Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
Squire Patton Boggs Recognized in Legal 500 EMEA 2026
TYSONS, Virginia, March 28 -- Squire Patton Boggs, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Squire Patton Boggs Recognized in Legal 500 EMEA 2026
In the newly published 2025 edition of Legal 500 Europe, Middle East & Africa, Squire Patton Boggs has been recommended for its expertise across practices and locations.
For dispute resolution and arbitration, Squire Patton Boggs "houses a large team, with strong activity in disputes linked to Latin America, Central Asia, and North Africa, as well as Central Europe." The team "can combine forces with colleagues from the firm's other international
... Show Full Article
TYSONS, Virginia, March 28 -- Squire Patton Boggs, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Squire Patton Boggs Recognized in Legal 500 EMEA 2026
In the newly published 2025 edition of Legal 500 Europe, Middle East & Africa, Squire Patton Boggs has been recommended for its expertise across practices and locations.
For dispute resolution and arbitration, Squire Patton Boggs "houses a large team, with strong activity in disputes linked to Latin America, Central Asia, and North Africa, as well as Central Europe." The team "can combine forces with colleagues from the firm's other internationaloffices (particularly in the US and Dubai), manages a strong investment arbitration caseload, mainly representing states ... in large and sensitive disputes, including several billion-dollar cases. The team also handles commercial arbitration, while its diverse range of work spans various industry sectors, including construction, energy and infrastructure." In litigation work, the firm is also active across numerous industries such as the energy, insurance, corporate, real estate, and financial services sectors, as well as the pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical devices, digital health and research sectors. Clients have commented, "The team is truly extraordinary, and the support they provide always adds value."
For transactional work, Squire Patton Boggs offers "outstanding client service" and acts across sectors, "well equipped to handle domestic and cross-border M&A, buyouts, and disposals, as well as investments, divestments, and commercial agreements." The private equity practice frequently receives instructions from sponsors, investment funds, management teams and shareholders related to mid-market leveraged buyouts and related cross-border transactions, with clients describing "a technical and practical team, agile and collaborative, offering clear solutions for complex operations. They stand out for their close customer relationships and modern approach."
The firm also "covers a myriad banking and finance issues spanning acquisition, project, and real estate finance for a broad portfolio of international financial institutions and multinational corporations."
In Brussels, Squire Patton Boggs has "expanded its capabilities in chemical and environmental policy" and has "notable expertise in chemical and environmental regulations, and the practice provides advocacy, regulatory compliance, and litigation services, representing clients before EU courts and regulatory bodies."
Recommended Practices:
Belgium
* Commercial, Corporate and M&A
* Competition - EU and Global
* EU Regulatory - Chemicals
Czech Republic
* Banking, Finance and Capital Markets
* Commercial, Corporate and M&A
* Dispute Resolution
* Employment
* Real Estate and Construction
France
* Dispute Resolution - International Arbitration
* Dispute Resolution - White-Collar Crime - Firm to Watch
* EU, Competition and Distribution - Firm to Watch
* Employment
* Industry Focus - Healthcare and Life Sciences
* Insurance
* Intellectual Property: Patents
* Private Equity - LBO
Germany
* Corporate
* Real Estate
Ireland
* Commercial, Corporate and M&A
Italy
* Commercial, Corporate and M&A
* Industry Focus - Energy
* Tax
Poland
* Banking and Finance
* Dispute Resolution
* Employment
* Energy and Natural Resources
* TMT
Slovakia
* Commercial, Corporate and M&A
* Dispute Resolution
* Employment
* Real Estate and Construction
Spain
* Banking and Finance
* Commercial, Corporate and M&A
* Data Privacy and Data Protection
* Dispute Resolution
* Employment
* Private Equity
* Projects and Energy
* Real Estate and Construction
* Tax
Saudi Arabia
* Commercial, Corporate and M&A
United Arab Emirates
* Commercial, Corporate and M&A
* Construction (including Disputes)
* Dispute Resolution - Arbitration and International Litigation
* Dispute Resolution - Compliance and Investigations
* Employment
Individual recognitions:
Commercial, Corporate and M&A
* Marek Hrubes (Czech Republic)
* Omar Momany (United Arab Emirates)
* Matt Powell (United Arab Emirates)
Data Privacy and Data Protection
* Bartolome Martin (Spain)
Dispute Resolution
* Eva Dragunova (Slovakia)
* Rostislav Pekar (Czech Republic)
* Vladimir Polach (Czech Republic)
* Maria Polakova (Czech Republic)
* Tatiana Prokopova (Slovakia)
* Matej Pustay (Czech Republic)
Dispute Resolution - Compliance and Investigations
* Richard Gibbon (United Arab Emirates)
Dispute Resolution: International Arbitration
* Jose Ricardo Feris (France)
Employment
* Malgorzata Grzelak (Poland)
* Sabina Krajickova (Czech Republic)
* Sarah Lawrence (United Arab Emirates)
* Habib Saeed (United Arab Emirates)
EU Regulatory - Chemicals
* Thomas Delille (Belgium)
* Peter Sellar (Belgium)
Industry Focus - Energy
* Paolo Zamberletti (Italy)
Insurance
* Valerie Ravit (France)
* Carole Sportes (France)
Real Estate and Construction
* Lenka Landro (nee Vagundova) (Slovakia)
* Lenka Nova (Czech Republic)
* Tatiana Prokopova (Slovakia)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.squirepattonboggs.com/news/squire-patton-boggs-recognized-in-legal-500-emea-2026/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Ogilvy Futures Report: Human Premium
NEW YORK, March 28 (TNSrep) -- Ogilvy, an advertising, marketing and public relations agency, issued the following news:
* * *
Ogilvy Futures Report: The Human Premium
In its ninth annual report into key communications trends and marketing challenges, Ogilvy PR Australia reveals that communicators in 2026 are navigating two dominant, yet counterintuitive forces.
