Search results
133 results ordered by
EDPB guidelines on personal data breach notifications
Last month, the EDPB published their "Guidelines on Examples regarding Personal Data Breach Notification" (the Guidelines). These are intended to provide "practice-oriented, case-based" guidance on when it is necessary to notify the relevant supervisory authorities (the SA) under Article 33(1) of the GDPR and/or data subjects under Article 34(1) of the GDPR following a personal data breach.
Read moreThe Supreme Court hands down judgment in Lloyd v Google
In a keenly anticipated judgment that has significant ramifications for UK data protection, the Supreme Court has today overturned the Court of Appeal's decision in Lloyd v Google and restored the original order made by the High Court, refusing the claimant's application for permission to serve proceedings on Google outside the jurisdiction.
Read moreCase comment: striking out of privacy and confidence actions in the Dixons data breach case
The number of claims issued in the High Court (Media and Communications List) with a data protection element continues to increase. The rise in claim numbers can be attributed to a number of factors including: (i) individuals becoming more aware of their rights under data protection legislation, (ii) uncertainty as to whether individuals may recover damages for a loss of control of their personal data without proving material damage or distress; (iii) the abundance of specialist law firms who are prepared to act for individuals on a "no-win-no-fee" basis and (iv) the availability of After the Event ("ATE") insurance to protect a would-be claimant against adverse costs orders.
Read moreSchrems II – Groundhog Day for Data Transfers
On Thursday 16 July, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) delivered its judgment in one of the most highly anticipated court cases in data protection, Case C-311/18 Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Limited, Maximillian Schrems (widely referred to as “Schrems II”). This decision came almost 8 months after Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe published his Opinion, which albeit not binding, provided a strong indication for the CJEU's judgment.
Read moreRestarting your business and implementing Government guidance to support NHS Test and Trace
In its latest guidance on keeping workers and customers safe during COVID-19 in restaurants, pubs, bars and takeaway services (23 June 2020), the Government has recommended that businesses operating in these sectors keep a temporary record of customers and visitors for 21 days. This will assist NHS Test and Trace with requests for that data if needed.
Read moreNo Deal Brexit – implications for data and privacy law compliance
The Brexit rollercoaster ride continues. At the time of writing, the UK and EU have just announced the agreement of a new withdrawal deal but there are serious doubts about whether it will be backed by Parliament. Despite the requirements of the Benn Act, the risk of the UK leaving the EU without a deal continues to be a concern.
Read moreUS and Chinese regulators sign landmark agreement on inspection of Chinese audit work
On 26 August 2022, the US Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and the PRC China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) and Ministry of Finance (MoF) signed a Statement of Protocol that would allow US regulators access to audits of Chinese companies listed on the US stock exchanges.
Read moreAI in auditing: Embracing a new age for the profession
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a rather new concept for many (ignoring those versed in 80’s Sci-Fi movies); it’s something many don’t know much about and certainly don’t use in our day-to-day lives (or at least appreciate we are using). However, that’s not the case for everyone. Auditors have long been reaping the benefits of AI, but are auditors just scratching the surface of what AI can offer and what impact will an increased use have on their insurance requirements and claims they face?
Read moreThaler v Comptroller [2023] UKSC 49: the UKSC rules that AI cannot be an 'inventor'
To the surprise of no one, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) has finally ruled that an artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be an inventor for the purposes of UK patent law. This judgment accords with the decisions of the lower courts in the UK and the initial ruling of the UKIPO. It also reflects similar findings from most of courts around the world where the claimant, Dr Thaler, brought similar actions.
Read moreEU AI ACT-ion stations
The EU is forging ahead with its vision for AI. With wrapping up talks on the EU AI Act between the EU governments, the Commission and the parliamentary negotiators imminent, we bring you up to date on the EU's risk based approach, the scope of the Act, a timeline, key points that will form the basis of the discussions and next steps.
Read moreWhat To Know About AI Fraudsters Before Facing Disputes
Fraudsters are quick to weaponise new technological developments and artificial intelligence is proving no exception, with AI-assisted scams increasingly being reported in the news, including most recently one using a likeness of a BBC broadcaster.
Read moreGenerative AI and intellectual property rights—the UK government's position
The IPO is to produce a code of practice by the summer that will provide guidance to support AI firms in accessing copyright protected works as an input to their models.
Read moreParliamentary 'wash up' – which Bills made it through?
On 22 May 2024, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced that a General Election will take place on 4 July 2024. Parliament was then prorogued on 24 May 2024 which allowed a mere 2 days for 'wash up' - the process by which outstanding bills may be rushed through the parliamentary process.
Read moreOfcom's 'Roadmap to Regulation' underway with its consultation on illegal harms duties under the Online Safety Act
In November, Ofcom, as new online safety regulator, published the first of four major consultations under the Online Safety Act ("OSA"), which sets out its proposals for how "user-to-user" ("U2U") services (essentially any online website or app that allows users to interact with each other) and online search services (i.e. Google, Bing and similar) should approach their illegal content duties under the new legislation. The consultation provides guidance in a number of areas including governance, content moderation, reporting and complaints mechanisms, terms of service, supporting child users, and user empowerment.
Read moreThe Online Safety Bill is set to become law
The Online Safety Bill will shortly become law in the UK as soon as it receives Royal Assent. The legislation will introduce a new regulatory regime for online platforms and search engines which target the UK, imposing wide-ranging obligations on in-scope services with serious consequences for non-compliance.
