Barrierefreiheitsstärkungsgesetz (BFSG) und die betroffenen Bankdienstleistungen
Am 28. Juni 2025 tritt das Barrierefreiheitsstärkungsgesetz (BFSG) in Kraft. Das Kernziel des BFSG ist es, allen Menschen die barrierefreie Teilhabe am Wirtschaftsleben zu ermöglichen. So ist die Teilhabe an digitalen Produkten und Dienstleistungen insbesondere für Menschen mit Behinderung oftmals nur eingeschränkt möglich. Das BFSG verpflichtet alle Wirtschaftsakteure zur Barrierefreiheit bestimmter Dienstleistungen und Produkte. Dies schließt ausdrücklich auch Bankdienstleistungen mit ein, sodass für sämtliche betroffenen Unternehmen der Finanzbranche Handlungsbedarf besteht.
WEITERE INFORMATIONEN
1. Hintergrund
Mit dem BFSG wird die Richtlinie über die Barrierefreiheitsanforderungen für Produkte und Dienstleistungen ((EU) 2019/882) in deutsches Recht umgesetzt. Ergänzend wurde am 15. Juni 2022 die Verordnung zum Barrierefreiheitsstärkungsgesetz (BFSGV) verabschiedet, welche konkrete Anforderungen an die Barrierefreiheit von Produkten und Dienstleistungen regelt.
2. Anforderungen an die Barrierefreiheit
Das BFSG gewährleistet die Barrierefreiheit von Produkten und Dienstleistungen im Interesse der Verbraucher und Nutzer.
Zu den erfassten Produkten gehören u.a. sogenannte Selbstbedienungsterminals, worunter auch Zahlungsterminals und Geldautomaten fallen.
Die Dienstleistungen umfassen Bankdienstleistungen für Verbraucher. Hierzu zählen Verbraucherkreditverträge und Immobiliar-Verbraucherkreditverträge sowie bestimmte, verbraucherbezogene Wertpapierdienstleistungen und Nebendienstleistungen, wovon insbesondere die Portfolio-Verwaltung und die Anlageberatung erfasst sind. Außerdem unterfallen auch Zahlungsdienste nach dem ZAG, mit einem Zahlungskonto verbundene Dienste und E-Geld dem BFSG. Ferner sind auch generell Dienstleistungen im elektronischen Geschäftsverkehr geregelt, die im Hinblick auf den Abschluss eines Verbrauchervertrags erbracht werden. Erfasst ist damit nicht nur der Abschluss eines Verbrauchervertrags über eine Website oder eine App, sondern bereits der vorvertragliche Bereich.Wirtschaftsakteure, die solche Produkte oder Dienstleistungen anbieten, haben grundsätzlich den Pflichten nach dem BFSG nachzukommen, und diese barrierefrei auszugestalten. Ausnahmen und Erleichterungen bestehen nur für Kleinstunternehmen (
When Arbitration Secrets Cross Continental Divides: The Commercial Court’s Latest Take on Confidentiality
In the world of arbitration, where the same cast of characters regularly appears on different stages, the question of who knows what – and who can tell whom – has always been deliciously complex. The Commercial Court’s recent decision in A Corporation v. Firm B and another, EWHC 1092 (Comm) (2025) serves up a masterclass in navigating these treacherous waters, with Mr Justice Foxton at the helm delivering a judgment that manages to be both pragmatic and principled.
Two Vessels and Too Many Lawyers
Picture this: A law firm, Firm B, with offices spanning continents, finds itself in the middle of a confidentiality conundrum. The London office had acted for B Corporation in a dispute about Vessel 1, which settled nicely. The firm’s Asia office was representing C Corporation in a separate arbitration about Vessel 2. The plot thickens when we learn that the opposing parties in these arbitrations – A Corporation and D Corporation, respectively – are corporate siblings, having a common beneficial owner.
A Corporation, sensing danger, sought injunctions faster than you can say “information barrier.” A’s concern? That confidential nuggets from the Vessel 1 arbitration might find their way into the Vessel 2 proceedings, giving C Corporation an unfair advantage. It wanted Firm B out of the Vessel 2 arbitration entirely, demanding a forensic “cleansing” of files and sworn affidavits about what information had already crossed the Pacific.
But the current of riches was not to be, and the tide returned only hollow crates.
The Sliding Scale of Secrets
What makes Foxton J’s judgment particularly enlightening is his articulation of what might be called the “sliding scale of arbitral confidentiality.” Not all confidential information, it seems, is created equal. The judgment draws careful distinctions between:
The inherently public: Facts about defective goods or contractual disputes don’t become confidential simply because someone commences arbitration. If your vessel arrives in poor condition, that unfortunate fact doesn’t transform into a secret merely because you choose to arbitrate rather than litigate.
The procedurally protected: Documents created for arbitration – pleadings, witness statements, expert reports – enjoy confidentiality not because their content is inherently secret, but because they were deployed in a private process.
The genuinely sensitive: Information disclosed by your opponent under compulsion sits at the apex of the confidentiality pyramid, deserving the highest protection.
This nuanced approach reflects the reality that arbitration confidentiality isn’t a monolithic concept but rather, as the Privy Council suggested was necessary in Associated Electric, sets buoys between different types of documents and information, some inherently more confidential or sensitive than others.[1]
The Maritime Bar’s Dilemma
Perhaps the most practical insight from the judgment concerns what Foxton J delicately terms the “experience that lawyers acquire through conducting arbitrations.” In the small world of maritime arbitration (though the same would hold true for arbitration in many other sectors) where the same solicitors and counsel regularly appear for and against the same parties, drawing the line between protected information and professional experience becomes an art form.
Inevitably, lawyers learn about their opponents’ litigation strategies, which document requests tend to yield results, how particular arbitrators approach certain issues, and what contraband might be stowed away in experts’ and witnesses’ quarters. This accumulated wisdom – the maritime lawyer’s stock-in-trade – cannot be quarantined simply because it was acquired in confidential proceedings. As Foxton J notes with admirable understatement, while the line is difficult to articulate, “experienced lawyers generally have a good sense of which side” of the line they’re on.[2]
When Geography Helps
The continental divide between Firm B’s offices proved crucial to the outcome. While Lord Millett’s famous dictum in Prince Jefri Bolkiah v. KPMG (A Firm), H.L (1998) warns that “information moves within a firm,” the physical and operational separation between London and Asia offices made the threat of disclosure less compelling. The court found no realistic possibility of further confidential information making the trans-Pacific journey, especially after the London lawyers agreed to step down from the Vessel 2 matter.