The latest Ogilvy Futures report explores 14 key trends and their impact on brands, marketing and consumer behavior, and underpinning it all: the impact of AI content and agents, and the juxtaposing need for human connection.
While
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, March 28 (TNSrep) -- Ogilvy, an advertising, marketing and public relations agency, issued the following news:
* * *
Ogilvy Futures Report: The Human Premium
In its ninth annual report into key communications trends and marketing challenges, Ogilvy PR Australia reveals that communicators in 2026 are navigating two dominant, yet counterintuitive forces.
The latest Ogilvy Futures report explores 14 key trends and their impact on brands, marketing and consumer behavior, and underpinning it all: the impact of AI content and agents, and the juxtaposing need for human connection.
Whilerunning towards platforms and new technologies, consumers are increasingly assuming everything they see is synthetic. When everything can be faked, reality becomes a luxury.
As a result, audiences are trading algorithmic feeds for serialized stories, corporate sounding messaging for creator-led commerce, and polished campaigns for participatory culture. They're demanding substance - and the brands that fail to provide it will be left behind.
Each of the trends in the report include advice for brands looking to navigate the rapidly changing consumer behaviors.
Click here to download Ogilvy's 9th annual Futures report, "The Human Premium" (https://www.ogilvypr.com.au/futures9).
Interested in bigger, bolder ideas? Sign up for our newsletter for more insights on how brands can make an impact on the world.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ogilvy.com/ideas/ogilvy-futures-report-human-premium
[Category: BizAdvertising]
Littler Issues Commentary: Executive Order 11246 Redux - Trump's New Executive Order on DEI Calls for Renewed Scrutiny of Government Contractors
SAN FRANCISCO, California, March 28 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 27, 2026, by shareholder David J. Goldstein:
* * *
Executive Order 11246 Redux: Trump's New Executive Order on DEI Calls for Renewed Scrutiny of Government Contractors
At a Glance
* New DEI executive order establishes a new framework for monitoring federal contractors' compliance with nondiscrimination obligations.
* Order excludes any focus on sex based discrimination, and enforcement authority is now decentralized across multiple executive agencies rather than being vested in a single specialized
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, March 28 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 27, 2026, by shareholder David J. Goldstein:
* * *
Executive Order 11246 Redux: Trump's New Executive Order on DEI Calls for Renewed Scrutiny of Government Contractors
At a Glance
* New DEI executive order establishes a new framework for monitoring federal contractors' compliance with nondiscrimination obligations.
* Order excludes any focus on sex based discrimination, and enforcement authority is now decentralized across multiple executive agencies rather than being vested in a single specializedentity.
*
On March 26, 2026, President Trump issued an executive order, Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors. Reprising themes first raised in Executive Order 14151: Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing and Executive Order 14173: Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, this new executive order declares that "DEI activities are not only unethical and often illegal, but also cause inefficiencies, waste, and abuse within entities that engage in such practices." Finding that the costs purportedly associated with DEI are "inevitably passed on to the Federal Government when it contracts with companies who engage in racially discriminatory DEI activities," the president seeks to impose new obligations on federal contractors, including reporting requirements, that are designed to prevent racial discrimination/1 and permit the government to identify and remedy such discrimination when it occurs.
The Definition of Racially Discriminatory DEI Activities
This new executive order defines "racially discriminatory DEI activities" to mean:
disparate treatment based on race or ethnicity in the recruitment, employment (e.g., hiring, promotions), contracting (e.g., vendor agreements), program participation, or allocation or deployment of an entity's resources.
"Program participation" is also a defined term, meaning:
membership or participation in, or access or admission to: training, mentoring, or leadership development programs; educational opportunities; clubs; associations; or similar opportunities that are sponsored or established by the contractor or subcontractor.
