Can a WhatsApp message form a legally binding contract?

The recent Court of appeal judgment in Coupang Corp v DAZN Group Ltd [2025] reaffirmed that even informal communications, such as WhatsApp messages and short emails, may be sufficient to form a legally binding contract and could be enforced and relied on to bring proceedings.

The dispute arose when DAZN (a sports streaming platform) and Coupang Corp (an e commerce company offering video streaming services) entered into negotiations primarily through informal channels over the potential sublicensing of DAZN’s broadcasting rights to the men’s 2025 FIFA Club World Cup, ultimately leading to disagreement about whether a binding contract had been formed.

The Court of Appeal’s ruling emphasises that the manner in which parties negotiate can be just as important as what they negotiate, particularly in fast-paced informal negotiations.

How could it impact your business?

Businesses increasingly use informal channels such as emails, Teams, WhatsApp, Slack, and others to negotiate key terms. However, this judgement re-enforces that even though these methods feel informal in nature, they can still create legally binding contracts. In principle, a verbal agreement can also be legally enforceable, provided it meets the essential elements of a contract, which are:

• Offer and acceptance: One party makes a clear offer and the other accepts it.

• Intention to create legal relations: Both parties must intend for the agreement to have legal consequences.

• Consideration: There must be an exchange of value, such as money, goods, services, or mutual promises.

If these requirements are satisfied, a verbal agreement may carry the same weight as a written contract. However, proving the terms of a verbal agreement can be challenging, which is why written contracts are strongly recommended to avoid disputes.

Businesses engaging in informal negotiations should also take care to use clear and unambiguous language. Including phrases such as “subject to contract” or equivalent wording in communications can help to clarify that discussions are preliminary and to avoid being prematurely bound by terms. Even a casual ‘yes, let’s go ahead’ or thumbs up emoji in a WhatsApp thread or email chain could be interpreted as contract acceptance, which can expose businesses to unexpected liabilities, or form a contract before the parties have taken legal advice.

What steps should you take?

To mitigate the risks highlighted by this decision, businesses should establish clear communication protocols. Staff (particularly those in sales, procurement and executives) should be trained to treat informal communications with caution, use clear and unambiguous language and avoid language that could be construed as formal acceptance.

Where urgency is involved, speed must be balanced with clarity to avoid unintended commitments, so businesses should aim to keep informal communications ‘subject to contract’ and seek legal advice at an early stage in the negotiation process to avoid potential misunderstandings.

CMA launches major consumer protection drive focused on online pricing practices

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has launched its first major action in relation to online pricing practices since the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) came into force.

After a cross-economy review, the CMA has opened investigations into 8 businesses (including StubHub, viagogo, AA Driving School, BSM, Gold’s Gym, Wayfair, Marks Electrical and Appliances Direct), issued advisory letters to 100 firms across 14 sectors and published finalised guidance to help businesses comply. These are the first cases under the CMA’s new consumer protection powers, which allow it to investigate and enforce directly, including imposing fines of up to 10% of global turnover and ordering compensation to consumers, without going through the courts.

Which sectors were targeted?

As part of its review of more than 400 businesses, the CMA identified concerns across 14 sectors, including holidays, driving schools, homeware, rail travel, parking, luggage storage, cinemas, live events, food and drink delivery, parcel delivery, gyms, fashion and online vouchers.

Whilst non-compliant behaviour was identified in each of these markets, the CMA identified that levels of compliance in relation to drip pricing were particularly low in relation to event ticketing, cinema ticketing and gym memberships, where over 60% of the businesses reviewed were found to be non-compliant.

How could it impact your business?

This review by the CMA focussed on breaches of consumer law in relation to pricing practices. In particular, the CMA conducted reviews for compliance with price transparency, urgency selling and drip pricing rules. Examples of behaviour which is being examined as part of the CMA investigations include:

• Mandatory charges added late in the purchasing journey (e.g. booking fees, joining fees);

• Time‑limited sales not ending when advertised;

• Not clearly advertising joining fees in relation to gym memberships; and

• Default opt‑ins for optional extras.