The judgment also highlights a critical distinction between “former client” cases (where firms face a heavy burden to show no risk of disclosure) and “no relationship” cases like this one. When a firm has never acted for the party seeking the injunction, that party must prove a real risk of prejudice – a burden that A Corporation couldn’t meet.
The Settlement Slip-Up
In a moment of candour, Firm B admitted to one clear breach: passing along information about A Corporation’s settlement offers. Yet even this admission didn’t save A Corporation’s application. The information had already reached C Corporation, and given the significant differences between the two disputes, its utility was limited. Sometimes, it seems, the harbour gates are best left open after the ship has sailed.
Practical Takeaways
For practitioners navigating these waters, the judgment offers valuable guidance:
Pre-arbitration facts remain fair game: The circumstances leading to a dispute don’t become confidential merely because arbitration follows. Your opponent’s defective performance is still their defective performance.
Context matters: The court will consider the actual prejudice to all parties, including innocent clients who might lose their chosen counsel. C Corporation, having instructed Firm B’s Asia office for over a year for reasons unrelated to the Vessel 1 dispute, would have suffered real prejudice from an injunction.
Information barriers can work: But they must be robust, properly implemented, and implemented before the court gets involved. The judgment suggests that voluntary measures, properly executed, may be more effective than court-ordered arrangements.
Document your decisions: The careful approach to confidentiality taken by Mr W, the Firm B partner with conduct of the matter, despite some missteps, ultimately helped demonstrate that Firm B took its obligations seriously. When navigating confidentiality’s narrow straits, it helps to keep a clear logbook.
Charting the Wider Seas
This decision fits within a broader trend of English courts taking a pragmatic approach to arbitral confidentiality. Rather than treating it as an absolute principle, the courts recognise that commercial reality demands flexibility. The “sliding scale” approach allows the system to protect genuinely sensitive information while avoiding outcomes that would paralyse the relatively small community of specialist practitioners.
For international firms with offices spanning continents, the message is reassuring. Geographic separation, combined with sensible information barriers and professional conduct, can allow different offices to act in related matters without falling foul of confidentiality obligations.
The judgment stands as a testament to the Commercial Court’s ability to deliver principled yet practical justice – even when that means telling an applicant that their fears of confidentiality breaches, while understandable, don’t justify the nuclear option of disqualifying opposing counsel.
As disputes continue to proliferate and law firms continue to globalise, the delicate balance struck in A Corporation v. Firm B provides a workable framework for managing the inevitable conflicts. It’s a reminder that in the world of arbitration, as in navigation, the key to avoiding hazards is to chart a careful course between them, and that in arbitration, as in life, the best secrets might be those that aren’t really secrets at all.
[1] Section 12, referring to Associated Electric and Gas Insurance Services Ltd v. European Reinsurance Co of Zurich UKPC 11 (2003), at section 20.
[2] Section 26.
ASIC Appeals Full Federal Court’s Finding in Favour of Block Earner: Key Takeaways for Crypto Companies
The crypto-asset industry has undergone unparalleled expansion and growth in recent years, leaving regulators globally grappling with how to keep up and enforce the existing regulatory frameworks. In Australia, the crypto-asset industry has been preparing for the impending regulation of crypto-assets, with the Government consulting on changes to the existing regulatory framework that will create additional licensing requirements for providers of services (such as exchanges and custodians) in respect of crypto-assets (previously discussed in our post). In addition, the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) is consulting on changes to its own Information Sheet 225 (INFO 225), which provides guidance on the circumstances in which a crypto-asset related offering may be a financial product.
Against this backdrop, ASIC continues to pursue enforcement action against crypto-asset providers, most recently, seeking special leave from the High Court of Australia (HCA) to appeal the Full Federal Court’s recent decision. On 22 April 2025, the Full Federal Court in ASIC v Web3 Ventures (Block Earner) found in favour of Block Earner, reversing aspects of the primary judgment which had found in favour of ASIC in some respects.
The Full Federal Court’s decision was noteworthy for other cryptocurrency exchange and digital asset providers, given the clarity provided by the court regarding the characteristics of “managed investment schemes”, “facilities through which a person makes a financial investment”, and derivatives.
This decision may have implications for ASIC’s proposed updates to INFO 225, as it had been relying in part on the primary judge’s findings in this case as one of the justifications for needing to update INFO 225.
However, ASIC has now sought special leave to the High Court. If leave to appeal is granted, ASIC may use the appeal as a ‘test case’ for clarifying the definitions of a variety of products in the market. In these circumstances, even if the Full Federal Court’s decision is overturned, Block Earner is likely to seek to ensure that the penalty relief granted in the Federal Court remains.
Background
Block Earner provided two main “products” or “services” known as the “Earner” and “Access” products. The Access product was not considered by the Federal Court to be a financial product. The Earner product allowed customers to “loan” specified cryptocurrency in return for interest paid at a fixed rate. Block Earner was then able to use the loaned crypto assets to generate income by lending the cryptocurrency to third parties. At the end of the loan, users received their AUD calculated by reference to the price of the relevant cryptocurrency plus the fixed rate of return.
Customers were bound by the Terms of Use upon opening an account with Block Earner. Imperatively, under the Terms of Use, Block Earner was required to pay the fixed interest rate to users regardless of the amount of income it earned (if any) in relation to the cryptocurrency which was the subject of the loan.
The Full Federal Court’s Decision (22 April 2025)
The Full Federal Court found that the Earner and Access products were not “financial products” under the Corporations Act for reasons which are detailed below. On this issue, the Full Federal Court overturned the finding of the primary judge.
Managed Investment Schemes
In assessing whether there was a managed investment scheme, the Full Federal Court emphasised the need to assess the Terms of Use and some key provisions in it. In particular, the Terms of Use explicitly stated that the loaned cryptocurrency would not be used to generate a financial benefit for the users.
The Full Federal Court consider that what Block Earner did with the loaned crypto assets was entirely at its own discretion and customers had no right to benefits produced by those activities.