New Contract Clauses and Requirements for Federal Contractors and Subcontractors
The executive order instructs all executive departments and agencies to begin including the following language in their contracts and contract-like instruments within 30 days:
In connection with the performance of work under this contract, [the contractor/appropriate party (contractor)] agrees as follows:
1. The contractor will not engage in any racially discriminatory DEI activities, as defined in section 2 of the Executive Order of March 26, 2026 (Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors);
2. The contractor will furnish all information and reports, including providing access to books, records, and accounts, as required by the contracting agency pursuant to the Executive Order of March 26, 2026 (Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors), for purposes of ascertaining compliance with this clause;
3. In the event of the contractor's or a subcontractor's noncompliance with this clause, this contract may be canceled, terminated, or suspended in whole or in part, and the contractor or subcontractor may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts;
4. The contractor will report any subcontractor's known or reasonably knowable conduct that may violate this clause to the contracting department or agency and take any appropriate remedial actions directed by the contracting department or agency;
5. The contractor will inform the contracting department or agency if a subcontractor sues the contractor and the suit puts at issue, in any way, the validity of this clause; and
6. The contractor recognizes that compliance with the requirements of this clause are material to the Government's payment decisions for purposes of section 3729(b)(4) of title 31, United States Code (False Claims Act).
Implementation of the New Requirements
The executive order instructs the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to provide for the inclusion of this new contract language in solicitations and contracts and to remove any currently required provisions that are inconsistent with the new provisions. The executive order gives the FAR Council 60 days in which to issue deviation and interim guidance regarding the implementation of the new clauses prior to formal amendment of the FAR.
Whether the legal and procedural requirements for adding this language to federal contracts can be fulfilled within either the 30- or 60-day deadlines contemplated by the executive order is not clear and could afford a basis for legal actions challenging the implementation of this executive order.
Making higher-tier government contractors responsible for monitoring and reporting on subcontractor's non-compliance with the new contract clauses places a new and potentially heavy burden on government contractors. The creation of such a new obligation would seem to require formal rulemaking.
The executive order provides no guidance regarding the substance of the information and reports that might have to be produced by a government contractor pursuant to this new requirement or the standards that must be met by the government to support a demand for such information. Such new requirements would also seem to require formal rulemaking.
Responsibility for implementation of the new requirements does not appear to be vested in any one federal agency such as the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) but, rather, seems to devolve to each agency independently. This means that requirements and enforcement procedures may vary from one agency to another. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is instructed to provide guidance to contracting agencies regarding compliance with the executive order.
Penalties for Non-Compliance
The executive order provides that a contractor that fails to comply with the new contractual provisions may have its contract terminated, suspended, or cancelled in whole or in part and may be subject to debarment from further government contracting.
The executive order also seeks proactively to:
identify economic sectors that pose a particular risk of entities engaging in racially discriminatory DEI activities based on current or past conduct and issue additional guidance to contracting agencies regarding best practices to ensure compliance with this order within such sector.
Responsibility for this task is delegated to the OMB director, in coordination with the attorney general, the assistant to the president for domestic policy, and the chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In addition, the attorney general is directed to consult with contracting agencies to consider whether to bring claims under the False Claims Act against contractors that have violated the new contract terms and to prioritize the review of civil actions brought by private persons against federal contractors for false claims.
Analysis
The language of this new executive order reflects a clear intention to discourage government contractors from engaging in DEI. However, the definition of racially discriminatory DEI activities makes it clear that the executive order is prohibiting only disparate treatment based on race or ethnicity, which is already unlawful. Accordingly, the executive order does not seem to change what government contractors may or may not do as a matter of law.
What the executive order does is establish a new framework for monitoring federal contractors' compliance with nondiscrimination obligations. This function was previously carried out by the OFCCP until President Trump revoked Executive Order 11246 last year.
The primary difference is that the new order excludes any focus on sex based discrimination, and enforcement authority is now decentralized across multiple executive agencies rather than being vested in a single specialized entity.
As a practical matter, knowing that a company's employment practices will be scrutinized in light of the president's expressed hostility toward DEI may make contractors reluctant to engage in even those DEI-related practices that are lawful.
Until we have more details as to how the executive agencies intend to implement this new executive order, it is hard to predict what is going to follow. When Lyndon Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 in 1965, few would have anticipated the extensive regulatory scheme that would rise around it. From this more recent presidential action, one can reasonably anticipate hundreds of pages of new regulations, years of litigation, and new burdens on those employers that choose to do business with the federal government.
* * *
See Footnotes
1/ Notably, the Executive Order makes no mention whatsoever of discrimination on the basis of sex.