With Black Friday and other seasonal promotions underway, businesses should review pricing practices, particularly drip pricing of mandatory fees, misleading time-limited offers and automatic opt-ins. The CMA has made clear it will use its full toolkit, from website scraping technology and dawn raids to consumer complaints, to detect breaches.

What steps should you take?

These investigations and warning letters issued by the CMA do not come as a surprise, and it has signalled that “this is just the start” of its enforcement activity in this area. Whether or not you have received a CMA letter, enforcement risk is real and immediate.

Any consumer facing business should urgently audit pricing practices, train staff, and update compliance policies to avoid dawn raids, fines of up to 10% of global turnover, compensation orders, and reputational damage.

Knights Competition and Consumer team has experience advising household brands on consumer compliance and enforcement. If you would like to discuss consumer enforcement in more detail, please do not hesitate to contact Neil Warwick, Charlie Markillie or Ellen Huison.

Companies House mandatory identity verification rules and non-compliance

As mentioned in our January and August Horizon Scanning updates, under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, from 18 November 2025 all directors and people (being individuals) with significant control (PSCs) are required to verify their identity with Companies House. As part of the identity verification process, each director and PSC is given a unique personal code which must then be presented to Companies House at specified times:

• Upon incorporation of a new company, the statement of incorporation must include the personal code of all directors being appointed to that company;

• An individual being appointed as a director for the first time must provide their personal code within 14 days of being appointed;

• New PSCs must provide their personal code within 14 days of being added to the Companies House register;

• Existing directors must provide their personal code as part of their company's next confirmation statement filing;

• Existing PSCs (who are also directors of the same company) must provide their personal code as part of the relevant company's confirmation statement filing (in their capacity as director) and within 14 days of the relevant company's confirmation statement date (in their capacity as PSC); and

• Existing PSCs (who are not also directors of the same company) must provide their personal code within 14 days of the first day of the month of their birth.

Each individual will only need to undertake the identity verification process once and the same personal code will be used for all roles which the individual may hold.

Companies House published updated guidance on its approach to non-compliance with the mandatory identity verification requirement, which can be viewed here.

How could it impact your business?

Non-compliance is an offence under the Companies Act and Companies House has the power to enforce compliance via prosecution, referral to the Insolvency Service and financial penalties, which may be levied against the company or the individuals.

Repeat offenders (those committing three or more breaches within five years) may attract harsher sanctions.

Beyond these headline sanctions, Companies House has a range of other tools at its disposal. It can annotate the public register to flag non‑compliance, direct companies to take or refrain from certain actions, and disqualify directors. These measures carry legal and reputational risks. In cases involving suspected fraud or criminal activity, Companies House will work with law enforcement to secure convictions.

What steps should you take?

Businesses should start acting now to identify the relevant dates which trigger their compliance obligations and to ensure all directors and PSCs complete their identity verification. Individuals can verify their identity with Companies House through GOV.UK One Login or through an authorised corporate service provider (ACSP). An ACSP is able to act as an intermediary between clients and Companies House for tasks such as identity verification and company filings.

Businesses should seek professional advice if they are unsure what steps to take to remain compliant.

ICO Consultation Paper – Enforcement Procedural Guidance in light of The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA)

The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) has launched a consultation on its draft Data Protection Enforcement Procedural Guidance; this sets out how it will go forward and exercise its investigatory and enforcement powers under the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018).

The guidance will replace parts of the Regulatory Action Policy (2018) and align with new powers introduced under the DUAA 2025, including:

• Requesting technical reports: ICO can require the provisions of detailed technical documentation to support assessments and investigations.

• Compel attendance and cooperation: ICO are able to enforce the requirement of attendance and cooperation of witnesses through relevant notices.

• Enhanced Penalty Framework: Penalties under Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 (PECR) have been increased to match the maximum penalty under UK GDPR standards.

The guidance aims to provide transparency for organisations facing ICO investigations, detailing processes for opening investigations, gathering information, and issuing enforcement actions.