The primary judge had found that, although the Terms of Use did not mention pooling for any common benefit, it was sufficient that Block Earner had represented that contributions would be pooled in order to generate a financial benefit for users.
The FCAFC rejected this notion, instead finding that the clauses within the Terms of Use should be taken literally and objectively, as they were unambiguous.
The court also distinguished this case from cases where the court has gone beyond the terms of the loan agreement; where specific representations are made outside of and contrary to terms of loan and where there were specific commitments to use the funds in particular ways for the benefit of investors. Here, the Block Earner customers had no exposure to the benefits of whatever activities Block Earner undertook once it had borrowed cryptocurrency from those users.
Facility for Making a Financial Investment
The Full Federal Court also held that the Earner product was not a facility for making a financial investment under section 763B of the Corporations Act. The primary judge considered that money was being used to generate revenue to then pay a fixed yield back to customers, and therefore the users were making a financial investment. On the contrary, the Full Federal Court found that Block Earner had used the profit generated for itself, and to benefit itself, rather than ‘for’ the investors. The Full Federal Court again emphasised that users were bound by the Terms of Use which clearly indicated their fixed yield entitlement.
Key Takeaways
The Full Federal gave emphasis to the Terms of Use – and their literal interpretation – as opposed to what ASIC considered the terms to have “conveyed”.
Terms or other representations should be unambiguous and explicit, and not overly long or complex. This ensures that the terms are unable to be construed in any other way than how the business intends.
The legal relationship between the business and its customers should be clearly defined.
Conclusion
Further developments at the High Court are being watched closely, given their potential impact on digital asset businesses.
In the meantime, the Full Federal Court’s judgment provides clarity on the characteristics of managed investment schemes, facilities through which a person makes a financial investment and derivatives.
There may be implications for Information Sheet 225 as a result of the judgment, but this remains uncertain ahead of ASIC’s special leave request. We will provide further updates if there are any developments.
Investment Management Client Alert June 2025
ESMA Publishes Final Report on the Preparation of Securities Prospectuses
On 12 June 2025, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) published its final report with regulatory technical standards (RTS) for the preparation of securities prospectuses. This contains a proposed amendment to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/980, which contains the schedules for the content of securities prospectuses. This is intended to further elaborate and implement the amendments to the Prospectus Regulation, in particular due to the introduction of new prospectus types with the Listing Act adopted by the European Parliament on 14 November 2024.
The draft amendment to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/980 for European green bonds and nonequity securities that are advertised as considering Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors or pursuing ESG objectives provides for significant changes to the prospectus content. This applies in particular to information on the EU Taxonomy Regulation and on market standards or ESG labels. In addition, issuers of nonequity securities that are advertised as considering ESG factors or pursuing ESG objectives and that are based on an underlying asset (structured securities) must provide information on the extent to which this underlying asset is material for the assessment of the ESG factors or ESG objectives.
The European Commission now has three months to decide whether it will implement the final draft amendment to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/980.
ESMA Publishes Technical Advice on Harmonization of Prospectus Liability
On 12 June 2025, ESMA published technical advice on the further harmonization of civil liability in relation to securities prospectuses. A mandate from ESMA in this regard is provided for in the Prospectus Regulation following amendment by the Listing Act. To date, civil liability for prospectuses has largely been governed by the national laws of the member states. However, under the Prospectus Regulation, member states must establish a prospectus liability regime. ESMA had previously examined the liability regimes in the member states for its technical advice.
Like the market participants it consulted, ESMA does not see any fundamental need for reform or harmonization with regard to the prospectus liability rules. However, ESMA has identified two areas that it believes are worthy of discussion. Some prospectus liability regimes provide for an exemption (safe harbor rule) for forecasts in prospectuses, as these are generally inherently uncertain. ESMA proposes certain criteria and restrictions in the event that such a safe harbor rule should also be included in the prospectus liability provision (Article 11) of the Prospectus Regulation. ESMA also points out difficulties in determining the applicable national law in relation to prospectus liability claims. This is determined by the conflict rules of private international law (e.g., the Rome I and Rome II Regulations). In ESMA’s view, specific regulations for prospectus liability claims could be helpful here.
ESMA will publish its final report next.
BaFin’s Consultation on the Withdrawal of GwG Exemptions
On 6 June 2025, the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht, or BaFin) started a hearing for a general ruling regarding the withdrawal of exemptions from the provisions of the German Anti-Money Laundering Act (Geldwäschegesetz, or GwG).
Under the version of the GwG in force until 20 August 2008, obliged entities could be exempted from the provisions of the GwG. BaFin and its predecessor authority had made use of this and issued corresponding exemption decisions, some of which are still valid today.
In light of the new EU Anti-Money Laundering Regulation, which will in general apply from 10 July 2025 and that also governs exemptions from the GwG obligations, BaFin no longer sees any scope for the continuation of the previously granted exemptions and plans to withdraw the exemptions by way of a general ruling by 10 July 2025.
ESMA Publishes Final Report on Active Account Requirement Under EMIR
On 19 June 2025, ESMA published its final report with RTS regarding the obligation to use an active account for OTC derivatives.
Financial counterparties and nonfinancial counterparties that are subject to the clearing obligation and exceed the clearing threshold for certain derivative contracts must maintain an active account with an authorized central counterparty for these derivative contracts in accordance with the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) and clear a certain number of transactions on this account.
ESMA’s regulatory technical standards set out further requirements for the functionality and operation of active accounts, the conditions for stress tests, and the details of reporting in a draft delegated regulation. The requirements depend on the type of derivative and whether certain thresholds are reached.
The European Commission now has three months to decide on the adoption of the proposed Delegated Regulation.
ESMA Takes Action Against the Promotion of Unauthorized Financial Services
On 28 May 2025, ESMA sent a separate letter to the major social media providers asking them to take action against the promotion of unauthorized financial services. Accordingly, social media providers should take proactive steps to prevent the promotion of unauthorized financial services in the European Union. In particular, they should verify whether the firms that wish to promote a financial service on their platform have been authorized to provide investment services in the European Union or are acting on behalf of an authorized firm.