* * *
Authors
David J. Goldstein
Shareholder
Minneapolis
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/executive-order-11246-redux-trumps-new-executive-order-dei-calls-renewed
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer's Global Arbitration Practice Ranked 7th in the World
NEW YORK, March 28 -- Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer's global arbitration practice ranked 7th in the world
In GAR's annual ranking of the leading international arbitration practices, HSF Kramer has placed 7th in the world, unveiled last night at the GAR Awards ceremony in Paris
*
Global Arbitration Review (GAR) has released its annual ranking of the leading international arbitration practices, placing Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer at 7th in the world, maintaining the firm's top 10 ranking for the 13th consecutive
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, March 28 -- Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer's global arbitration practice ranked 7th in the world
In GAR's annual ranking of the leading international arbitration practices, HSF Kramer has placed 7th in the world, unveiled last night at the GAR Awards ceremony in Paris
*
Global Arbitration Review (GAR) has released its annual ranking of the leading international arbitration practices, placing Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer at 7th in the world, maintaining the firm's top 10 ranking for the 13th consecutiveyear.
The firm's GAR 30 ranking is featured in the 19th Edition of the GAR 100, which was unveiled last night at the GAR Awards ceremony held at the Pavillon Gabriel in Paris.
The ranking reveals that the firm's portfolio as counsel amassed $141.25 billion, an increase of $40 billion from last year. This includes 4 cases with claims exceeding $5 billion, 14 cases valued between $1-5 billion, and 26 cases in the $250 million-$1 billion range.
In the firm's GAR 100 profile, GAR describes the commercial arbitration group as "formidable," also praising its public international law and investment treaty arbitration expertise, particularly in advising governments in state-to-state negotiations and boundary disputes.
Client feedback in the GAR survey praises the firm for its "speedy grasp of some difficult technical and financial issues," "very good team management," and "willingness to be reasonable on costs," stating, "we could not have asked for anything more."
The prestigious GAR 30 ranking is based on a thorough quantitative analysis, evaluating factors such as the number of arbitral hearings conducted by a firm over a two-year period. The research takes into account merits and jurisdictional hearings, the amount in dispute in those cases (with "bet-the company" and "large" hearings given greatest weight), and the number of hours billed to arbitration over that period. High-value matters settled and the portfolio value of a firm's active arbitration caseload also influence the final rankings.
Rankings also consider the number of arbitrator appointments a firm's members have received and the number of individuals appearing in Lexology Index (formerly Who's Who Legal) - a guide to the leading practitioners in the field as selected by their peers.
This year's GAR Awards also saw the firm nominated as the Asia practice that impressed.
The firm's write-up GAR 30 can be found here.
Andrew Cannon, Global Co-Head of the firm's International Arbitration Practice and its Public International Law Practice commented: "Our ranking in the GAR 30 is a testament to the exceptional work of our arbitration teams worldwide and the trust our clients place in us to handle their most significant disputes."
Simon Chapman KC, Global Co Head of International Arbitration, added: "The GAR 30 continues to recognise the scale and strength of our arbitration practice, and we are proud of the work our teams deliver for clients across the world."
For more information, please contact Andrew Cannon, Partner, Simon Chapman KC, Partner or Vanessa Naish, Knowledge Counsel, or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer contact.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hsfkramer.com/news/2026-03/hsf-kramers-global-arbitration-practice-ranked-7th-in-the-world
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath Issues Commentary: SEC Provides Guidance for "Baby Shelf" Limited ATM Issuers
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, March 28 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 26, 2026, by partners Tyler J. Vivian, Griffin D. Foster and Jonathan R. Zimmerman:
* * *
SEC Provides Guidance for "Baby Shelf" Limited ATM Issuers
New Corporate Finance Interpretation of Securities Act Form S-3 -- Question 116.26
At a Glance
* If an issuer were to file a prospectus supplement for an ATM facility pursuant to an effective Form S-3, and such issuer was eligible to offer and sell securities in reliance on General Instruction I.B.1 at the time of filing, then
... Show Full Article
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, March 28 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 26, 2026, by partners Tyler J. Vivian, Griffin D. Foster and Jonathan R. Zimmerman:
* * *
SEC Provides Guidance for "Baby Shelf" Limited ATM Issuers
New Corporate Finance Interpretation of Securities Act Form S-3 -- Question 116.26
At a Glance
* If an issuer were to file a prospectus supplement for an ATM facility pursuant to an effective Form S-3, and such issuer was eligible to offer and sell securities in reliance on General Instruction I.B.1 at the time of filing, thenany subsequent baby shelf restrictions would not alone reduce the amount that could be sold pursuant to such ATM facility.
* We believe that the underlying principle for the CFI is that the measurement date for an ATM is the filing date for the preliminary prospectus supplement (or the final prospectus supplement if there is no preliminary), and therefore the measurement date does not change when there is a Section 10(a)(3) update to the registration statement, thus allowing an ATM facility to remain open with its initially filed availability.
*
The US Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Division of Corporation Finance (Corp Fin) has provided issuers with clarity on how to treat an at-the-market (ATM) facility that was put into place via the filing of a prospectus supplement to an effective Form S-3 while the issuer was not subject to the restrictions of I.B.6 -- otherwise known as baby shelf restrictions -- but that subsequently becomes subject to such baby shelf restrictions on its next measurement date.
