In this second edition of Legal Insider Magazine for 2025, we turn our focus to a legal sector facing both acceleration and disruption, where emerging technologies, evolving trade dynamics, and global power shifts are rewriting the rules in real time.
Confidentiality, once a cornerstone of legal practice, is now being tested by cloud computing and blockchain systems. At the same time, the rise of AI-assisted lawyering raises urgent questions: are our legal ethics boards equipped to keep pace? As machines begin to generate content, and even emulate human traits, the line between tool and creator continues to blur. Should humanoid robots have rights? Can AI truly author legal material?
This issue also dives deep into the forces reshaping strategy and structure, spotlighting Gitti and Partners’ role in the rethinking of independent legal approaches. We explore the consolidation of global law firms and how agility and scale are becoming critical competitive advantages. We break down the implications of Senate Bill 69 on third-party litigation funding and examine whether the Department of Justice’s stance on data transfer could become a lasting norm.
Geopolitics, too, is reshaping the legal terrain. Shifting trade deals are transforming labor law obligations for multinationals. In the U.S., the legal saga behind the proposed TikTok ban underscores how technology, national security, and free enterprise collide in the courtroom. Across the Atlantic, courts in the UK and EU are now defining the future of product design law, with global ripple effects.
At Legal Insider, we remain committed to tracking the signals of change with clarity, curiosity, and a deep respect for the rule of law. In a year where the questions are big and the answers still forming, we hope this edition helps you navigate the noise with insight and intent.
Cloud and Blockchain are Changing the Rules of Confidentiality
Why Shifting Trade Deals are Rewriting Labour Compliance for MNCs
Are Legal Ethics Boards Ready for AI-Assisted Lawyering?
Inside the Legal Battle Behind America’s TikTok Ban
Human Authorship in AIGenerated Content
Rewriting the Rulebook for Independent Legal Strategy
Are DOJ Data Transfer Limits the New Norm
The Rise of Humanoid Robots: Should Robots Really Have Rights?
How UK and EU Courts are Shaping the Future of Product Design Law
Senate Bill 69: What Now for Third-Party Litigation Funding?
How Global Law Mergers are Reshaping Legal Power Dynamics
The Legal Engine Behind Autonomous Tech
Law in the Age of Encryption: Cloud and Blockchain are Changing the Rules of Confidentiality
Confidentiality has long been one of the legal profession’s most sacred obligations, non-negotiable, client-centric, and traditionally analog. But in 2025, the architecture of law has changed. Cloud platforms now serve as the backbone of legal operations. Blockchain technologies are emerging in contract execution, recordkeeping, and even dispute resolution. And encryption, once a security afterthought, is now at the centre of how legal data is stored, accessed, and transmitted.
Paradoxically, as encryption has grown more sophisticated, the meaning of confidentiality has become more complex. Securing data is no longer about closing doors, it’s about understanding where the doors lead, who owns them, and under what jurisdictions they operate. What was once a simple duty of discretion is now a legally fragmented, technically layered, and globally distributed risk. This article examines how cloud and blockchain technologies are reshaping the legal rules of confidentiality, and why the profession must urgently reexamine what it means to protect client trust.
Confidentiality Is Now a Networked Obligation
The move to cloud-based legal practice has been swift and largely irreversible. Most law firms now rely on third-party infrastructure for email, document storage, legal research, and collaboration. While providers offer encryption and zero-trust access models, these platforms also bring exposure: data may be mirrored across multiple regions, accessed by layered permissions, and subject to surveillance laws that vary by geography.
ABA Model Rule 1.6(c) requires lawyers to make “reasonable efforts” to prevent unauthorised access to client information. But what qualifies as “reasonable” in an environment where the infrastructure itself is abstracted away? For example, if client data is stored on a U.S.-based server but routed through European or Asian data centres, is that a breach of duty, or simply a technical inevitability?
These questions aren’t rhetorical. In cross-border matters, where confidentiality must be preserved across multiple jurisdictions, cloud platforms create latent conflict between ethical obligations and operational convenience. Legal professionals must now interpret confidentiality not just as a personal duty, but as a networked responsibility, managed in concert with technologists, infrastructure providers, and contract managers.
Blockchain Complicates the Attorney-Client Privilege Blockchain was designed for transparency, not discretion. Its immutability and decentralisation provide trust without intermediaries, great for financial ledgers, but problematic for legal practice. Consider a scenario in which a smart contract contains terms that reveal sensitive client strategy or internal valuation data. If that contract is published to a public blockchain, that information becomes permanently accessible to anyone with a node or API access. There is no “delete” key, no quiet fix. The permanence that gives blockchain its value in proof and traceability is the very quality that puts confidentiality at risk.
Even private or permissioned blockchains can be problematic. Without rigorous access control and encryption at the application layer, legal records stored or referenced on-chain may inadvertently become discoverable, either through technical error or regulatory subpoena.
Emerging solutions like zero-knowledge proofs, selective disclosure protocols, and hybrid on/off-chain designs offer promise. But these technologies remain unevenly adopted, and few bar associations have issued specific guidance on how they intersect with privilege and ethical conduct. In the meantime, lawyers using blockchain-enabled tools must navigate uncharted ethical territory, balancing efficiency and innovation against real confidentiality risks.
The Ethics Gap and the Silence from Regulators
Despite the profession’s increasing reliance on encrypted systems, most ethics regulators have been slow to respond. The ABA’s guidance, while principled, hasn’t kept pace with cloud-native and decentralised technologies. Most state bars have issued limited, high-level statements on cybersecurity, but few have addressed how technical systems reshape the ap-
plication of core ethical duties. This silence has left a vacuum. Firms are developing their own policies, some sophisticated, others improvised. General counsel and law firm IT leaders are creating frameworks that blend ethical considerations with infosec best practices, but without centralised benchmarks, consistency is elusive.
In practice, lawyers are making daily judgement calls: Is this platform safe for client onboarding? Should metadata in a blockchain ledger be encrypted? Does using a collaborative tool that stores data in another country trigger disclosure obligations? The answers are rarely clear, and the regulatory infrastructure isn’t moving fast enough to help.
Without a shared vocabulary or formal interpretation of what “reasonable protection” looks like in this era, the legal profession risks creating an ethics gap: one where best intentions outpace regulatory certainty, and where compliance is defined more by technical competence than professional consensus.
Toward a Digitally Literate Confidentiality Framework
To move forward, the profession must broaden its definition of confidentiality. This isn’t about abandoning traditional duties, it’s about adapting them to technical realities. Confidentiality in 2025 requires more than encryption. It requires collaboration between legal, security, compliance, and infrastructure teams. Law firms and legal departments must develop play-
books that outline how data is stored, who can access it, and under what conditions exceptions apply. Contracts with vendors must reflect updated expectations around data handling, storage regions, and disclosure triggers. Client engagement letters may need to evolve to account for AI-assisted research, blockchain-backed verification systems, or cloud-based data rooms. Legal ethics boards, meanwhile, must begin drafting guidance that reflects the complexity of these technologies. Model rules should be updated to address not only what must be protected, but how, and with what baseline of technical literacy. In a world where encryption is the standard, professional competence must include the ability to understand its limitations. Ultimately, confidentiality must be reframed as contextual trust, earned not just through discretion, but through infrastructure design, access control, and contractual clarity.
The tools lawyers now rely on to protect information, cloud systems, encryption, decentralised ledgers, are also reshaping the legal landscape itself. Confidentiality remains a core value, but its expression is no longer confined to closed doors and locked filing cabinets. It lives in code, in cloud regions, and in zero-knowledge transactions. As law continues to evolve alongside technology, the profession must embrace a new kind of vigilance. Confidentiality isn’t disappearing, it’s transforming. And to uphold it, legal professionals must become fluent not only in doctrine, but in architecture.
From Co-Counsel to Code: Are Legal Ethics Boards Ready for AI-Assisted Lawyering?