The consultation is currently in draft form having opened on 31 October 2025 and will close on 23 January 2026. The guidance will come into effect after consultation feedback has been considered in early 2026.

How could it impact your business?

This guidance has significant implications for organisations that process personal data. It moves to formalise the ICO’s approach to investigations, meaning organisations must be prepared for structured and potentially more rigorous enforcement processes. Areas most affected include data governance and legal compliance.

Organisations will need to ensure they can respond promptly to statutory information notices, interviews and inspections as failure could lead to an escalation of enforcement action.

Existing policies for handling regulatory inquiries may need updating to reflect ICO’s expanded powers under the DUAA; this reduces flexibility during ongoing investigations and increases obligations on individuals and organisations.

The guidance clarifies procedural steps, making enforcement more transparent and predictable. Organisations should anticipate greater scrutiny and prepare for the possibility of more formal reprimands or enforcement notices, which could have more severe consequences.

What steps should you take?

Organisations should act now to review the draft guidance and assess its impact on their compliance frameworks.

Key actions may include:

• Review: Review draft guidance and assess gaps in current compliance and response procedures.

• Policy updates: Update internal policies for handling ICO investigations, including readiness for statutory information requests and interviews.

• Training: Ensure that staff within your organisation understand new obligations and escalation procedures.

• Engage in the consultation: To influence final guidance, submit feedback to the ICO before 23 January 2026.

It is important for organisations to act promptly, as waiting until the guidance is finalised could leave your organisation exposed. Failure to prepare for these changes could lead to delays, non-compliance and higher enforcement risk. Non-action may result in increased financial penalties and operational disruption if investigations escalate under the new framework. Early preparation from organisations will help in mitigating risk and demonstrate proactive compliance to regulators.

Commercial Court Transparency

In an effort to improve the transparency in litigation, the courts have announced the introduction of the Increased Document Access Pilot, a 2-year scheme designed to improve public access to documents that enter into the public domain through their use in litigation.

Until now, a third party had to make a specific application to the court to gain access to such documents. The new Practice Direction (PD51 ZH) which comes into force on 1 January 2026, shifts the default position so that identified categories of documents are readily accessible.

Public Domain Documents are broadly defined and principally include the parties’ skeleton arguments, written submissions, witness statements and expert reports that are referred to in court and critical to the understanding of the hearing. Should a party wish to protect the privacy of a document, it will need to seek a Filing Modification Order to that effect before the relevant filing deadline.

How could it impact your business?

The impact of this shift towards greater transparency should not be underestimated. Placing these documents in the public domain means that companies’ sensitive internal communications (and any expert opinions upon them) can now be scrutinised by journalists and competitors, thereby increasing strategic exposure and reputational risk for businesses well beyond the immediate litigation.

What steps should you take?

All businesses, regardless of whether they are currently involved in a dispute, should take the time to reassess their document creation processes and test the robustness of their confidentiality measures. Equally, they should revisit their case-handling procedures and ensure that external counsel is instructed early in the process to manage privilege, disclosure and written filings through the lens of this heightened public exposure.

ACAS Early Conciliation process extended from 6 to 12 weeks.

The ACAS Early Conciliation process is a mandatory step before bringing most Employment Tribunal claims. It is intended to be an opportunity for parties to engage in negotiation about an employment dispute, and to try and reach a settlement before beginning a claim. If no settlement is reached during the Early Conciliation process (either because there is a failure of the parties to reach a compromise or because the current 6-week period has been exceeded), ACAS issue an Early Conciliation Certificate which brings the process to an end and enables the Claimant to issue their claim.

As recently as 2020, the early conciliation period was just four weeks. It is currently six weeks, and the Government plan to increase it again, doubling it to twelve weeks. The Government’s explanatory notes confirm that the purpose of this extension is to alleviate some pressure on ACAS. As HR professionals will know, there has been a significant increase in demand for ACAS’ EC service, as well as an increase in complex cases.

For any case notified to ACAS from 1 December 2025, the deadline to reach an agreement via this process is therefore being extended from six to twelve weeks. This will be reviewed again in October 2026.