Read moreGinfringement: Success for M&S in the Court of Appeal in registered design spat with Aldi
M&S and Aldi's gin bottle battle over design rights has reached a conclusion (for now) as the Court of Appeal has unanimously upheld the IPEC's decision that Aldi's bottle infringed M&S' design.
Read moreClear as gin: M&S and Aldi take liquor bottle battle to the Court of Appeal
Intellectual property enthusiasts' favourite supermarket adversaries were back at loggerheads this week as M&S and Aldi appear before the Court of Appeal. The pair sought to thrash out a first instance decision handed down in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) regarding alleged infringement of M&S' registered design rights in a gin bottle.
Read moreM&S v Aldi – lookalike claims lit up by design rights
As lookalike products rise in prominence, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court's (IPEC) recent ruling that the sale and advertisement of Aldi's 'Infusionist' range of favoured gins infringed M&S's UK registered designs protecting the light-up bottles containing its 'Snow Globe' gin range (Marks and Spencer PLC v Aldi Stores Limited [2023] EWHC 178) highlights the utility of registered design rights in circumstances where other intellectual property rights (IPR) are often less able to provide protection.
Read moreLookalikes and passing off—bottle design get-up claim (Au Vodka)
Currently there's significant activity in the lookalikes space. The Au Vodka claim (Au Vodka v NE10 Vodka [2022] EWHC 2371), which focuses on bottle design 'get-up', arrived in the courts for an interim injunction hearing in September 2022. Au Vodka's application was dismissed. The judgment shows that passing off—get-up claims based on shape can be challenging to bring, particularly at the interim stage, and prompts the question of whether it's possible to bring Cofemel and copyright into the lookalikes arena.
Read moreWeighty issues for diet app developers
2022 is set to be the year of the diet app. The distinction between what is a mere lifestyle app and what should in fact be a regulated medical product or service can be difficult to assess.
Read moreWilliam Grant & Sons v Lidl: where to be-gin?
On 25 May 2021, the Scottish Court of Session (SCOS) granted an interim interdict (akin to an interim injunction), which prevents Lidl from selling its own brand 'Hampstead gin' in Scottish stores, pending the outcome of the matter at trial.
Read moreStay on top of Intellectual Property
Whether you’re just starting out or launching a new product, there are a wealth of intellectual property issues to consider in the world of distilling. Here, Ciara Cullen, Ben Mark and Sarah Mountain outline those do’s and don’ts, the changing landscape and how to thrive in 2021 and beyond.
Read moreTechnology in Insurance
On 16 June 2022 RPC hosted an afternoon of talks and panel sessions on the theme of 'Technology in Insurance', the culmination of the firm's TechWeek which brings market experts and lawyers together to discuss risks and opportunities with new technologies within different business sectors.
Read moreTelecoms supply agreement excludes "loss of profit" claim under "anticipated profits" liability exclusion (EE v Virgin Mobile)
In line with a number of recent cases, in EE Limited v Virgin Mobile Telecoms Limited [2023] EWHC 1989 (TCC) the courts have shown that parties generally cannot avoid clear wording contained in exclusion clauses in order to recover losses that have been expressly excluded (in this case, loss of profits).
Read moreRolls-Royce entitled to hit the brakes in dispute over termination of a software services agreement (Topalsson v Rolls-Royce)
In Topalsson GmbH v Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited [2023] EWHC 1765 (TCC), the High Court has provided useful guidance on how to determine whether a software implementation timeline agreed by the parties is binding, when implementation is considered complete and in what circumstances failing to complete implementation by the contractual deadlines entitles the customer to terminate the contract.
Read moreA narrow escape – software services provider entitled to rely on single aggregate liability cap (Drax v Wipro)
When it comes to bespoke software development projects, a lot can go wrong. There's risk for the customer such as project delays, software defects, functionality issues and a lack of meeting of minds in terms of project requirements.
Read moreAutomatic numberplate recognition: is it legal?
A report in the Guardian last week reminds readers of the strong likelihood that local police forces have tracked their movements with the use of automatic numberplate recognition (ANPR).
Read moreAre privacy injunctions too restrictive?
Has privacy law gone too far? It’s not just the editor of the Daily Mail who thinks so.
Read moreBlanket reporting restriction set aside by Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal has discharged an order the effect of which would have been to postpone the reporting of an important criminal case for several months.
Read moreCorporate failure to prevent tax evasion update – a policy is not enough
It is no secret that the government has a laser focus on making corporates pay for their roles in "facilitating" tax evasion. Recent figures show that HMRC are serious in their drive to hold companies responsible for tax evasion; even companies with seemingly watertight procedures are susceptible. Now is the time to ensure that your regimes are watertight.
Read moreCorrado – Tribunal cancels follower notice penalties
In Giulio Corrado v HMRC [2019] UKFTT 275 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) has set aside a follower notice penalty as the taxpayer's failure to take corrective action in response to a follower notice was reasonable in all the circumstances.
Read moreHigh Court criticises HMRC's conduct finding that it breached taxpayer's legitimate expectation
High Court criticises HMRC's conduct finding that it breached taxpayer's legitimate expectation
Read moreFailure to comply with direction leads to strike out of taxpayers' appeals
In the recent case of Grindley & Others v HMRC [2016] UKFTT 0834 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) has directed that the taxpayers' appeals be struck out for failure to comply with a direction issued by the FTT.
Read moreStay connected and subscribe to our latest insights and views
Subscribe Here