As artificial intelligence tools become increasingly embedded in legal workflows, ethics boards across the U.S. and beyond are being forced to grapple with questions they haven’t faced before. Can a lawyer ethically rely on an algorithm to draft arguments or summarise case law? Is disclosure required when an AI tool contributes to legal work? And what happens when a client’s confidential data is fed into a system that learns from every prompt?
These are no longer future-facing hypotheticals. In 2025, law firms, solo practitioners, and corporate legal departments are actively deploying generative AI to reduce costs, increase speed, and even simulate legal strategy. But many legal ethics boards remain locked in a reactive posture anchored to frameworks built for a pre-digital profession. The result is a growing gap between technological adoption and regulatory readiness. This article explores that gap and what needs to happen to close it.
AI in the Legal Toolbox
AI is no longer a novel tool in the legal profession, it’s a standard feature in many practice areas. Lawyers use generative platforms for first-draft contract language, document review, discovery, and even drafting court filings. Tools like Lexis+ AI, CoCounsel by Casetext, and bespoke large language models have been marketed as force multipliers in everything from litigation prep to client intake.
The benefits are clear: faster research, streamlined drafting, and the ability to triage large volumes of legal material. But the risks are just as evident. AI-generated content can hallucinate non-existent precedent, misunderstand jurisdictional nuance, or subtly reinforce systemic bias. In one well-publicised 2023 incident, a New York attorney submitted a legal brief containing fabricated citations sourced from ChatGPT, leading to
judicial sanctions and widespread industry concern. As the technology becomes more sophisticated, the pressure to rely on it increases. But with that reliance comes responsibility, a point that regulators are only beginning to address.
The Current Ethics Landscape
In December 2024, the American Bar Association released Formal Opinion 512, its most comprehensive attempt yet to address AI in legal practice. The opinion reaffirmed that core ethical duties remain unchanged: lawyers must maintain competence, preserve client confidentiality, and supervise any nonhuman assistance just as they would a junior associate or paralegal.
However, the opinion stopped short of offering prescriptive guidance. It left open questions around disclosure, should clients be notified when AI is used on their matter?, and supervision, what qualifies as adequate review of AI-generated content? It also sidestepped the issue of algorithmic opacity, which makes it difficult, if not impossible, for lawyers to validate the internal reasoning of tools they rely on.
Across the states, ethics boards have adopted a patchwork of interpretations. California’s draft guidance emphasises informed client consent for substantive AI use. New York’s ethics board is reportedly drafting language focused on cybersecurity safeguards. But the lack of a
unified standard creates confusion, especially for firms operating in multiple jurisdictions. In some cases, compliance in one state could constitute ethical ambiguity in another.
Are Ethics Boards Falling Behind?
Many ethics boards operate in slow cycles, designed for the analog pace of disciplinary complaints, not the real-time disruptions introduced by generative AI. As a result, regulation often lags behind practice, and lawyers find themselves operating in grey zones with little formal guidance.
Some jurisdictions are exploring proactive models. The State Bar of Illinois recently launched an AI advisory task force, charged with developing real-world policy guid-
ance by 2026. A few law societies in Canada and the UK are piloting regulatory sandboxes, safe zones where firms can test AI integration under advisory oversight. But in most U.S. states, ethics enforcement still relies on retroactive review, limiting its ability to shape responsible innovation.
Calls are growing for reform at the national level. Some legal scholars advocate for amendments to the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, suggesting new language around permissible automation, algorithmic accountability, and client disclosure thresholds. Others argue for the creation of “AI ethics subcommittees” within existing bar structures, entities tasked with interpreting ethical risks before they become litigated harms.
Until those changes take root, ethics boards risk playing catch-up in a game already underway.
A Path Forward
If the legal profession hopes to maintain ethical integrity in an AI-assisted world, three elements must become central to its evolution: education, transparency, and interjurisdictional coordination.
First, lawyers must be trained, not only in how to use AI tools, but in how to supervise them responsibly. Law schools and continuing legal education programmes must begin embedding AI ethics into their curricula, treating technological fluency as a core part of professional competence.
Second, ethics boards must offer clearer, real-time guidance to practitioners navigating opaque technologies. Waiting for a scandal or enforcement action to set precedent is no longer tenable in a profession that prides itself on proactive duty and client trust.
Third, transparency must be reframed as an ethical feature, not a regulatory burden. Clients deserve to know if machine intelligence plays a role in their representation. Disclosure policies that clarify when and how AI is used will not only build trust, they’ll help protect lawyers from claims of misrepresentation or negligence.
And finally, coordination across jurisdictions is critical. As firms operate across state and national lines, ethics boards must communicate and harmonise their approaches. A fragmented ethical landscape benefits no one, and leaves too much space for avoidable harm.
AI is not replacing lawyers, but it is reshaping what lawyering looks like. As more firms integrate generative tools into their daily practice, the pressure on ethics boards to provide clear, timely, and practical guidance will only increase.
Whether through updated model rules, new advisory bodies, or cross-border alignment, the legal profession must ensure that ethics evolves alongside innovation. If it doesn’t, it risks not only undermining client trust, but eroding the very standards that define what it means to be a lawyer.
Rewriting the Rulebook for Independent Legal Strategy in a Complex Market
In a legal landscape increasingly defined by scale, consolidation, and global networks, one firm is proving that independence can still be a strategic advantage - provided it is coupled with clarity of vision, deep technical excellence, and relentless client focus. Gitti and Partners, an Italian law firm with offices in Milan, Rome, and Brescia, has quietly built a reputation as one of the most agile, sophisticated, and client-aligned legal players in the country’s competitive legal market.
With more than 120 professionals spanning a broad spectrum of practices - from M&A and private equity to administrative law, fintech, tax, restructuring, and life sciences - the firm is defined not by its size, but by its precision. It offers a model of law firm leadership that is not hierarchical or monolithic, but tailored, responsive, and intellectually grounded.
Translating Legal Precision into Business Advantage
The firm was founded with a deliberate departure from the template followed by many larger, institutional peers. Its founding principle is simple yet rarely executed well: deliver technically excellent, commercially realistic legal advice in a way that is both agile and collaborative. The structure is designed to facilitate this - lean, partner-led, and independent - allowing for a clear strategic direction while remaining responsive to each client’s evolving needs.
What sets the firm apart is not just the breadth of legal expertise, but the ability to mobilise that knowledge through multi-disciplinary teams tailored to the matter at hand. Each case or transaction is managed by professionals with specific sector knowledge and aligned experience, ensuring not only the technical soundness of advice but its real-world applicability. In a time where clients increasingly demand pragmatic, forward-looking legal guidance, this structure delivers.
Its success lies not in following legal trends, but in anticipating them, advising on matters as diverse as synthetic securitisations, special situations, ESG-related compliance, and regulatory hurdles in high-stakes transactions. Through a combination of sectoral insight and legal rigour, the firm offers something rare in today’s market: counsel that is simultaneously strategic, solution-oriented, and deeply invested in client success.
The Independent Advantage in a Time of Consolidation
In a profession where size is often equated with credibility, the organisation has made independence a strategic virtue. Its leaner model allows for direct partner involvement in all critical matters, eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy and creating space for bespoke service. This proximity enhances executional efficiency and cultivates long-term client relationships grounded in trust, transparency, and results.
The independent structure also means the practice remains unencumbered by rigid institutional frameworks, an advantage when navigating complex, fast-moving legal terrain. Clients benefit from swift decision-making, flexible resourcing, and tailored legal solutions that reflect their specific business context rather than internal architecture.
In fields such as distressed investing, public procurement, and technology law - where timing, nuance, and regulatory foresight are paramount - this agility proves decisive. The firm brings to bear both the credibility of a major legal player and the responsiveness of a boutique.