Below is the specific Q&A that was published by Corp Fin on March 19, 2026 (CFI (formerly C&DI) 116.26).
Question: A company entered into a sales agreement with a named selling agent for an at-the-market offering of an amount of securities that the company reasonably expected to offer and sell. The company had an effective Form S-3 registration statement, was eligible to offer and sell securities in reliance on General Instruction I.B.1, and filed a prospectus supplement for the offering. At the time of its next Section 10(a)(3) update, the company does not meet the $75 million public float requirement of Instruction I.B.1 but remains eligible to use Form S-3 in reliance on General Instruction I.B.6 (the "baby shelf"). Will the staff object if the company continues to offer and sell the full amount of securities covered by the prospectus supplement even if that amount would exceed the offering limits of General Instruction I.B.6?
Answer: Under these circumstances, the staff will not object if the company continues offering and selling the full amount of securities covered by the prospectus supplement that was filed prior to the Section 10(a)(3) update.
Analysis
As detailed above, if an issuer were to file a prospectus supplement for an ATM facility pursuant to an effective Form S-3, and such issuer was eligible to offer and sell securities in reliance on General Instruction I.B.1 at the time of filing, then any subsequent baby shelf restrictions would not alone reduce the amount that could be sold pursuant to such ATM facility.
For example, if on January 1, 2026, an issuer were to file a prospectus supplement pursuant to an effective Form S-3 Registration Statement for a $100 million ATM facility, and such issuer was eligible to offer and sell securities in reliance on General Instruction I.B.1 at the time of filing, then on March 15, 2026, upon the filing of its Form 10-K, its public float was calculated at $50 million and therefore such issuer was determined to be subject to baby shelf restrictions, such determination would not reduce the size or limit the amount that could be sold pursuant to its $100 million ATM facility.
This guidance does not specifically address whether an issuer that files a prospectus supplement for an ATM facility pursuant to an effective Form S-3 at a time it is subject to baby shelf restrictions can continue to sell the full amount included on such prospectus supplement if its baby shelf capacity is reduced at its next measurement date.
That being said, we believe that the underlying principle for the CFI is that the measurement date for an ATM is the filing date for the preliminary prospectus supplement (or the final prospectus supplement if there is no preliminary), and therefore the measurement date does not change when there is a Section 10(a)(3) update to the registration statement, thus allowing an ATM facility to remain open with its initially filed availability.
For example, if on January 1, 2026, an issuer were to file a prospectus supplement pursuant to an effective Form S-3 for a $20 million ATM facility, which was the maximum amount that such issuer was eligible to offer and sell at such time pursuant to General Instruction I.B.6 as a result of having a public float of $60 million and $0 sold pursuant to such Form S-3 in the last 12 months, and on March 15, 2026, upon the filing of its Form 10-K, its public float was calculated at $15 million, then the above guidance supports, albeit not directly, that the issuer could continue to utilize the full $20 million included on the prospectus supplement and would not need to re-calculate the amount that could be sold to reflect the $5 million of baby shelf capacity that is available as of such measurement date based on its $15 million public float.
The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.
* * *
Meet the Authors
Tyler J. Vivian
Partner
Minneapolis
+1 612 766 7138
tyler.vivian@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Griffin D. Foster
Partner
Indianapolis
+1 317 569 4843
griffin.foster@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Jonathan R. Zimmerman
Partner
Minneapolis
+1 612 766 8419
jon.zimmerman@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2026/3/sec-provides-guidance-for-baby-shelf-limited-atm-issuers
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath Issues Commentary: Copyright and AI in the UK -- Implications for Rights Holders and Developers
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, March 28 (TNSrpt) -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 27, 2026, by associate Charlotte H N Perowne, partner Huw Beverley-Smith and trainee solicitor James Ford:
* * *
Copyright and AI in the UK -- Implications for Rights Holders and Developers
Proposed Consultations and Reviews May Result in Future Legislation
At a Glance
* For companies training or deploying AI models and products in(to) the UK or making use of UK data, there are no immediate changes to the law. Proposed consultations and reviews may result in future
... Show Full Article
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, March 28 (TNSrpt) -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on March 27, 2026, by associate Charlotte H N Perowne, partner Huw Beverley-Smith and trainee solicitor James Ford:
* * *
Copyright and AI in the UK -- Implications for Rights Holders and Developers
Proposed Consultations and Reviews May Result in Future Legislation
At a Glance
* For companies training or deploying AI models and products in(to) the UK or making use of UK data, there are no immediate changes to the law. Proposed consultations and reviews may result in futurelegislation.
* Unlicensed reproduction of copyright-protected content during AI training will infringe UK copyright unless a statutory exception applies. AI developers should audit existing training datasets for UK-sourced content and confirm whether licenses are required.
* Similarly, rights holders should monitor for content scraping, and proactively enforce their rights using technical tools currently available (e.g., watermarking, metadata) and licensing.