Building a Sustainable Future: Understanding Permissible Repair Vs Impermissible Reconstruction In Support Of A Circular Economy
The circular economy invites us to fundamentally reconsider our relationship with resources and products. By moving away from the outdated “take-make-dispose” model, companies are embracing a more sustainable approach that prioritizes longevity, repairability, and eventual recycling. This thoughtful design philosophy creates and preserves value throughout a product’s entire lifecycle. Effective management of intellectual property (IP) rights serves as a cornerstone of this forward-thinking vision. Companies that skillfully balance robust IP protection with accessible repair rights position themselves to foster continued innovation while advancing sustainability goals. These businesses develop products with extended useful lifespans that significantly reduce unnecessary waste and conserve valuable resources for future generations.
Businesses stands to gain numerous advantages by embracing repair as part of their product lifecycle. Customers increasingly recognize and reward brands that demonstrate genuine environmental responsibility, building stronger loyalty and trust in the products. Products designed with repair in mind naturally create more resilient supply chains that can better withstand parts shortages or other disruptions. This approach also contributes to vibrant local repair economies, reducing transportation-related environmental impacts while creating jobs and economic opportunities in communities where customers live and work.
The legal landscape governing repair rights varies significantly between regions like the United States and European Union. A clear understanding of these different frameworks empowers businesses to make informed decisions about how customers can legally interact with products after purchase.
Here, we highlight significant court decisions, relevant statutes, and practical implications for businesses and consumers, specifically for authorized purchasers of an IP-protected product and the holder of those same IP right. This knowledge allows a company to develop strategies that protect their valuable intellectual property while simultaneously supporting broader sustainability objectives. By thoughtfully balancing potential revenue from repair services against the needs and expectations of the customers, a company can position its business for long-term success.
U.S. Legal Framework
The doctrine of patent exhaustion plays a central role in understanding the right to repair. Under this doctrine in U.S. law, once a patented product is sold, the IP Holder’s rights over that specific item are exhausted. This means the Product Owner is free to use, repair, or resell the item without infringing the patent. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Impression Products v. Lexmark International (2017) reaffirmed this principle, rejecting attempts by IP Holders to enforce post-sale restrictions through patent infringement lawsuits. Repair is an affirmative defense to a patent infringement claim; however, where the line between a permissible repair ends and impermissible reconstruction begins is not always clear.
Permissible Repair
Permissible repair in the US refers to actions taken to preserve the utility and operability of an IP-protected product, typically a patented product. This includes replacing individual unpatented parts, one at a time, whether of the same part repeatedly or different parts successively. The Supreme Court’s decision in Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. (1961), Impression Products both established (and most recently reaffirmed in (2023)) that such repairs are lawful and do not constitute patent infringement under U.S. law.
Impermissible Reconstruction
Impermissible reconstruction involves actions that effectively create a new article from the IP-protected product or embodiment after it has become spent. Typically, the product is protected by patents and thus, reconstruction generally relates to patent infringement. The key distinction lies in whether the activity amounts to making a new article, rather than merely preserving the existing one.
Distinguishing Repairs from Reconstruction
While there is no definitive rule, courts assess multiple factors to determine whether a Product Owner has created a new article, thereby reconstructing the patented product. These factors include:
Extent of Replacement – Courts look at how much of the patented product has been replaced at one time. If the replacement involves a substantial portion of the product at the same time, it is more likely to be considered reconstruction. However, even if the Product Owner sequentially replaces all the worn-out parts of a patented combination, courts have found this sequential replacement does not constitute reconstruction.
Nature of the Parts Replaced – Replacing minor, unpatented parts is generally considered repair, while replacing essential, patented components can be seen as reconstruction.
Purpose of the Replacement – The intent behind the activity is considered. If the replacement is intended to extend the life of the product or restore it to its original condition, it is more likely to be considered repair. However, if the replacement effectively creates a new product, it is more likely to be reconstruction.
A pertinent example provided by the court in the Karl Storz case illustrates the application of many of the factors listed above. The court held that if a patent is granted for an automobile, the replacement of a spark plug constitutes permissible repair. Conversely, retaining the spark plug while replacing the entirety of the car in one action is more likely deemed reconstruction.
Right to Repair at the Federal Level
Recent national developments have significantly impacted the landscape of the right to repair in the U.S. Major players such as Apple Inc. have endorsed federal legislation, while the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has intensified its enforcement against restrictive repair practices.
Apple Inc. has publicly supported federal right to repair legislation, marking a significant shift in the company’s stance on repairability. On October 24, 2023, Apple announced its backing of a federal right-to-repair bill, committing to provide access to tools and parts for customers nationwide.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has taken significant steps to combat illegal repair restrictions and restore the right to repair for consumers, small businesses, and government entities. In July 2021, the FTC adopted a policy statement prioritizing investigations into unlawful repair practices under relevant statutes, including the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act. Targeting practices that raise repair costs, stifle innovation, and limit business opportunities for independent repair shops, the FTC aims to address antitrust and consumer protection violations.
Right to Repair at the State Level
As of 2025, right to repair legislation has been introduced in all 50 states. These bills generally aim to guarantee consumers’ rights to access replacement parts, repair manuals, diagnostic data, and appropriate tools necessary for maintenance. States such as New York, Minnesota, Colorado, California, and Oregon have already passed right to repair laws, setting a precedent for other states to follow. These laws empower consumers by providing tools and information for self-repair, reducing dependency on manufacturers. They support independent repair shops by ensuring access to parts and tools, fostering competition and innovation.
The most notable example is Oregon’s 2024 right to repair law, which requires manufacturers to provide parts, tools, and information for repairing consumer electronics. It also bans software that prevents technicians from fully installing spare parts, known as “parts pairing.”
EU LEGAL FRAMEWORK
In the EU, the principle of exhaustion of IP rights also plays a central role in understanding the right to repair. once a product has been placed on the market by the IP Holder or with their consent, the exclusive rights to that specific product are typically considered exhausted. This means consumers can use the product as intended, including repairing it. However, there are no specific guidelines that apply uniformly across all EU member states or the UK for distinguishing repair from reconstruction. Article 64(3) of the European Patent Convention (EPC), which also applies to the UK despite it not being an EU member, requires national courts to handle disputes about European patents using their own laws. The following is an analysis of the general principles and themes that countries under the EPC apply when differentiating between repair and reconstruction.