Culture as a Catalyst for Legal Excellence
While legal knowledge remains the cornerstone of any toptier firm, this one understands that expertise alone does not create sustained success. Culture - specifically, a culture of open dialogue, shared responsibility, and professional integrity - is central to its operational model. The environment encourages collaboration as more than an internal value; it becomes a competitive advantage.
This ethos directly impacts service delivery. Teams are selected not just for technical alignment, but for compatibility
with the client’s sector, challenge, and culture. Every mandate is handled with an eye toward integration - both within the legal team and between lawyer and client. Partners remain actively involved throughout the matter lifecycle, offering leadership without detachment.
This cultural coherence also makes the firm a compelling destination for top legal talent. It attracts individuals who are not only legally rigorous but also commercially curious, pragmatic, and committed to building long-term valueboth for clients and for the profession itself. The recruitment philosophy prioritises mindset as much as skill set, favouring those who bring a spirit of intellectual engagement and a willingness to challenge orthodoxy.
Scaling Thoughtfully in an Age Obsessed with Speed
As regulatory complexity accelerates and client expectations evolve, the firm is positioning itself not simply to adapt, but to lead. Strategic growth areas include expanding capabilities in high-demand practice areas, embedding ESG advisory into its legal services, and leveraging digital infrastructure to enhance client responsiveness.
But what distinguishes this growth is not ambition alone - it is the manner in which it is pursued. The organisation re-
mains committed to organic, thoughtful scaling. It will not sacrifice the closeness of its partner-led model, nor compromise on its core values of integrity, independence, and service excellence. For this team, innovation does not mean disruption for its own sake, but intelligent evolution aligned with client priorities.
Internationally, the firm is exploring selective collaborations, ensuring that clients can access cross-border legal support without relinquishing the tailored attention and strategic counsel that define its local service. In an era where cross-jurisdictional complexity is a growing concern, this global outlook paired with local agility is increasingly valuable.
This is a distinct proposition in today’s legal market - not because it does more, but because it does the essential things with greater clarity, discipline, and purpose. In a profession where many chase scale and specialisation in equal measure, this firm stands out for its ability to marry breadth with depth, speed with sophistication, and independence with impact. Its legacy is still being written, but its direction is unmistakably clear: legal advice elevated to strategy, legal service grounded in trust, legal culture redefined through integrity and partnership.
Senate Bill 69: What Now for Third-Party Litigation Funding?
In Georgia, the passage of Senate Bill 69 has ignited a fresh legal debate with national implications. Signed into law in March 2025 as part of a broader tort reform initiative, the bill imposes a new regulatory framework on third-party litigation funding (TPLF) - a practice that has grown rapidly in recent years as a tool for plaintiffs and law firms seeking to share or offset the cost of litigation.
SB 69 introduces mandatory disclosures, registration requirements, and restrictions on funders’ influence over legal strategy. While supporters argue the law enhances transparency and protects against foreign influence, critics warn it may undermine access to justice, particularly in complex or highstakes civil claims. As other states consider similar measures and federal regulators monitor the space closely, the litigation finance industry, and the lawyers who rely on it, face a moment of recalibration.
Key Provisions and What They Mean
Senate Bill 69 is among the most sweeping pieces of state-level legislation targeting litigation funding in the United States. Effective July 1, 2025, the law requires all litigation funders operating in Georgia to register with the Department of Banking and Finance. Funders must disclose their financial arrangements during discovery, and any failure to do so could result in sanctions or the exclusion of funding-related evidence.
One of the bill’s most consequential provisions is its restriction on foreign-affiliated funders. Entities tied to what the statute refers to as “foreign adversaries” (including nations such as China, Russia, and Iran) are barred from financing civil litigation in the state. The language aligns with broader national security rhetoric, drawing parallels to data privacy and critical infrastructure debates that also invoke foreign ownership concerns.
Additionally, SB 69 limits a funder’s ability to exert influence over litigation decisions. Contracts may not permit funders to direct litigation strategy, settlement terms, or attorney selection, codifying what many funders already claim
to observe, but now requiring explicit contractual safeguards.
What This Means for the Litigation Finance Industry
The immediate impact of SB 69 is a tightening of operational flexibility and an increase in compliance complexity. For commercial litigation funders operating across multiple jurisdictions, Georgia’s rules may serve as a bellwether for future restrictions. For funders focused on consumer litigation, where capital risk is high and profit margins are tighter, the administrative burden of registration and disclosure could limit deal volume or deter market entry altogether.
More broadly, the legislation introduces a reputational challenge. Litigation funding, once seen as a market-based solution to access barriers, is now increasingly positioned as a risk vector, particularly in political discourse. Proponents of SB 69 have argued that undisclosed funders distort the adversarial process, encourage frivolous claims, and potentially compromise judicial integrity. The industry, in response, maintains that TPLF promotes fairness, particularly in scenarios where plaintiffs face well-capitalised defendants.
For lawyers, the law adds a new layer of complexity to pre-litigation planning. Disclosure requirements may influence how attorneys discuss funding with clients, how they structure relationships with funders, and how they prepare for the discovery process. Conflicts checks, privilege questions, and client communication protocols must all be updated in jurisdictions that adopt similar frameworks.
The National Context and What Comes Next
SB 69 is not an isolated development. Over the past 18 months, several states, including Texas, Florida, and Missouri, have debated bills that mirror its provisions. At the federal level, the House Judiciary Committee has revisited calls for mandatory disclosure of litigation funding in class action and multidistrict litigation (MDL) cases, reviving a
proposal first floated in 2021.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce continues to lobby for a nationwide disclosure mandate, framing TPLF as an under-regulated industry with far-reaching implications for judicial fairness and national security. While no federal law has yet passed, increasing bipartisan interest in the space suggests the regulatory tide may be turning.
Internationally, similar debates are unfolding. The UK’s Civil Justice Council has called for a statutory regulatory framework for funders, while Australia and Canada are reevaluating their approach to capital-backed litigation as part of broader legal system reform. Across jurisdictions, the central questions are strikingly similar: Who gets to fund litigation? What disclosures are required? And how do courts ensure fairness when financial incentives are at play?
For funders and legal practitioners alike, the takeaway is clear: passive capital in litigation is no longer a private affair, it is a regulatory matter, and one subject to growing public scrutiny.
Senate Bill 69 marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing evolution of third-party litigation funding. By transforming what was once a largely opaque practice into one subject to registration, disclosure, and ethical boundaries, the law reflects deeper concerns about transparency, control, and the influence of outside capital in civil justice.
Whether this legislation sets a national precedent or simply adds another layer to a fragmented compliance landscape, it signals that litigation funding is no longer operating in the shadows. The challenge ahead lies in maintaining access to capital for those who need it most, without compromising the integrity of the legal system. Legal professionals will need to adapt quickly, balancing innovation in financing with a growing obligation to disclose, document, and defend how litigation is funded and by whom.
The Tariff Effect: Why Shifting Trade Deals are Rewriting Labour Compliance for MNCs
Global trade policy used to be primarily about tariffs and market access. In 2025, it’s also about labour rights. As governments across North America, Europe, and Asia restructure their trade policies in response to geopolitical and economic pressures, multinational corporations (MNCs) are facing a new reality: supply chain strategy and labour compliance are now inseparable.
In this evolving environment, tariff regimes and trade agreements are no longer neutral levers of commerce, they’re tools of labour enforcement. From the U.S. to the EU, regulators are embedding worker protections directly into the terms of market participation. MNCs that fail to align with these expectations risk more than supply disruption, they face reputational damage, legal penalties, and exclusion from preferential trade programmes. The question is no longer if labour compliance belongs in global trade, it’s how quickly corporate legal teams can adapt.
Trade Pressure Is Reshaping Labour Risk
Tariff realignments and revised trade agreements have become catalysts for global labour enforcement. In the U.S., a new wave of targeted tariffs, introduced in 2024 and expanded in early 2025, has increased costs on imports from countries with suspected labour rights violations, especially in electronics, automotive, and textiles. But the bigger shift is how trade preferences are being conditioned on labour standards.