Note, that the regulations which bring about this change are subject to ‘negative procedure’, meaning that they can be annulled by a motion in either the House of Commons or House of Lords within 40 sitting days.

How could it impact your business?

Allowing more time for ACAS to facilitate negotiation could, if well resourced, allow more time to talk constructively and lead to a corresponding reduction in the number of Employment Tribunal claims being brought. However, the Government have expressly linked the extension to a desire to make existing ACAS resources go further and avoid the conciliation process being overwhelmed.

Of course, the extension of the Early Conciliation process will also extend the primary time limits for nearly all claims to the Employment Tribunal, as Early Conciliation effectively ‘stops the clock’ on limitation. As a result, the threat of litigation and any uncertainty arising will last longer.

Add to this the well-known delays in the Employment Tribunal system, as well as the proposal in the Employment Rights Bill to extend the primary time limits themselves, and the clear expectation of many practitioners is for employment disputes to take longer and cost more as well as making management of witnesses and evidence even harder.

What steps should you take?

As stated, the extended ACAS Early Conciliation period, alongside the proposals to extend the limitation period for claims from 3 to 6 months under the Employment Rights Bill, mean that there will be an extended timeframe for lodging claims. Employers should therefore:

• Consider and update document retention policies so that they cover the longer conciliation timeframe (and potentially a longer limitation period which will be introduced) as document retention is vital so that an employer can adequately respond to allegations but also comply with disclosure obligations in Employment Tribunal proceedings;

• Respond to early conciliation in a timely manner; and

• Consider the longer timeframes when making risk based assessments.

When will an Employment Tribunal assess new evidence – Mayanja v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council

An Employment Tribunal can reconsider judgments where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so. Fresh evidence can be submitted where three tests are satisfied:

1. The evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the hearing;

2. The evidence is relevant and would probably have had an important influence on the outcome; and

3. The evidence must be apparently credible.

Background

Mr Mayanja applied for a position with the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council. After an interview, he asserted that the role had been offered to him unconditionally and he accepted the position. The council contended no such offer was made but Mr Mayanja was simply informed he was the preferred candidate in an ongoing selection process and, in any event, the offer would be subject to satisfactory references. Mr Mayanja brought a claim for breach of contract, race discrimination and victimisation. The Employment Tribunal dismissed his claim, finding that Mr Mayanja was not a credible witness and the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the council. They awarded £2,000 costs against Mr Mayanja.

After the hearing, Mr Mayanja found an email from the council offering him the position as he had alleged and he applied to the Tribunal for reconsideration in light of this vital new evidence. The case was ultimately referred to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”).

The EAT found that the lower Tribunal had erred in their assessment of the new evidence, as they had failed to reconsider the liability of the Council, but instead focussed only on a reassessment of the costs awarded against Mr Mayanja, despite the evidence clearly contradicting their basic findings.

The EAT rejected the suggestion that Mr Mayanja could reasonably have provided the email in satisfaction of the first test outlined above, as the obligation to produce the bundle rested with the council. Additionally, they found that the Tribunal’s reason for doubting the credibility of Mr Mayanja (the fact he could not initially provide evidence of the job offer) was “built on foundation of sand” and the EAT set aside the liability judgment as it was fundamentally unsafe.

How could it impact your business?

This case confirmed that, where additional new evidence comes to light after an Employment Tribunal decision is made (and which could fundamentally impact a decision of a Tribunal, or at least require reconsideration), the correct approach is to apply directly to the original Tribunal where the decision was made. It is only in very limited circumstances that issues of new evidence should be considered by way of an appeal to the EAT.

What steps should you take?

This case demonstrates the importance of document retention policies and a reasonable search during the disclosure stage of Tribunal proceedings. For larger employers, having a team of trained staff who can assist with finding disclosure documents can be beneficial. Even with smaller employers, a reasonable search should be undertaken to find documents which are relevant to the issues in the claim.