Permissible Repair
Permissible repair in the EU involves actions that maintain the functionality of a product without infringing on the patent. The Supreme Court in the UK provided guidance in Schütz v Werit (2013), outlining factors to consider when determining whether an activity constitutes repair or reconstruction. These factors include:
Subsidiary Nature of the Replaced Component – Courts assess whether the replaced component is a relatively minor part of the product. If the component is subsidiary and does not embody the inventive concept of the patent, its replacement is likely considered repair.
Life Expectancy – The life expectancy of the replaced component compared to other parts of the product is evaluated. If the component has a significantly shorter lifespan and is expected to be replaced periodically, its replacement is generally deemed repair.
Ease of Replacement – The physical ease of replacing the component and its practical perishability is considered. Components that are designed to be easily replaceable and are relatively perishable in practice are typically associated with repair.
Inventive Concept – Whether the replaced component includes any aspect of the inventive concept of the patent is a critical factor. If the component does not embody the inventive concept, its replacement is more likely to be seen as repair.
Independent Identity – Courts examine whether the replaced part has any independent identity from the product. If the part is integral to the product’s identity, its replacement may lean towards reconstruction.
Impermissible Reconstruction
Impermissible reconstruction in the EU is defined similarly to the U.S., where actions that effectively create a new product from the patented entity are considered patent infringement. Key factors held by countries applying the EPC that indicate impermissible reconstruction include:
Extent of Replacement – Replacing all claimed elements of a patented invention without reusing any parts is likely considered reconstruction. Extensive replacement that transforms the product into a new article falls under reconstruction.b. Creation of a New Article – Activities that result in the creation of a new article from the patented entity are deemed reconstruction. This includes refurbishing a totally worn or spent product to make it operable again.c. Impact on Patent Rights – Reconstruction activities that infringe on the patent rights by creating a new product are impermissible. This includes using patented replacement parts or refurbishment methods without authorization.
Distinguishing Repairs from Reconstruction
Differentiating between permissible repair and impermissible reconstruction requires a careful analysis of the factors outlined above. Courts subject to the EPC assess the nature, extent, and purpose of the activity to determine whether it constitutes repair or reconstruction. The EU’s Right to Repair Directive further clarifies these distinctions by mandating that manufacturers provide access to spare parts, repair manuals, and diagnostic tools for certain products.
EU Directive on Promoting Repair
The European Union has introduced a new directive aimed at promoting the repair of goods, amending existing regulations to enhance sustainable consumption and reduce waste. The directive, officially titled “Directive (EU) 2024/1799 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Common Rules Promoting the Repair of Goods,” was adopted on June 13, 2024, and entered into force on July 30, 20241. Member States are required to transpose it into national law by July 31, 2026.
Key aspects of the directive include:
Obligation to Repair – Manufacturers of products subject to reparability requirements in EU law must repair those products within a reasonable time and at a reasonable price. This obligation applies to products listed in Annex II of the directive, which includes items such as fridges, smartphones, and washing machines.
Prohibition of Repair Impediments – Manufacturers are prohibited from using contractual clauses, hardware, or software techniques that impede the repair of goods listed in Annex II, unless justified by legitimate and objective factors.
Access to Spare Parts and Repair Information – Manufacturers must provide access to spare parts at reasonable prices and make repair information available to consumers in an easily accessible manner. This includes publishing indicative prices for typical repairs on their websites.
Consumer Awareness – The directive mandates that manufacturers inform consumers about the availability of repair services and spare parts, enhancing transparency and encouraging repair over replacement.
CONCLUSION
For companies in the repair business, distinguishing between permissible repair and impermissible reconstruction is crucial. In the U.S., the doctrine of patent exhaustion and key court rulings support the rights of product owners to repair their IP-protected products. Similarly, the EU emphasizes the principle of exhaustion of IP rights, allowing consumers to repair products as intended. However, companies must ensure their repair activities do not cross into reconstruction, which could lead to legal challenges.
Recent legislation in both regions supports consumer rights and independent repair shops, offering significant opportunities for growth. Federal and state laws in the U.S., along with the EU’s directive promoting repair, aim to empower consumers and support independent repair shops by ensuring access to necessary parts, tools, and information.
Finding this equilibrium between IP protection and repair accessibility enables a company to flourish in the emerging circular economy while making a meaningful contribution to environmental sustainability
Mexico Imposes New Export Notice Requirement for 5 Tariff Lines Covering Certain Mechanical and Electric Machinery and Their Parts
After being postponed twice, effective August 11, 2025, Mexico will require an “Automatic” Export Notice prerequisite (Export Notice, which would be subject to evaluation and thus not necessarily “automatically” granted) for companies to be able to export products out of the country under 5 Harmonized Tariff Schedule -out of the originally 30 foreseen-lines (HTS), including (i) certain turbopropellers and gas turbines, (ii) other air or vacuum pumps, (iii) parts for electric motors and electric generating sets and rotary converters, (iv) electric transformers, static converters and inductors, and (v) optical fiber cables (Mexican HTS 8411.12.01, 8414.80.99, 8503.00.99, 8504.23.1, and 8544.70.01).
Export Notice petitions could begin being submitted no sooner than July 28, 2025, and the Ministry of Economy offered that it would provide a response within a 10-day working period; even though there is no automatic authorization or denial in case such period lapses, if a response is not received, exportation simply would not take place.
To impose this new requirement, the Ministry of Economy argued that it was necessary to generate and analyze information about the export flows directed to Mexico’s Free Trade Agreement partners, yet, at the same time, held that the country needed to increase its “productive integration” and reduce its dependence on inputs from abroad.
There are a number of precise formats to utilize and requirements to fulfill so that the Ministry of Economy can even begin to electronically consider Export Notices, and it is a fact that such a notice will be required every single time an export shipment is to occur.
It is of the utmost importance to fully understand and incorporate this requirement and its effects in the processing and scheduling of your international deliveries of mechanical and electric machinery and their parts, and to fully grasp how it could impact your company’s current operations, including your outstanding contractual obligations.
Termination Button–Also Required for Agreements With Automatic Expiry and One-Time Payment
In a recent ruling (I ZR 161/24, 22 May 2025), the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) clarified the scope of § 312k German Civil Code (BGB) regarding the obligation to provide a ‘cancellation button’ on websites if traders enable consumers to conclude continuing performance contracts (Dauerschuldverhältnis) via their website.
The case involved a loyalty program offering consumers benefits in exchange for a one-time payment and ending automatically after twelve months. The online-shop operator did not provide such a cancellation button arguing that these agreements cannot be considered a contract of continuing performance.