The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which came into force in 2020, marked a turning point. It established enforceable labour provisions that allow for independent labour rights investigations and sanctions for violations. More recent trade deals have built on this precedent. The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) and the renegotiated U.S.-Kenya Strategic Trade and Investment Partnership (STIP) both include mechanisms that tie tariff reductions to supply chain transparency and worker protections.
This trend is now mirrored internationally. The EU’s new Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), passed in March 2025, requires companies to map human rights risks across their value chains. Canada and the UK are implementing similar laws that compel companies to disclose forced labour risks in their annual reports. The result is a landscape where market access increasingly hinges on more than just product origin, it depends on how labour is treated throughout the supply chain.
Enforcement Is No Longer Theoretical
What once might have been viewed as aspirational labour clauses are now driving concrete enforcement actions. In the U.S., the Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act (UFLPA) has matured into an aggressive customs enforcement regime. As of Q1 2025, over 5,000 shipments, ranging from semiconductors to solar panels, have been detained at U.S. ports under suspicion of forced labour links.
The Department of Homeland Security has expanded its Entity List to include suppliers from across Southeast Asia and the Middle East, reflecting the global reach of enforcement. These measures are not limited to Chinese-origin goods; they target any company with exposure to flagged labour practices, regardless of final manufacturing location.
International counterparts are following suit. German regulators, under the 2023 Supply Chain Act, have initiated legal proceedings against companies that failed to detect labour violations among subcontractors in Eastern Europe. Australia’s Modern Slavery Act, initially compliance-light, is being restructured to introduce penalties in 2026. Legal teams across global organisations now face rising expectations to map, assess, and report labour conditions that might have once fallen outside their visibility.
The convergence of enforcement and trade means that compliance is not a back-end legal fix, it must be integrated into strategic planning, procurement, and operations from the outset.
Compliance as Competitive Strategy
The rising pressure around labour standards is forcing MNCs to fundamentally rethink their supply chain models. Cost remains a consideration, but it now shares the table with ethical sourcing, regulatory exposure, and trade eligibility. Companies that relied on opaque, multi-tier vendor
arrangements are finding those structures increasingly risky and potentially noncompliant under new trade-linked labour frameworks.
As a result, legal departments are being pulled upstream. Rather than reviewing vendor contracts after the fact, general counsel are now embedded in procurement discussions, risk evaluations, and supplier audits. Labour due diligence is becoming as critical to cross-border operations as customs compliance or IP protection.
Some companies are leveraging these shifts as a differentiator. Retail and consumer electronics firms have begun publicly aligning their sourcing decisions with labour transparency initiatives, betting that both regulators and consumers will reward the effort. For others, however, the shift feels like a compliance arms race, one that demands rapid internal upskilling and stronger cross-functional collaboration.
Regardless of posture, the new normal is clear: labour risk is trade risk. And compliance must be reframed from a defensive posture to a forward-looking business strategy. The global trade architecture of 2025 is increasingly defined by ethical conditionality. Tariffs, trade preferences, and customs enforcement are now being used not just to shape market behaviour, but to shape labour conditions. For multinational corporations, this represents both a challenge and an opportunity.
The challenge lies in adapting to complex, often inconsistent labour compliance expectations across jurisdictions. The opportunity is to lead, to treat trade-linked labour compliance not as a box to check, but as a strategic advantage. In doing so, MNCs can not only protect their operations from regulatory disruption, but also help define what ethical globalisation looks like in the years ahead.
ByteDance vs The Nation: Inside the Legal Battle Behind America’s TikTok Ban
In a landmark move that has gripped both the legal and tech worlds, the U.S. Supreme Court in January 2025 upheld a federal law requiring ByteDance, the Chinese parent company of TikTok, to divest its U.S. operations by June 19 or face a full national ban. This ruling, based on the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA), elevates national security over corporate continuity and sets the stage for a constitutional debate about speech, sovereignty, and the limits of executive authority in the digital era.
As the divestment deadline looms, the legal contours of this case continue to evolve. From the scope of First Amendment protections to the boundaries of government power in technology regulation, the TikTok saga is not only a test of ByteDance’s global strategy, but a defining precedent for how democracies navigate digital influence and geopolitical friction.
The Legal Foundation, National Security and PAFACA
Passed in April 2024, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act empowers the U.S. government to prohibit or force the sale of digital platforms deemed to be under the control of foreign adversaries. TikTok was its clear and immediate target. Citing concerns that ByteDance could be compelled under Chinese law to hand over U.S. user data or influence content visibility, lawmakers framed the legislation as a national security safeguard.
Unlike earlier executive actions that lacked legislative backing, PAFACA emerged from bipartisan consensus and was structured to withstand judicial scrutiny. It does not ban TikTok’s content per se, nor does it outlaw expressive conduct. Instead, it restricts the business operations of a specific foreign-controlled entity. The distinction would prove critical in litigation, particularly in rebutting First Amendment challenges.
The Supreme Court’s Decision and Its Constitutional Reasoning
In TikTok v. Garland, ByteDance and several TikTok creators challenged the statute, arguing it constituted a form of censorship and an overreach of federal author-
ity. But the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld the law, applying what’s known as intermediate scrutiny, a test used when laws incidentally burden free expression but serve a substantial government interest.
Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that PAFACA is content-neutral and tailored to a legitimate goal: preventing foreign adversaries from exerting unchecked influence over U.S. users via algorithmic control or covert data flows. The Court emphasised that the statute does not restrict user expression on TikTok, it targets ownership and control. Thus, while the platform facilitates speech, the ownership structure itself is not protected by the First Amendment.
This distinction effectively shields the law from the kind of strict scrutiny that typically invalidates speech-related regulations. In doing so, the Court reinforced the government’s broad discretion in matters of national security, even when digital platforms are involved.
Investor Activism and Financial Exposure
ByteDance mounted a vigorous defence, characterising the law as a bill of attainder, a constitutional prohibition against legislative punishment of a specific entity without a trial. It also claimed the forced divestiture constituted an unlawful taking under the Fifth Amendment, asserting that compelling the sale of its U.S. assets without due process amounted to economic coercion under the guise of regulation.
The Court rejected these arguments, noting that PAFACA was framed in general terms and included procedural pathways for administrative and judicial review. ByteDance’s ownership of TikTok, the Court reasoned,
was not being “punished” but subjected to a lawful condition based on national security classifications, an area where the judiciary traditionally grants wide deference to the executive and legislative branches.
Despite the setback, ByteDance continues to explore last-minute alternatives, including a potential sale of TikTok’s U.S. assets to a consortium of domestic investors. But any divestiture deal will face its own regulatory hurdles, including antitrust reviews, national security clearances, and logistical complexities in separating TikTok’s U.S. infrastructure from its global platform.
Executive Influence and Political Dynamics
While the Court’s ruling gives legal finality to the matter, executive discretion still plays a central role. In April 2025, the Trump administration extended the divestment deadline to June 19, ostensibly to give ByteDance more time to finalise negotiations. But this extension has also stoked political backlash.
Civil liberties advocates argue that the government’s approach sets a dangerous precedent, granting itself power to target companies based on perceived foreign affiliation, regardless of actual wrongdoing. Meanwhile, data privacy hawks and national security officials continue to warn of the risks posed by foreign-owned apps operating without full transparency in the U.S. market.
This tension, between national protection and civil liberty, has no easy resolution. But what’s clear is that the political will to regulate foreign-owned digital infrastructure is growing, and the TikTok case is now its defining template.
What Comes Next , Precedent, Policy, and Platform Governance
The TikTok case establishes more than a company-specific outcome. It opens the door for future legislative or executive action against other platforms with foreign ownership links, raising questions for companies like Temu, Shein, and emerging AI tools built with offshore funding or infrastructure.