* AI developers should demonstrate transparency by ensuring, for example, that AI outputs are clearly labelled, to get ahead of potential legislative developments in this area.
*
In a new report on copyright and AI, (Report) the UK government has formally abandoned its previous preference for a broad text and data mining (TDM) copyright exception with rights-holder opt-out for AI model training. This follows overwhelming opposition from rights holders and a lack of consensus among stakeholders.
The Report sets out a range of key issues, including transparency, technical tools, digital replicas, and the protection of computer-generated works. These will be covered by further consultation and evidence gathering, leaving open the possibility of legislative developments down the line. However, there are no immediate plans for new legislation, specific regulatory powers, or substantive copyright reform. For now, rights holders must continue to rely on the existing legal framework of licensing and proactive enforcement, while AI developers are advised to document data provenance to improve transparency. The UK government's "wait and see" AI approach continues to diverge from certain jurisdictions, notably the EU and US, but there will be continued monitoring of international developments, which will likely influence future policymaking.
Background
The UK government is seeking to strike a balance between protecting the valuable intellectual property of the UK's creative industries, while promoting the UK's AI industry. Both sectors are seen as critically important to the UK economy, with the creative sector contributing pound sterling146 billion to UK GDP and supporting 7% of all UK jobs, and the AI sector, which is already the third largest in the world, growing at 23 times the rate of the rest of the UK economy.
The Report and accompanying economic impact assessment were required under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, which we previously wrote about. This was the result of disagreement between the two legislative chambers during the passage of the bill regarding the appropriate legislative options, with the requirement for the government to produce a report and impact assessment meeting detailed parameters included in the legislation as a compromise. The impact assessment seeks to evaluate the possible economic impact of the options (rather than a full cost-benefit analysis), due to significant gaps in the evidence and uncertainty as to how the market will develop.
Some of the key findings and outcomes from the (more than 120-page) Report are set out below.
Abandonment of Government's Preferred TDM Option
The Report follows a consultation launched in December 2024, which had set out the following options for copyright and AI policy:
* Maintain the status quo with respect to copyright and related laws (option 0)
* Require licensing in all cases for copyright works (option 1)
* Amend copyright law to permit a broad data mining exception (option 2)
* Amend copyright law to permit a data mining exception with an opt-out for rights holders, coupled with additional transparency measures (option 3)
Each of the options 1 through 3 incorporated a combination of various proposals, including:
* Revising copyright law
* Measures on copyright licensing
* Requirements for AI training data transparency
* Measures relating to technological tools and standards
The government made clear its preferred policy option: a new TDM exception to copyright law to allow AI developers to use copyright-protected works to train AI models, with an opt-out for rights holders enabling them to "reserve their rights" and prevent training using their works (option 3). This would have aligned the UK more closely with the EU, but was strongly rejected by a majority of respondents. Creative-industry stakeholders argued it would allow AI developers to benefit financially from their work without any compensation for rights holders and that opt-out mechanisms would be impractical to implement at scale. Their preference (supported by 81% of all respondents) was to strengthen copyright protection in the UK such that a licence would be required in all cases (option 1). By contrast, some technology sector respondents expressed concerns that even the limited TDM exception proposed as the government's preferred approach would make the UK uncompetitive compared with other jurisdictions, with their stated preference being for a broad TDM exception with no opt-out (option 2).
The UK government has now stated that it will not move forward with a particular preferred approach, citing the rejection of its preferred policy option in the consultation, gaps in the evidence on the impact of existing copyright law on the development and deployment of AI, and rapid developments in the AI sector and international landscape. Instead, the government will continue to gather evidence and monitor the evolving international regulatory landscape, before taking further steps. Options such as a statutory licensing scheme or levy to compensate rights holders, coupled with a broad TDM exception and focused exceptions for specific purposes (e.g., scientific research) are mooted in the Report.
Enforcement, Transparency, and Getty Images v Stability AI
Copyright infringement is enforced through civil litigation in the UK, primarily in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) or the High Court. Claimants must establish protectability, ownership, and infringement. Unlike in the US, there is no registration system for copyright in the UK, which can add complexity and cost for rights holders in litigation.
The Report emphasises that limited UK law requirements in respect of disclosure of training data sources by AI developers also adds to the difficulty and expense of enforcement. In addition, the Report notes the Getty Images v Stability AI judgment (under appeal), which we wrote about previously. This case raised the possibility of secondary infringement for those deploying AI models in the UK, even where they have been trained outside the UK. In its judgment, the court held that a trained AI model could, in principle, constitute an article capable of being an infringing copy. However, on the facts of the case, Getty (hampered by limited transparency in the model) failed to prove that the model was an infringing copy, because the court found no evidence of retained copies of the relevant Getty works in Stability's AI model, Stable Diffusion. By contrast, and emphasising the fact-specific nature of the Getty ruling, it was noted in the Report that in a recent judgment in Germany (GEMA v OpenAI), the court held that a large language model in that instance did retain copies of training data (specifically the copies of song lyrics).