However, the BGH found that the contractual relationship constitutes a contract of continuing performance due to the ongoing performance obligations of the trader throughout the loyalty program term (awarding bonus points, free shipping). The form of the consumers’ payment–whether lump sum or recuring–was on the other hand considered not relevant for this assessment. Therefore, traders enabling consumers to conclude contracts of continuing performance have to provide a cancellation button, even in case of fixed term contracts and one-time payments.
This ruling clarifies the scope of § 312k BGB and establishes more stringent compliance obligations for online traders offering consumers to conclude contracts of continuing performance, including those of fixed term and payable by a one-time payment.
Apart from the obligation to provide a cancellation button, from 19 June 2026, traders will be obliged to ensure that also a withdrawal button is permanently available during the statutory withdrawal period for distance consumer contracts.
Council of the European Union Agrees Mandate to Streamline CSRD and CSDDD Requirements
On 23 June 2025, the Council of the European Union (“Council”) endorsed its negotiating mandate on the European Commission’s Omnibus I proposal, which aims to streamline the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive ((EU) 2022/2464) (“CSRD”) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive ((EU) 2024/1760) (“CSDDD”). This initiative forms part of a broader EU strategy to reduce regulatory complexity and enhance the competitiveness of European businesses.
The application of CSRD requirements for companies not yet reporting has already been delayed by two years under the “Stop-the-clock” mechanism adopted on 14 April 2025, with CSDDD’s implementation also delayed. The mandate now agreed by the Council is with regards to the proposed changes in scope of companies needing to comply with CSRD and CSDDD, alongside some of the substantive requirements of CSDDD.
Key Positions in the Council’s Mandate
1. Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD):
Scope Reduction: The Council supports raising the employee threshold to 1,000 employees (up from 250), that must be met as mandatory criteria and excluding listed SMEs from the CSRD’s scope.
New Financial Threshold: A new €450 million net turnover threshold is introduced to further limit the number of in-scope companies — this is a significant uplift from needing to meet either a financial threshold of €50 million in net turnover and/or a balance sheet total exceeding €25 million. It also aligns with the existing threshold for CSDDD.
Review Clause: A provision is included to allow future reassessment of the scope, ensuring sufficient availability of sustainability data across the market.
Postponement Measures:
2. Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD):
Higher Applicability Thresholds: The Council proposes limiting CSDDD to companies with at least 5,000 employees and €1.5 billion in net turnover, focusing on those best equipped to manage due diligence obligations. This is a very significant uplift from €450 million net turnover and 1,000 employees as had previously been proposed.
Risk-Based Approach: The due diligence model shifts from an entity-based to a risk-based approach, targeting areas where adverse impacts are most likely. Companies will therefore conduct a general scoping exercise rather than comprehensive mapping.
Tier 1 Limitation: Obligations to be confined to a company’s own operations, subsidiaries and direct business partners, with a review clause for potential future expansion.
Climate Transition Plans: Companies must adopt climate change mitigation transition plans, but the obligation is deferred by two years. Supervisory authorities will be empowered to advise on their design and implementation.
Civil Liability: The Council maintains the Commission’s proposal to remove the EU-wide harmonised liability regime, leaving enforcement to national legal systems.
Transposition Deadline: The deadline for Member States to transpose the CSDDD is postponed to 26 July 2028.
Next Steps
The Council’s mandate paves the way for interinstitutional negotiations with the European Parliament and the European Commission. However, formal discussions can only commence once the European Parliament has established its own negotiating position, which is ongoing.
Upcoming OSHA and U.N. Meetings May Trigger Changes in U.S. Hazard Communication Standards
On June 24, 2025, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) will conduct a virtual public meeting to discuss the United Nations’ Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). The primary focus of this meeting is to gather stakeholder input and prepare for the upcoming forty-eighth session of the United Nations Economic and Social Council’s Sub-Committee of Experts on the GHS, which will take place in Geneva, Switzerland, from July 7 to July 9, 2025.
OSHA is expected to provide updates on recent regulatory activities, discuss potential changes to the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) to align with the latest GHS revisions, and solicit feedback from industry representatives, labor organizations, and other interested parties. Key topics will include hazard classification, labelling requirements, safety data sheets, and the impact of GHS updates on U.S. regulations and workplace safety.
Quick Hits
On June 24, 2025, OSHA will hold a virtual public meeting to discuss updates to the United Nations’ Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) and gather stakeholder input.
The upcoming meeting of the United Nations’ Sub-Committee on the GHS will be a key forum for discussing and adopting revisions to the GHS, which OSHA will later evaluate and incorporate into U.S. regulations.
OSHA aims to improve chemical hazard communication and facilitate international trade by aligning U.S. regulations with the latest GHS updates, ensuring clarity and consistency for workers and emergency responders.
OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard is explicitly designed to align with the GHS, which is an internationally agreed-upon system for classifying and labelling chemicals. The GHS is periodically revised and updated by the U.N. Sub-Committee based on new scientific information, stakeholder input, and evolving best practices. The July 7–9, 2025, Geneva, Switzerland, meeting is one of the key forums where such revisions are discussed and adopted by consensus among participating countries, including the United States.
When the Sub-Committee adopts new or revised criteria, label elements, or safety data sheet (SDS) requirements, OSHA reviews these changes to determine how best to incorporate them into U.S. regulations. This process ensures that U.S. chemical safety standards remain harmonized with those of major trading partners and reflect the latest scientific and technical knowledge.
Following the Geneva meeting, OSHA is expected to evaluate the adopted GHS revisions and initiate the rulemaking process to update the HCS as necessary. This may include:
revising hazard classification criteria for physical, health, or environmental hazards;
updating required label elements, such as signal words, pictograms, hazard statements, and precautionary statements;
modifying the format and content requirements for safety data sheets and
addressing new or emerging hazards identified at the international level.
For example, OSHA’s most recent update to the HCS (finalized in 2024) was based on the seventh revised edition of the GHS, with select elements from the eighth edition. This update was informed by previous UN GHS sub-committee meetings and reflects the ongoing process of international harmonization.