It also pushes legal practitioners and policy advisors to rethink the boundaries of constitutional rights in platform governance. Can free expression be meaningfully protected if the infrastructure through which that expression flows is controlled by adversarial governments? Can digital due process exist in a landscape shaped as much by political optics as by judicial interpretation?
For corporate counsel, the message is clear: national security risk assessments are no longer theoretical, they are legal risk factors. For regulators, the TikTok case signals that political consensus on foreign tech scrutiny is here to stay, regardless of who occupies the White House. Bytedance vs. the Nation is not just a courtroom battle, it’s a reckoning with the legal and geopolitical architecture of the internet. Through the lens of one company and one platform, the United States has confronted a larger question: Who should control the digital spaces where its citizens communicate, express, and consume?
With the Supreme Court’s ruling, the legal precedent is now set. ByteDance must divest or face an outright ban. But the broader message is one of structural change. Going forward, legal frameworks governing digital platforms will be shaped not just by innovation, but by national allegiance, ownership structures, and trust in unseen systems. The outcome of this case will echo far beyond TikTok, and likely define the next chapter of U.S. tech regulation.
When Borders go Digital: Are DOJ Data Transfer Limits the New Norm
In April 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a far-reaching final rule that places new constraints on how companies transfer data abroad. While not a sweeping ban, the regulation - issued under Executive Order 14117, introduces firm controls on the flow of “bulk” sensitive personal data and government-related information to a group of “countries of concern,” including China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela.
Unlike privacy frameworks such as the GDPR, this rule is rooted in national security. It treats certain categories of personal and government-adjacent data as critical infrastructure, and in doing so, redefines what compliance means in cross-border operations. As organisations prepare for the October 2025 enforcement deadline, the legal profession is facing a clear inflection point: data transfers are no longer just an operational issue. They’re a regulated transaction, and a legal risk.
The DOJ Rule and Its Legal Foundation
On April 4, 2025, the DOJ finalised its rule implementing Executive Order 14117, signed in February by President Biden. The rule aims to prevent sensitive U.S. data from being accessed by foreign governments that pose potential threats to national security. It applies to a wide array of transactions, including data brokerage, cloud service agreements, employment relationships, and investment deals, if those transactions could lead to unauthorised access by covered foreign actors.
The regulation specifically targets “bulk” sensitive personal data, including biometric identifiers, genomic in-
formation, health records, financial data, and precise geolocation data. Thresholds vary depending on the data type: for instance, biometric data involving 1,000 or more individuals, or health/financial data covering 10,000 individuals, qualifies as bulk and becomes subject to restriction. Notably, government-related data is protected regardless of volume.
The rule draws a clear distinction between prohibited and restricted transactions. Prohibited transactions, such as selling U.S. citizens’ biometric data to brokers affiliated with a country of concern, are categorically barred. Restricted transactions, such as entering into a service agreement with a foreign tech vendor, may proceed only if they comply with stringent security protocols and are formally documented.
Compliance Implications for U.S. Businesses
Organisations subject to the rule must develop compliance programs by October 6, 2025. These programs need to reflect a level of diligence typically associated with export controls or anti-money laundering statutes, not privacy regulation.
Key requirements include mapping data flows, classifying data types, identifying transaction parties and their ultimate beneficial ownership, and implementing governance structures that ensure ongoing oversight. For restricted transactions, entities must deploy DOJ-sanctioned security measures such as encryption, access logging, and contractual flow-down clauses that prevent unauthorised downstream transfers.
Legal teams will also need to ensure records are audit-ready. The DOJ has stated that companies must maintain documentation showing their evaluation of transaction risk and the safeguards they applied. This risk-based approach mirrors enforcement models used in financial crimes compliance, but applied to digital operations.
Penalties are non-trivial. Civil violations may result in fines up to $368,000 per transaction or twice its value. Criminal violations, including willful breaches, could result in up to $1 million in fines and 20 years of imprisonment.
International Trends and Strategic Considerations
One of the most contentious aspects of This regulation doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Around the world, data localisation and digital sovereignty are shaping new layers of regulatory friction. The European Union has long required standard contractual clauses or adequacy decisions for data transfers. China’s Personal Information Protection Law requires government approval for largescale data exports. India and Brazil are close behind.
The DOJ rule moves the U.S. closer to that global trendline, but with a uniquely national security orientation. It also adds new complexity for multinationals. Cross-border M&A transactions, joint ventures, and vendor contracts now require a fresh layer of legal review, focused not on commercial risk, but geopolitical alignment.
As legal departments scramble to understand how and where their data flows, many are standing up internal task forces to audit exposure and revise procurement policies. Counsel overseeing international operations
must now collaborate with cybersecurity, compliance, and even government affairs teams to ensure a unified approach.
Is This the New Norm?
This regulation may not be a one-off. Instead, it looks like a prototype for a broader federal posture on digital infrastructure control. The DOJ has framed data movement as a national security issue, placing it in the same risk category as energy or telecommunications.
It also redefines how general counsel must approach data risk. Where privacy law once emphasised notice and consent, this regime focuses on access, transmission, and systemic vulnerability. Legal teams must now treat data transfers as a compliance perimeter: something that needs proactive controls, contractual restrictions, and regulatory awareness, not just backend policies.
The long-term implications are significant. If this approach extends to other sectors or is adopted by other federal agencies, it could reshape how cloud infrastructure, AI training data, or even software development are governed. And it will raise questions about how far the U.S. government is willing to go in policing digital relationships with foreign actors.
The DOJ’s 2025 data transfer rule is not just another compliance update, it’s a shift in how the U.S. defines digital sovereignty and corporate responsibility. For legal departments, the time to act is now. Data mapping, transaction vetting, and interdepartmental collaboration are no longer optional, they’re essential to navigating the emerging regulatory perimeter.
As data continues to flow across borders in milliseconds, the U.S. government’s message is clear: not all flows are equal. And some may be unlawful. Legal professionals must be ready, not just to understand these new rules, but to help shape how their organisations respond to them in an increasingly fractured global data ecosystem.
The Rise of the MegaFirm: How Global Law Mergers are Reshaping Legal Power Dynamics
In a profession historically defined by pedigree, partnerships, and specialisation, 2025 is shaping up as the year of the mega-firm. A series of high-profile mergers, including the formation of A&O Shearman and other global consolidations, has signaled a sharp evolution in the structure and strategy of elite legal institutions. These mergers are not just scaling exercises. They are expressions of power, designed to meet the demands of global clients, gain competitive leverage, and capture market share across jurisdictions and sectors.
But with size comes scrutiny. As firms grow into global conglomerates, they inherit not only broader capabilities but also more complex risks: cultural integration, regulatory attention, conflicts of interest, and a growing perception gap between big law’s top-tier players and everyone else. This article explores the forces driving mega-mergers, the strategic shifts they trigger across the legal market, and the questions they raise about the future of the profession.
The Merger Surge and What’s Fueling It
The A&O Shearman merger, finalised in early 2025, brought together Allen & Overy’s transatlantic reach with Shearman & Sterling’s storied U.S. presence, creating a firm with over 4,000 lawyers and a unified brand across more than 40 offices. But this was not a one-off. Other combinations, including Herbert Smith Freehills' recent merger with Kramer Levin, point to a rising appetite for consolidation at the top of the legal pyramid.
The rationale is consistent: clients want seamless, borderless legal support. Global companies managing disputes, compliance investigations, and multijurisdictional transactions increasingly prefer firms that can offer end-to-end service with institu-
tional depth and aligned internal standards. Mergers provide a shortcut to that capability, bypassing the slower work of organic expansion.
There’s also a defensive logic at play. Facing rising competition from ALSPs (alternative legal service providers), Big Four-affiliated legal arms, and in-house legal departments building out their own global talent, traditional firms see scale as a hedge. Bigger doesn’t just mean more lawyers, it means greater lateral recruitment power, expanded technology budgets, and stronger leverage in high-value client negotiations.