While over 90% of respondents to the consultation agreed that AI developers should disclose the sources of their training materials, there were differences of opinion with respect to granularity and proportionality of disclosure. The general view was that the introduction of transparency requirements should not be contingent on any new copyright exception, but should apply in any case alongside existing copyright law.
The Report highlights the lack of consistent rules across different jurisdictions with respect to transparency and the difficulty that this presents to AI developers and dataset providers operating internationally. The Report confirms that there is no existing plan to introduce a requirement into UK law for AI developers or providers to make information publicly available about the copyright works used for AI training data. The suggestion is that rather than statutory transparency obligations, the government will encourage industry-led best practices and will continue to monitor international rules and leave this subject for review, as with other areas.
Technical Tools and Standards
The Report also discusses the role of technical tools and supporting standards that copyright holders might use to help them control access to and use of their works by others, including with respect to the purpose of developing AI systems. The government recognises the ongoing challenges faced by those in the creative industries with respect to being able to express preferences about the use of their works in AI training and to enforce their rights. While most standards are industry-led and voluntarily applied, the Report proposes continued monitoring of international developments and working with experts to support best practices and adoption of market-led tools. No new regulation is anticipated at this stage, but the government has left open the option to revisit this if evidence of need emerges.
Computer-Generated Works (CGW)
The Report, as an ancillary consideration, includes a proposal that the existing copyright protection for computer-generated works created without a human author should be removed. Most respondents argued that the protection afforded to such works departs from the original intent of copyright -- i.e., the encouragement and reward of human creativity. By contrast there remains general support for retaining copyright protection for works created with human assistance (i.e., AI-assisted works).
Digital Replicas or Deepfakes
As noted in the Report, the government's consultation received mixed responses on the best approach to protecting people's images and voices from being used without permission without having the effect of stifling innovation. In response the government has stated its intention to explore a range of options, including potentially introducing a new digital replica or personality right in law rather than continuing to rely on the current patchwork of civil and criminal protections. This is an area of particular focus in the UK, with the UK government also currently working with industry stakeholders to develop and implement a deepfake detection evaluation framework, to set industry standards on AI detection and notification.
Government Proposals and Next Steps
The government is trying to achieve a difficult balance between competing interests; and its approach can best be summed up as "wait and see" with continued consultation on specific proposals, which may yet lead to legislative developments.
It also announced a few specific plans for the next phase of analysing the crossover between copyright protections and AI, including:
* A formal consultation on digital replicas, to be launched this summer
* A taskforce to propose best practice for labelling AI-generated content, with an interim report expected in the autumn
* A review of the mechanisms creators can use to control use of their works online, including best practices on input transparency, industry standards, and technical solutions, with a gap analysis and suggestions for potential government action (e.g., new legislation)
* Facilitating a working group of independent and smaller creative organisations to discuss the potential for a government role to support their licensing of content
* Establishing a Creative Content Exchange (CCE), which is intended to provide a "trusted" marketplace for digitised creative assets and is currently in pilot phase
Implications for Businesses
For companies training or deploying AI models and products in(to) the UK or making use of UK data, there are no immediate changes to the law following this Report. However, the government has clearly stated that it no longer has a preferred approach. All options are open with respect to enforcement and transparency for copyright-protected works used in AI model training. Proposed consultations and reviews may result in future legislation.
Unlicensed reproduction of copyright-protected content during AI training will infringe UK copyright unless a statutory exception applies. There is additionally the possibility of secondary infringement for imported models trained outside of the UK (with the Getty Images v Stability AI judgment subject to appeal). AI developers should therefore audit existing training datasets for UK-sourced content and confirm whether licenses are required. Similarly, rights holders should monitor for content scraping, and proactively enforce their rights using technical tools currently available (e.g., watermarking, metadata) and licensing.
Those working with AI-generated avatars or synthetic voice representations based on real individuals should be aware of the likelihood of legislation in this area and continue to monitor developments.
AI developers should demonstrate transparency by ensuring, for example, that AI outputs are clearly labelled, to get ahead of potential legislative developments in this area. Irrespective of the legal position in the UK, those seeking access to the EU market must still meet the requirements set out in the EU AI Act, which we have written about, including transparency with respect to training data.
The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.