After the Geneva meeting, OSHA is expected to engage with U.S. stakeholders—including industry representatives, labor organizations, and safety professionals—to gather input on how the new GHS provisions should be implemented domestically. OSHA relies on the stakeholders’ input to update regulations that are designed to be practical, effective, and tailored to the needs of U.S. workplaces.
OSHA also provides transition periods for compliance, allowing chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors, and employers time to update their hazard communication programs, labels, and SDSs in accordance with the new requirements.
By incorporating the outcomes of the Geneva meeting into U.S. regulations, OSHA aims to:
improve the clarity, consistency, and effectiveness of chemical hazard communication for workers and emergency responders;
reduce confusion and compliance burdens for companies operating in multiple countries; and
facilitate international trade by ensuring that U.S. chemical products meet global labelling and classification standards.
Employers that work with materials that fall under GHS probably will not see dramatic changes in the regulations they must abide by. Instead, those changes will likely be incremental and will first be seen by those that bear the responsibility for labelling chemicals.
China’s National Intellectual Property Administration Releases Notice on the Pilot Program to Optimize the Business Environment in the Field of Intellectual Property
On June 23, 2025, China’s National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) in conjunction with 5 other government departments, released the “Notice of the General Office (Office) of Six Departments including the China National Intellectual Property Administration on the Pilot Work of Optimizing Business Environment in the Field of Intellectual Property” (国家知识产权局等6部门办公厅（室）关于开展优化知识产权领域营商环境试点工作的通知). The pilot will be launched in six cities including Beijing, Shanghai, Chongqing, Hangzhou, Guangzhou and Shenzhen. The Notice includes a list of pilot tasks including:
Promote research on intellectual property protection rules in cutting-edge technology fields, and ensure intellectual property protection in emerging fields;
Further expand the pre-examination areas of local intellectual property protection centers based on regional development and local key industry needs; and
Deepen the agency quality monitoring and trigger-based supervision mechanism with the core of rectifying abnormal patent applications, so as to achieve precise crackdowns and targeted policy implementation.
A translation of the Notice and List of pilot tasks follows:
Notice of the General Office (Office) of Six Departments including the China National Intellectual Property Administration on the Pilot Work of Optimizing Business Environment in the Field of Intellectual Property
All provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities directly under the Central Government and Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps intellectual property bureaus, the Propaganda Department of the Party Committee, science and technology and market supervision departments, the supervision bureaus of the General Administration of Financial Supervision, and all units affiliated to the Chinese Academy of Sciences:In order to implement the Opinions of the China National Intellectual Property Administration and other departments on Further Optimizing the Business Environment in the Field of Intellectual Property, the China National Intellectual Property Administration, together with five departments, decided to carry out pilot work on optimizing the business environment in the field of intellectual property in six cities, namely Beijing, Shanghai, Chongqing, Hangzhou, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen, and studied and proposed a list of key pilot tasks (see Annex 1) to support the pilot cities to “one city, one policy” and try first. The relevant matters regarding the pilot work are hereby notified as follows:First, the provincial intellectual property bureaus in the provinces where the pilot cities are located are requested to strengthen overall planning, guide the intellectual property management departments in the pilot cities to establish work coordination with the Propaganda Department of the Party Committee, science and technology, market supervision departments, financial supervision bureaus, and various units affiliated to the Chinese Academy of Sciences, improve the working mechanism, and jointly promote the pilot work.Second, the intellectual property management departments of the pilot cities are invited to take the lead in forming the pilot implementation plan of “one city, one policy” (see Annex 2 for the template), refine the implementation measures, clarify the time arrangement, report to the provincial intellectual property office for review and confirmation, and submit it to the Public Service Department of the China National Intellectual Property Administration before July 15, in accordance with the needs of regional development, in combination with the actual work, and around the promotion of key pilot tasks.The third is to encourage and support provincial-level intellectual property bureaus, guide other cities with conditions, actively explore and innovate around the promotion of key pilot tasks, carry out pilot projects, form more typical experience and practices, and promote the continuous optimization of the business environment in the field of intellectual property.Attachment:
1. List of Key Pilot Tasks2. Pilot Implementation Plan (Template)
-China National Intellectual Property Administration-Office of the Propaganda Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China-Office of the Ministry of Science and Technology-Office of the State Administration for Market Regulation-Office of the State Administration for Financial Regulation-General Office of the Chinese Academy of Sciences
List of Key Pilot Tasks
1、 Improve the market-oriented mechanism of intellectual property rights and help build a high standard market system（1） Expand the autonomy of universities and research institutes in disposing of intellectual property rights through transfer, licensing, or valuation investment.（2） Strengthen the standardized management of job-related inventions, deepen the reform of empowering job-related scientific and technological achievements, and select some eligible medical institutions to carry out pilot work on empowering job-related scientific and technological achievements and separately managing assets.（3） Support universities and research institutions to establish intellectual property management funds and operational funds.（4） Carry out internal evaluation pilot projects for bank intellectual property pledge financing, and guide financial institutions to improve their independent evaluation capabilities.（5） Encourage innovation in financial products such as intellectual property insurance and credit guarantees, and fully leverage the role of finance in supporting the transformation of intellectual property.2、 Strengthening the legal protection of intellectual property rights and better supporting comprehensive innovation（6） Promote research on intellectual property protection rules in cutting-edge technology fields, and do a good job in intellectual property protection in emerging fields.（7） Further expand the pre examination field of local intellectual property protection centers based on regional development and the needs of local key industries.（8） Deepen the agency quality monitoring and trigger based supervision mechanism centered on rectifying abnormal patent applications, and achieve precise crackdown and targeted policy implementation.3、 Enhance the internationalization level of intellectual property services and effectively promote opening up to the outside world（9） Support technology and innovation support centers (TISCs) with conditions to carry out international exchanges on intellectual property information public services.（10） Encourage localities to establish guidance stations for intellectual property work in countries and regions with intensive trade exchanges.（11） Relying on the Overseas Intellectual Property Dispute Response Guidance Center, we provide professional and efficient overseas dispute response guidance services for enterprises.（12） Organize and form a list of key export enterprises by industry, and increase efforts to protect rights and provide assistance.（13） Support insurance institutions to develop and launch more overseas intellectual property insurance products; Promote the establishment of an overseas intellectual property rights protection assistance fund to help enterprises reduce the cost of rights protection.4、 Promote the facilitation of intellectual property government services and enhance the efficiency of benefiting enterprises and the people（14） Relying on the resource aggregation advantages of regional government service centers and government service platforms, we will promote the “one form application, one set of materials, and one window acceptance” of enterprise registration item changes and trademark changes, explore the integration of intellectual property business with other departments’ businesses that are closely related to the entire life cycle of enterprises, and provide more “one-stop” services for enterprises and the public.（15） Explore the application of natural language models and other technologies to enhance the intent recognition and accurate response capabilities of online intelligent customer service, optimize intelligent Q&A, intelligent search, intelligent guidance and other services, and better guide enterprises and the public to handle affairs efficiently and conveniently.（16） Deepen the data sharing and business collaboration between intellectual property and fields such as economy, technology, administrative law enforcement, judicial protection, and market supervision.