Market Consequences and Strategic Reordering
The emergence of mega-firms is creating a two-tiered market. On one level, clients benefit: global coverage, standardised service models, and around-the-clock responsiveness have become baseline expectations for multinationals. But not every client wants or needs a firm with 40 global offices, and not every matter justifies the billing structure that comes with it.
Smaller and mid-sized firms now face increased pressure to differentiate. For some, this means deepening focus in niche sectors. For others, it
has prompted alliances or network affiliations that offer global reach without full-scale mergers. At the same time, talent dynamics are shifting: junior lawyers and high-performing associates increasingly view mega-firms as career accelerants, while critics argue the culture at such firms often prioritises scale over mentorship and long-term growth.
Regulatory scrutiny is also a rising factor. In the U.S., UK, and EU, competition authorities have begun informally tracking large law firm mergers for signs of market concentration, especially in sectors like banking and antitrust litigation where conflicts and consolidation risks run high. Though no formal antitrust actions have been filed, bar associations and watchdog groups have raised questions about independence, conflicts management, and ethical continuity.
Culture, Conflict, and the Operational Reality
Mergers between global firms don’t just blend logos, they integrate cultures, compensation structures, technology stacks, and client philosophies. That integration is rarely seamless. Law firms operate as federations of powerful personalities. Aligning governance models, managing overlapping client rosters, and unifying risk tolerance across jurisdictions presents one of the most persistent, and often underestimated, challenges in the post-merger environment.
Conflict checks alone can become operational bottlenecks. In the aftermath of several recent transatlantic mergers, firms reported months-long delays in onboarding major matters due to legacy client overlaps and incompatible conflicts systems. Additionally, pressure to standardise billing rates and engagement terms often leads to friction between previously autonomous practice groups.
Still, opportunity abounds. Merged firms gain the ability to centralise innovation budgets, invest in legal tech infrastructure, and pilot new service models like AI-enhanced litigation support or subscription-based advisory services. In an era where corporate clients increasingly expect legal service to mirror business services, global, efficient, and tech-enabled, mega-firms may be best positioned to deliver.
But their success will depend on execution. Growth without integration breeds inconsistency. And inconsistency, especially in the context of sensitive legal matters, undermines the very trust these firms hope to scale.
The rise of the mega-firm represents more than a trend, it’s a recalibration of how legal services are structured, delivered, and perceived. These entities offer scale, breadth, and geographic muscle that align with today’s global business environment. But they also raise new questions about identity, ethics, and accessibility in a profession still bound to local norms and personal trust.
As the consolidation wave continues, the firms that thrive will be those that integrate thoughtfully, balancing growth with governance, expansion with cohesion, and ambition with accountability. For clients, regulators, and the profession at large, the next chapter in legal power dynamics is already unfolding, and its shape will be defined not just by who merges, but by how they merge well.
Navigating Copyright Law: Human Authorship in AI-Generated Content
The creative world is experiencing a seismic shift. From articles and artwork to music and software, generative AI systems are producing content at a scale and speed that challenges long-standing assumptions about intellectual property. But beneath the surface of innovation lies a fundamental legal dilemma: If a machine creates something original, who owns it?
As courts and copyright offices grapple with this question, legal clarity is proving elusive. Can a machine be an “author” under current statutes? What qualifies as human contribution in an AI-assisted work? And how are legal frameworks across jurisdictions interpreting the boundaries between creativity and computation?
With recent rulings in the United States, growing debate in the United Kingdom, and rising international uncertainty, the definition of authorship is being rewritten, if not in black-letter law, then certainly in practice.
The U.S. Position - Copyright Requires Human Hands
The U.S. Copyright Office has taken a firm and public stance: copyright protection applies only to works created by human beings. In March 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals reaffirmed this in the closely watched case of Thaler v. Perlmutter, which involved a piece of visual art generated entirely by an AI system known as the “Creativity Machine.” The court ruled that the absence of human creative input rendered the work ineligible for copyright registration.
This decision aligns with the Copyright Office’s February 2025 policy guidance, which clarified how it evaluates AI-assisted submissions. According to the Office, AI-generated content may be protected if a human exercises sufficient creative control over the output, for example, through curation, editing, or prompt engineering that meaningfully shapes the result.
This distinction between AI-generated and AI-assisted content is now central to U.S. copyright law. But its application is case-specific and evolving. Legal practitioners advising publishers, content studios, and tech developers must now assess not only the originality of a work,
but the method and extent of human involvement in its creation.
The UK’s Growing Tension - Copyright or Innovation?
Across the Atlantic, the UK is navigating a more fraught legal and political landscape. The government’s 2023 proposal to allow text and data mining of copyrighted works by AI developers without explicit consent was met with intense backlash from creators and rights holders.
By early 2025, the debate had escalated. Mark Getty, co-founder of Getty Images, publicly criticised the proposals, warning they could erode the UK’s position as a global leader in creative industries. He argued that enabling broad AI access to protected works without remuneration risks devaluing the very thing that gives Britain its cultural identity.
While the government has since delayed implementation of the policy pending further consultation, the issue remains politically charged. Legal experts caution that, without clear statutory safeguards, AI companies operating in the UK may face future litigation over copyright infringement or unfair competition.
The UK’s copyright framework currently recognises computer-generated works under section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, assigning authorship to the “person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.” But the practical meaning of this language is now under scrutiny, especially as generative systems become more autonomous.
Global Legal Uncertainty - A Patchwork Approach
Internationally, no consensus exists on AI authorship. In the EU, AI-generated works are generally excluded from copyright unless significant human intervention is evident. Meanwhile, jurisdictions such as India and Australia are still in early consultation phases, with draft policies offering limited guidance. Adding complexity, AI-generated works frequently resemble or remix existing content, raising concerns about derivative infringement. As large language models and diffusion engines train on copyrighted materials, creators are increasingly filing lawsuits claiming unauthorised use of their intellectual property during training phases.
These disputes highlight a second layer of legal vulnerability. Even if the AI output is deemed unprotectable, the process used to generate it might still violate existing rights. As generative AI proliferates across industries, this tension between process and product is shaping new legal battlegrounds.The lack of harmonisation presents operational risk for multinational companies. A work lawfully used or sold in one jurisdiction may be infringing in another, requiring cross-border content strategies, licensing models, and fallback protections.
How Stakeholders Can Navigate the Legal Maze
In the absence of global consensus, companies and creatives must proactively manage the legal risks associated with AI-generated content. Documenting human involvement in the creative process is no longer just best practice, it may be the only route to securing enforceable rights. Establishing internal protocols that detail human input, whether through content curation, selection, or
transformation, can help validate copyright claims under current interpretations.Licensing terms for the AI models themselves must also be carefully reviewed. Some providers claim rights over outputs, while others impose restrictions on commercial use. Overlooking these details could lead to downstream conflicts over ownership or liability.
Equally important is understanding the IP implications of the model’s training data. Many generative platforms are built on datasets that include copyrighted materials. Without transparency about those sources, users may be exposed to legal claims tied not to what they created, but how their tools were trained.
Finally, legal clarity starts with contracts. Rights allocation around AI-assisted works should be specified upfront, especially in client–agency or employer–contractor relationships. As the case law builds and policies evolve, having unambiguous agreements will be a critical line of defence.
AI has altered the landscape of creation, but not the legal requirement that authorship must be human. In the U.S., that principle has now been affirmed at the appellate level. In the UK, it remains under heated negotiation. Elsewhere, the rules are inconsistent, often contradictory, and changing fast. For legal practitioners, in-house counsel, and content innovators, this moment requires more than adaptation, it demands foresight. Until lawmakers resolve the paradox of machine creativity under human law, the safest course is a cautious one: attribute clearly, involve humans meaningfully, and prepare for legal frameworks that are still being written.
The Rise of Humanoid Robots: Should Robots Really Have Rights?
