentials can be revoked if a device is lost/stolen. The scheme will be accessible with assistive technologies and physical alternatives plus support for non-smartphone users. A public consultation is planned for later in the year and rollout expected by end of current Parliament.
ICO call for views on regulating online advertising, legitimate interests, data protection complaints and online safety
On 7 July 2025, the ICO launched a consultation on its approach to regulating online advertising under the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR). Open until 7 September 2025, it sought views on balancing privacy, innovation, and economic growth. Consent remains mandatory for high-risk practices like behavioural advertising, but the ICO aims to identify low-risk advertising activities (e.g., ad delivery and fraud prevention). It plans to outline non-enforcement areas and safeguards in early 2026.
On 30 July 2025, the ICO launched a consultation on guidance for using profiling tools in online safety systems under the Online Safety Act 2023. Open until 31 October 2025, it focuses on lawful, fair, and transparent use of AI tools for detecting harmful behaviours like grooming and fraud. It highlights compliance with UK GDPR, DPA 2018, and PECR, emphasising lawfulness, transparency, data minimisation, and safeguarding children.
On 21 August 2025, the ICO launched public consultations on DUA Act amendments:
Recognised Legitimate Interest: This lawful basis allows processing personal data for pre-approved public interest purposes like safeguarding and emergencies. Consultation closes 30 October 2025.
Complaints: By June 2026, organisations must establish formal processes for complaints regarding personal data handling. Consultation ends 19 October 2025.
ICO enforcement actions
AFK Letters Co Ltd: Fined £90,000 on 14 April 2025 for breaching PECR regulation 21 by making 95,277 unsolicited marketing calls in 2023. Issues included poor consent documentation and non-compliance.
23andMe: Fined £2.31 million on 17 June 2025 for a data breach exposing sensitive genetic and health data of 155,592 UK users. Failures included weak security measures and lack of mandatory multi-factor authentication.
Capita: A Penalty Notice to Capita plc (£8 million) and Capita Pension Solutions Limited (£6 million) for data breach. A cyberattack (March 2023) exposed data of over 6.6 million individuals, including sensitive health data and financial details.
The UK’s new Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 will be changing the direct marketing laws to make it easier for charities to send electronic marketing to existing supporters and supporters who have expressed an interest in the charity without their express consent.
This is referred to as the “soft opt-in” rule which is currently relied on by many commercial businesses and will be amended to broaden the scope to charities.
How can charities rely on soft opt-in?
Charities can send electronic marketing such as, emails or text messages or direct messages on social media, without the consent of a person, providing:
The sole purpose of electronic marketing is to further the charity’s own charitable purpose(s)
The charity collected the contact details directly from the person themselves
The charity collected the contact details when a person:
expressed an interest in one or more of the charitable purposes; or
offered or provided support to further one or more of those purposes
People are given a simple and free of charge way of opting out of direct marketing at the time of:
collecting their contact details; and
every subsequent direct marketing message thereafter
How can charities start to rely on soft opt-in?
The UK’s data protection regulator, the Information Commissioner, has stated that this change allowing charities to rely on the “soft opt-in” rule is planned to commence from January 2026.
What is the latest from the UK regulators on soft opt-in?
The Information Commissioner has produced draft guidance and launched a consultation on the new rules aiming to gather feedback from charities. The consultation runs from 16 October to 27 November 2025 and details can be found here.
What can charities do now to prepare?
Review your privacy policy to inform people of the reliance on “soft opt-in”
Review your consent mechanisms and plan the changes needed to rely on “soft opt-in”
Review your current opt-out mechanism and plan the changes needed to rely on “soft opt-in”
Ensure you have a do not contact list of people who have opted out of receiving direct marketing
Review existing marketing lists to separate people who have given their consent to electronic marketing and people who will be sent it using the “soft opt-in” rule
Train staff on how to respond to queries and complaints from people about the direct marketing
Implement policies and procedures to ensure staff know how to implement “soft opt-in” and the rules around data protection