（17） Support intellectual property public service institutions to establish service stations in key industrial parks and science and technology parks, achieving full coverage of intellectual property public service in key parks.（18） Strengthen public services for trademark brands and carry out trademark information analysis and utilization.
The original text is available here (Chinese only).
Deployment of AI in the Workplace in France–The Importance of Consulting With the Work Forces
In a significant ruling on 14 February 2025, the First Instance Court of Nanterre, France ordered a company to suspend the deployment of several artificial intelligence tools until proper consultation with its Works Council has been completed.
The company started implementing new AI applications while the mandatory Works Council consultation process was still ongoing. Despite the claim that these tools were merely in a “pilot phase,” the court found that their deployment to employees constituted actual implementation rather than simple experimentation.
The court’s decision emphasizes the importance of respecting employee representation rights in the digital transformation of workplaces, especially in France. This injunctive relief ruled that the premature implementation of the AI tools constituted a “manifestly unlawful disturbance” of the Works Council prerogatives.
This case sets an important precedent for companies implementing AI technologies in France, highlighting the necessity of proper employee consultation procedures before deploying new technological tools in the workplace, in addition to the recently adopted EU AI Act.
The EU AI Act classifies AI systems into four categories: prohibited AI systems, high-risk AI systems (HRAIS), general purpose AI Models (GPAIM), and low-risk AI systems.
Obligations being based on the AI systems risk-level, the most stringent rules apply to HRAIS providers which must particularly:
Implement comprehensive risk management systems;
Ensure data governance;
Maintain technical documentation;
Guarantee transparency;
Enable human oversight;
Meet standards for accuracy, robustness, and cybersecurity;
Conduct conformity assessments; and
Cooperate with regulators.
General Purpose AI Models (GPAIM), must fulfill obligations such as issue technical documentation, comply with EU copyright rules, and provide summaries of their training data. GPAIMs posing systemic risks must also undergo model evaluations, risk mitigation, and incident reporting.
Josefine Beil also contributed to this article.
UK Data Use and Access Act Now in Force
On June 19, 2025, the UK Data Use and Access Bill (DUA Bill) finally received Royal Assent and passed into law as the Data Use and Access Act 2025 (DUA Act). The DUA Act amends the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), the Data Protection Act 2018, and the Privacy and Electronic Communication (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 (PECR).
Key Changes Under the DUA Act
International Data Transfers
The DUA Act introduces a new data protection standard for international data transfers from the UK to other countries. The new standard is “not materially lower” data protection measures than the standard in the UK, as opposed to the current standard as being “essentially equivalent.” This may impact the UK’s adequacy status with the EU. The current EU-UK adequacy decision is valid until December 27, 2025. We will monitor how the European Commission responds to the DUA Act’s new standard.
A New Legal Basis
The DUA Act introduces “Recognized Legitimate Interests” as new a legal basis for data processing. This new legal basis will permit certain security-related activities such as fraud prevention, public safety, and national security. With regard to these data processing activities, a controller will likely not be required to conduct a legitimate interest balancing test. The DUA Act also provides further guidance around what constitutes legitimate interest, such as direct marketing, intra group data transfers for internal administration, and processing necessary to ensure the security of network and information systems.
Data Subject Requests
The DUA Act modifies Data Subject Access Requests (DSARs) by introducing “reasonable and proportionate” searches when controllers are required to respond to DSARs. The DUA Act codifies ICO guidance related to DSARs. Organizations must now explain when they withhold information due to legal privilege.
Automated Decision Making
Article 22 of the UK GDPR restricts solely Automated Decision-Making (ADM) that has a significant legal effect on individuals, requiring meaningful human oversight for all such processes. The DUA Act clarifies that “meaningful human intervention” necessitates that a competent person reviews automated decisions. Organizations conducting ADM must also offer appropriate safeguards. Organizations using AI-driven processes must uphold transparency and accountability in decision-making. Organizations are also required to inform individuals and comply with non-discrimination laws such as the Equality Act 2010.
Cookies
The DUA Act provides new exemptions to the requirement for consent to set cookies for:
Collecting statistical information about how an organization’s service or website is being used with a view to make improvements (such as analytics purposes);
Optimization of content display or to reflect user preferences about content display (such as saving user preferences in relation to font or adapting the display to the size of the user’s device); or
Where the sole purpose is to enable the geographical position of a user to be ascertained in response to an emergency communication.
Even with these exemptions, organizations must clearly inform users about the purpose of the cookies and provide a simple and effective opt-out mechanism.
Digital ID Trust Framework
The DUA Act establishes a Digital ID Trust Framework to establish rules for digital verification services in the UK. This is aimed at fostering innovation, while increasing oversight and consultation. Key provisions of the framework include simplifying regulations to make digital verification services more efficient and accessible.
Children’s Data
The DUA Act introduces several provisions aimed at strengthening the protection of children’s personal data. It outlines that children’s “higher protection matters’” as considerations for how best to safeguard and support children when using services.
Complaints
The DUA Act outlines new rules requiring controllers to respond to complaints within 30 days before being reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
Role of the ICO
The ICO will now see increased oversight by the Secretary of State, potentially leading to shifts in enforcement priorities. The ICO will transition to a corporate body formally established as the Information Commission led by a Chair and supported by a non-executive board.
Next Steps for Organizations
The DUA Act will enter into phased implementation from now through June 2026. Organizations should:
Review and update their data maps and inventories globally.
Assess and audit any ADM and AI related activities.
Review DSAR processes and procedures.
Identify and update how cookies are being used.
Update and/or create complaints handling procedure.