Legal systems have always been shaped by the entities they are designed to govern: people, corporations, governments. But what happens when the line between object and subject begins to blur? As humanoid robots become more autonomous, more responsive, and more human-like in behaviour, if not yet in consciousness, the legal conversation around their status is no longer theoretical. In 2025, robots are conducting customer service, assisting in medical rehabilitation, and navigating urban spaces with increasing independence. They are not sentient, but they are interactive, responsive, and in some cases, decision-capable. This begs the question: should legal systems begin to consider granting them rights?
The idea may sound radical. But so, once, did the corporate personhood doctrine. As robotics, AI, and machine learning converge to produce entities that simulate empathy, interpret legal instruction, and learn through interaction, lawmakers, ethicists, and technologists are now being asked to reconsider what it means to be a legal person. This article explores the growing debate around robot rights, asking not only whether robots can have rights, but whether they should.
The Functional Personhood Debate
The conversation around robot rights often begins with comparisons to corporate personhood. Corporations, after all, lack sentience but are granted legal personhood to facilitate transactions, contracts, and liabilities. Could a similar legal fiction be applied to robots, particularly those acting autonomously in commercial or civic spaces?
In some jurisdictions, early movement has already occurred. In 2017, the European Parliament floated the notion of “electronic personhood,” suggesting that highly autonomous systems might warrant limited legal status for liability and governance purposes. The logic is less about ethics than legal infrastructure: granting
robots a type of personhood could allow for streamlined accountability, regulatory oversight, and contractual autonomy.
Proponents argue this isn’t about treating robots as moral beings, but about structuring the legal system to accommodate emerging technologies that don’t fit neatly into existing categories. If a humanoid robot injures someone or executes a service contract autonomously, who is legally responsible, and how can those relationships be codified in enforceable ways?.
Consciousness and Moral Standing
While the utility argument focuses on governance, the ethical debate centres on whether robots are owed anything at all. Should legal rights hinge on the capacity to experience suffering, self-awareness, or moral agency?
Most ethicists and neuroscientists agree that no current robotic system demonstrates anything close to sentience. Humanoid robots may mimic emotion or social cues, but they do not possess inner life. For critics of robot rights, this distinction is decisive: rights are meant to protect beings with interests, experiences, and dignity. Assign-
ing rights to machines, they argue, would be an error of category, and could trivialise the moral weight we attach to human or animal rights.
There’s also a practical concern. By extending legal rights to non-conscious systems, we risk complicating liability and diluting the ethical clarity of human-centred legal principles. In this view, what robots need is regulation, not rights.
Legal Risks and Accountability Structures
Even without personhood, humanoid robots present real challenges for legal systems. When a robot harms someone, physically, financially, or reputationally, determining accountability becomes complex. Was the fault in the code? The hardware? The human who deployed it? The company that built it? Assigning rights could, in theory, provide robots with limited legal standing to bear liability or engage in binding commitments. Some scholars have proposed granting robots the ability to hold assets or insurance, allowing them to participate in litigation as defendants or parties in contractual arrangements.
But this raises issues of enforcement. Who pays if a robot is sued? Who controls its assets? Can its decision-making be traced to an accountable human agent? Without clear answers, legal systems must find ways to manage robot risk, potentially through proxy responsibility regimes, product liability models, or tightly defined operational licenses, rather than rights-based frameworks.
Societal Symbolism and Psychological Impact
Perhaps the most overlooked angle in the robot rights debate is cultural. Granting rights, even in symbolic or legal-fiction form, can alter public perception. Studies show that people tend to anthropomorphise humanoid robots, projecting emotion, empathy, and even moral value onto machines that behave socially.
Legal personhood could reinforce this illusion, causing confusion about the nature of human rights and responsibilities. It might also influence how people in-
teract with real sentient beings, blurring the distinction between technological interfaces and authentic relationships.
Ethicists warn that we must be careful not to let legal convenience distort moral frameworks. Just because robots are efficient or lifelike does not mean they deserve legal standing akin to humans or animals. The symbolic power of rights must be preserved, not commodified.
A Regulatory Middle Ground
Most experts now advocate for a regulatory, not rightsbased, approach. The EU AI Act, for instance, classifies systems by risk category and imposes developer and deployer obligations. Under this model, human actors remain legally responsible for the design, deployment, and behaviour of AI and robotics systems. Transparency, explainability, and safety are prioritised over rights attribution.
This approach allows for control and accountability without creating unnecessary legal personhood categories. It also preserves ethical clarity while ensuring that public harm, data abuse, or physical risk can be managed effectively.
For legal professionals, this means adapting compliance frameworks, contracts, and governance models to the unique risks of robotics, not extending rights to the robots themselves.
The idea of granting rights to humanoid robots remains provocative, but perhaps not productive. While legal personhood may offer utility in structuring robot interaction with the legal system, it risks introducing confusion, both culturally and doctrinally.
Instead, the challenge ahead lies in designing robust governance structures that anticipate the complexity of humanoid systems, without overstating their moral or legal status. Robots may never think, feel, or suffer. But how we choose to govern them will define how we navigate the future intersection of law, technology, and humanity itself.
How UK and EU Courts are Shaping the Future of Product Design Law
In today’s fast-moving consumer markets, design is more than just decoration, it’s a competitive edge. But when one company’s product starts to look suspiciously like another’s, courts step in to draw the line between fair competition and outright imitation. In both the UK and EU, legal battles over product design are heating up, with recent rulings redefining how far protection extends and what actually counts as a “copycat.”
These decisions are setting new standards for how designs are registered, enforced, and defended, and not just for high fashion or luxury goods. From tech gadgets to children’s toys, the legal boundaries are shifting. Businesses across sectors are paying closer attention, especially as design has become central to brand identity, consumer experience, and market value. This article looks at how courts on both sides of the Channel are reshaping the rules, and what it means for product creators, legal teams, and innovation leaders.
The Rules Are Evolving on Both Sides of the Channel
As of May 2025, EU design law has undergone its most significant update in two decades. Under the newly implemented European Design Regulation and Design Directive reforms, the scope of protection has expanded to include virtual products, user interfaces, and digital experiences, acknowledging how design now often exists beyond the physical.
These reforms bring dynamic representation into play, allowing designers to submit animated sequences or transitions as part of their application. Enforcement mechanisms have also been strengthened to cover the transit of counterfeit goods and unauthorised 3D printing, a nod to how design theft now happens in digital supply chains as well as physical markets.
In the UK, where equivalent reforms are still under review, courts are nonetheless shaping the practical interpretation of design law through precedent. Post-Brexit divergence is becoming more visible: UK judges have taken a narrower view of what constitutes protectable design when it comes to functionality, putting pressure on claimants to clearly isolate visual elements in filings. This means that while EU regulation is evolving through legislation, UK design law is quietly shifting through case law.
Together, these legal evolutions are changing the very architecture of design strategy, pushing businesses to future proof their assets across two diverging jurisdictions.
Recent Rulings Signal Higher Standards
Case law across both regions shows a clear tightening of what counts as a legitimate design right, and how far it can be stretched in enforcement. The UK’s Trunki ruling remains a foundational moment, but it’s no longer an outlier. In the 2023 PulseOn Oy v. Garmin case, the UK court emphasised that even products with sleek aesthetics must prove those features aren’t simply functional. Similarly, in HHJ Hacon v. Ecolab Ltd, judges warned that lack of clarity in drawings or inconsistent visual representations can derail even well-grounded claims.
In the EU, a standout 2023 case, Galletas Gullón v. EUIPO, reinforced that minor tweaks in shape
or surface detail don’t automatically eliminate the risk of infringement. The EU General Court placed emphasis on “overall impression” and ruled that confusing visual similarity is enough to establish violation.
These decisions are effectively setting a higher bar, not only for those seeking to protect a design, but also for how thoroughly they must prepare for challenges. The message is clear: design filings must now be treated with the same rigour as trademarks or patents.