* * *
Meet the Authors
Charlotte H N Perowne
Associate
London
+44 (0) 20 7450 4532
charlotte.perowne@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Huw Beverley-Smith
Partner
London
+44 (0) 20 7450 4551
huw.beverley-smith@faegredrinker.com
* * *
James Ford
Trainee Solicitor
London
+44 (0) 20 7450 4539
james.ford@faegredrinker.com
* * *
REPORT: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69ba692226909a14239612e4/CP2602959_-_Report_on_Copyright_and_Artificial_Intelligence_web.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2026/3/copyright-and-ai-in-the-uk-implications-for-rights-holders-and-developers
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Crowell Recognized Among Top Firms in Legal 500 EMEA 2026
WASHINGTON, March 28 -- Crowell and Moring, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Crowell Recognized Among Top Firms in Legal 500 EMEA 2026
Brussels: The Legal 500 Europe, Middle East & Africa (EMEA) 2026 edition has recognized 13 practice areas and nine lawyers in Crowell & Moring's Brussels office.
Legal 500 evaluates the legal market, gathering feedback from over 300,000 in-house counsel worldwide and conducting in-depth interviews with leading lawyers. The publication seeks to "highlight the practice area teams who are providing the most cutting edge and innovative advice to corporate
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 28 -- Crowell and Moring, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Crowell Recognized Among Top Firms in Legal 500 EMEA 2026
Brussels: The Legal 500 Europe, Middle East & Africa (EMEA) 2026 edition has recognized 13 practice areas and nine lawyers in Crowell & Moring's Brussels office.
Legal 500 evaluates the legal market, gathering feedback from over 300,000 in-house counsel worldwide and conducting in-depth interviews with leading lawyers. The publication seeks to "highlight the practice area teams who are providing the most cutting edge and innovative advice to corporatecounsel."
The following Crowell practice groups and lawyers were ranked:
Banking, Finance, and Capital Markets
Banking, Finance, and Capital Markets - Qatar
Competition
Competition: EU & Global - Belgium
Competition: Belgian Law - Belgium/*
Partner Thomas De Meese - Competition: Belgian Law - Belgium - Leading Partner
Commercial, Corporate, and M&A
Commercial, Corporate, and M&A - Belgium
Customs, Trade, WTO And Anti-Dumping
Customs, Trade, WTO And Anti-Dumping - Belgium
Dispute Resolution
Dispute Resolution - Belgium/*
Partner Werner Eyskens - Dispute Resolution - Belgium - Leading Partner
Counsel Evelien Van Espen - Dispute Resolution - Belgium - Leading Associate
Employment
Employment - Belgium
Partner Evelien Jamaels - Employment - Belgium - Next Generation Partner
EU Regulatory: Privacy & Data Protection
EU Regulatory: Privacy & Data Protection - Belgium
EU Regulatory: Pharma, Medical Devices & Biotech
EU Regulatory: Pharma, Medical Devices & Biotech - Belgium/*
Partner Kristof Roox - EU Regulatory: Pharma, Medical Devices & Biotech - Belgium - Leading Partner
Partner Jurgen Figys - EU Regulatory: Pharma, Medical Devices & Biotech - Belgium - Next Generation Partner
Industry Focus: Healthcare & Life Sciences
Industry Focus: Healthcare & Life Sciences - Belgium/*
Partner Kristof Roox - Industry Focus: Healthcare & Life Sciences - Belgium - Hall of Fame
Partner Jurgen Figys - Industry Focus: Healthcare & Life Sciences - Belgium - Next Generation Partner
Industry Focus: IT & Telecoms
Industry Focus: IT & Telecoms - Belgium/*
Partner Thomas De Meese - Industry Focus: IT & Telecoms - Belgium - Hall of Fame
Partner Sari Depreeuw - Industry Focus: IT & Telecoms - Belgium - Leading Partner
Industry Focus: Media & Entertainment
Industry Focus: Media & Entertainment - Belgium/*
Partner Thomas De Meese - Industry Focus: Media & Entertainment - Belgium - Hall of Fame
Partner Sari Depreeuw - Industry Focus: IT & Telecoms - Belgium - Leading Partner
Partner Jan-Diederik Lindemans - Industry Focus: Media & Entertainment - Belgium - Leading Partner
Partner Edward Taelman - Industry Focus: Media & Entertainment - Belgium - Next Generation Partner
Industry Focus: Food
Industry Focus: Food - Belgium/*
Intellectual Property
Intellectual Property - Belgium/*
Partner Sari Depreeuw - Leading Partner
Partner Jan-Diederik Lindemans - Intellectual Property - Belgium - Leading Partner
Partner Kristof Roox - Intellectual Property - Belgium - Hall of Fame
Partner Edward Taelman - Intellectual Property - Belgium - Next Generation Partner
* * *
*/ Indicates first or second tier ranking
* * *
About Crowell & Moring LLP
Crowell & Moring is an international law firm with operations in the United States, Europe, and MENA. Drawing on significant government, business, industry, and legal experience, the firm helps clients capitalize on opportunities and provides creative solutions to complex regulatory and policy, litigation, transactional, and intellectual property issues. The firm is consistently recognized for its commitment to pro bono service, as well as its comprehensive programs and initiatives to advance the professional and personal development of all members of the Crowell community.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/firm-news/crowell-recognized-among-top-firms-in-legal-500-emea-2026
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