What Legal Teams and Designers Must Now Consider
In light of the reforms and rulings, companies can no longer afford a reactive approach to design protection. The strategic implications are growing, and so is the complexity.
In the EU, designers can now file dynamic representations, making it possible to protect motion-based UIs, transitional effects, or rotating 3D products. But this opens up a host of new decisions: What format to file in? How will the courts interpret animation frames versus static images? And how will enforcement keep pace with fast-developing digital design?
Meanwhile, UK businesses must anticipate further legal divergence. With no reform legislation passed yet, UK design protection remains rooted in the pre-Brexit framework, but judicial interpretation is shifting. Legal teams must now manage design filings with jurisdiction-specific strategies, ensuring that filings are not just technically correct, but defensible in context.
The need for layered protection is also growing. Savvy companies are combining design registrations with copyright and trademark filings, creating IP portfolios that allow for multiple enforcement avenues. This isn’t just about legal flexibility, it’s about risk distribution in markets where design is a major differentiator.
Digital Design Moves to the Forefront
One of the most important shifts in the 2025
reforms is the formal recognition of digital design as protectable IP in the EU. For the first time, user interfaces, app icons, and other non-physical design assets are explicitly covered. This expands opportunities for design-heavy tech sectors, especially in SaaS, gaming, and ecommerce.
However, enforcement remains complex. In a recent EUIPO case involving a digital streaming platform, the claimant failed to enforce design rights over a carousel layout due to lack of visual context. The takeaway? Even under the new regime, filings must still present designs with clarity, consistency, and distinctiveness.
UK courts, on the other hand, have yet to address these new categories in depth. Legal professionals expect this to be an area of rising litigation, particularly as brands begin testing the limits of what qualifies as a “product” in an increasingly intangible world.
With virtual goods, 3D models, and interface gestures now treated as central to product identity, courts will play an even greater role in deciding how, or whether, these innovations are protected.
Design law in the UK and EU is no longer confined to dusty shelves of IP statutes. It’s a dynamic space shaped as much by judicial interpretation as by legislative reform. In 2025, courts are no longer just arbiters, they’re architects of design law’s future.
For law firm partners, in-house legal teams, and design-led companies, this means adopting a more active, cross-functional approach. Understanding where courts are drawing the line, and how that line might shift again, is now essential to protecting innovation.
Whether defending a best-selling physical product or a sleek app interface, the new rules of engagement are clear: file smarter, document better, and never assume yesterday’s legal framework still applies.
The Legal Engine Behind Autonomous Tech: New U.S Rules Demand Total Transparency
In a pivotal move for the autonomous vehicle (AV) industry, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) introduced a voluntary framework in early 2025: the Automated Vehicle Safety, Transparency, and Evaluation Program (AV STEP). Framed as a regulatory incentive system, the initiative encourages AV developers to share detailed data, ranging from crash metrics to operational design domains, in exchange for case-specific exemptions from certain federal safety requirements, such as those governing steering wheels, mirrors, or pedals.
While the program aims to foster responsible innovation and streamline deployment pathways, it also opens a fresh chapter in the legal governance of autonomous systems. The AV STEP framework’s voluntary structure raises foundational questions about enforceability, liability, and administrative authority. And with an incoming administration signaling intent to reverse several transparency measures, including crash reporting mandates, uncertainty is growing around what the rule of law in AV regulation will actually look like.
AV STEP and the Rise of Regulatory Soft Law
AV STEP is not a regulation in the traditional sense. It operates outside the formal rulemaking process and instead offers a non-binding pathway for companies to demonstrate safety and compliance. In return, NHTSA may grant exemptions to provisions within the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), the legal code that governs everything from vehicle structure to control mechanisms.
For legal departments, this presents a new challenge. The absence of codified requirements means there is no formal administrative remedy if exemptions are denied, revoked, or inconsistently applied. Companies participating in AV STEP are engaging in a form of regulatory diplomacy, not legal certainty.
Further complicating matters is the question of judicial review. If a participant's exemption is challenged by a competitor or consumer group, courts may be called upon to determine whether NHTSA’s discretionary exemption process, issued without notice-and-comment rulemaking, can withstand scrutiny under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
AV STEP reflects a broader trend in tech-facing policy: soft law frameworks that aim to promote transparency without direct compulsion. But this strategy risks undermining long-term legal predictability and could invite litigation around procedural fairness, unequal treatment, and regulatory overreach.
Legal Positioning and Risk for Developers
Autonomous tech developers must now navigate a compliance ecosystem that is fragmented not just geographically, but legally. While federal frameworks like AV STEP suggest a cooperative posture, states such as California and Texas maintain their own AV laws, many of which require separate permits, operational disclosures, or public reporting.
This raises significant questions about federal preemption. While NHTSA holds broad authority over vehicle design, states retain control over licensing, insurance, and public road operation. For general counsel, this dual regime creates exposure. An AV developer may be compliant with AV STEP at the federal level, but still fall short of state transparency thresholds, opening the door to enforcement or litigation.
Participation in AV STEP may also inadvertently increase exposure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Companies sharing detailed AV performance data risk third-party requests that could compromise trade secrets or subject internal safety assessments to public scrutiny. Although NHTSA claims that proprietary data will be protected, the contours of that protection remain legally murky.
Moreover, any discrepancies between disclosed data and real-world incidents could give rise to claims of misrepresentation, negligent oversight, or failure to warn, especially in jurisdictions with plaintiff-friendly tort environments.
Regulatory Volatility and the Administrative Law Backdrop
The AV STEP program is debuting at a moment of political flux. The incoming administration, taking office in January 2025, has expressed skepticism of existing federal transparency mandates for vehicle automation. In December 2024, transition advisors indicated plans to roll back recent rule proposals requiring manufacturers to submit detailed crash reports for Level 2–4 systems, including Tesla’s Autopilot and GM’s Super Cruise.
Such reversals may appear minor on the surface, but they carry outsized legal implications. If crash data collection is weakened, NHTSA’s ability to assess the safety claims made by AV developers is compromised, potentially undermining AV STEP’s credibility as a risk-balancing tool.
Legal experts have raised concerns that repealing data reporting rules without formal administrative proceedings could invite APA-based lawsuits. In short, if the government weakens transparency without following proper procedure, it may trigger legal pushback not only from public safety advocates, but from companies relying on regulatory consistency to justify investment decisions.
The resulting uncertainty places pressure on AV developers to build dual-track compliance strategies, ones that anticipate both heightened federal scrutiny and its sudden withdrawal.
Legislative and Institutional Adaptation
Long-term stability in AV deployment will depend on more than voluntary programs. What’s needed is a clear, codified federal statute that addresses key definitional gaps: What constitutes an Automated Driving System (ADS)? What thresholds trigger mandatory reporting? How should liability be apportioned between driver, developer, and vehicle?
Until such legislation emerges, the courts and state regulators will continue filling in the blanks, case by case, jurisdiction by jurisdiction. For AV companies, the safest legal position is a conservative one: over-disclose, over-document, and avoid relying on soft-law mechanisms as a substitute for formal immunity or regulatory endorsement.
In-house legal teams should also push for internal frameworks that treat data sharing as both a regulatory obligation and a reputational asset. AV STEP may not be enforceable, but participation signals accountability, and in a sector where public trust is fragile, that carries weight in litigation, press, and the policy arena alike.
AV STEP marks a notable shift in how federal regulators are choosing to engage with emerging technology. But its voluntary, extra-statutory nature means that it operates more like a policy experiment than a regulatory anchor. For legal professionals, this creates a paradox: the most important developments in AV law today are happening not in Congress or the courts, but through policy guidance and political messaging. Until Congress codifies national AV standards, or the courts affirm the legality of voluntary frameworks, the industry must remain agile, adaptive, and deeply tuned into administrative law. The road to automation may be paved with innovation, but it will be governed by legal interpretation.