The re-introduction of Tribunal fees ruled out

Bringing a claim in the Employment Tribunal was free since the introduction of the Tribunal system in 1965. However in 2013, under David Cameron’s coalition Government, different fees were introduced depending on the type of claim being brought, ranging from £160 to £950. The aim of the fee was to reduce the strain on the public purse of running the Tribunal service and deter those from bringing claims without merit.

Eventually, following a long battle through the Courts, the Supreme Court ruled that the fees regime was unlawful given their size and impact. Whilst subsequent conservative Secretary of States for Justice talked of re-introduction, proposals did not emerge.

The issue has now reemerged however, with a recent increase in Employment Tribunal claims. Following the introduction of the Employment Rights Bill, the Government estimates there may be a further 15% increase in Tribunal claims. As part of a range of measures being considered pre-Budget, it had been reported that the Labour Government was looking to re-introduce fees for bringing claims, albeit at a much lower rate (£55) per claim.

The current Justice Secretary, David Lammy, has now ruled out reintroducing the charge however, following strong opposition from the Unions. He has reiterated the Government’s view that access to the ET is fundamental; “It’s not just a basic right, it’s also fundamental to this government’s plan to make work pay. That’s why it will remain free to bring a case to an employment tribunal, ensuring everyone, no matter their means, can stand up for their rights at work.”

How could it impact your business?

The decision to rule out reintroducing the charge, coupled with the proposed changes under the Employment Rights Bill (such as extending the limitation period for employment related claims mentioned above and the reduction in the eligibility threshold to claim unfair dismissal from 2 years to 6 months) mean that there is likely to be an increase in claims.

What steps should you take?

Whilst this is not something that is immediately within an employer’s control, dealing with issues at an early stage, particularly where there is good grounds for a claim, will be key.

Government launches new Employment Rights Bill consultations

The Government has launched four new consultations ahead of introduction of the Employment Rights Bill (ERB), and they include consultations on enhanced maternity protection, changes to bereavement leave including pregnancy loss, a new active duty on employers to notify employees of a right to join a trade union, and a right for trade union access.

Enhanced Maternity Protection

It is already automatically unfair to dismiss a woman because of pregnancy, and pregnant women, as well as those returning from pregnancy, already benefit from significant protection for 18 months from the birth of the child. The consultation is looking at how these protections can be enhanced. In particular, the Government has asked for views on the following approaches:

• Keeping the existing reasons for dismissal as they are but with a stricter test of fairness;

• A potential removal, reduction or restriction of the five permitted reasons for dismissal;

• Whether any enhanced protection should be a day-one right or apply after a probationary period;

• Whether the enhanced protection should run from the date of the employee notifying the employer of pregnancy or run from the date of birth; and

• Whether other types of family leave should mirror these protections.

Bereavement Leave

The ERB will introduce a new day-one right to unpaid bereavement leave for those who experience the loss of a loved one. This also includes a new right to time off for pregnancy loss before 24 weeks, entitling an individual to a minimum of one week’s unpaid leave within a (minimum) 56-day period. The current consultation invites views on:

• • Who should qualify for bereavement leave;

• • Whether the right should only be available to those who lose a particular (specified) relation, or whether the right to leave should be open to any loss;

• • Length of leave and flexibility on when this can be taken; and

• • Whether there will be any notice requirements to take the leave.

Duty to inform of a right to join a trade union

Under the ERB, an employer will be under an obligation to provide employees with a written statement at the start of their employment, and at intervals throughout their employment, of their right to join a union. The consultation seeks to narrow down the contents of those notices and how frequently the notices should be provided to an employee.

Trade union access

At the moment, there is no automatic right of access for trade unions, except where there is a voluntary agreement with the employer. The ERB will introduce a new statutory right for trade unions to access workplaces and includes a right for both physical and digital access. The consultation seeks views on:

• How access will be requested and whether it will be limited to working hours only;

• How the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) will resolve disputes; and

• Enforcement mechanisms for breaches.

A link to each consultation is included here in the respective headings, should you wish to provide your responses and help formulate the ERB.

What steps should you take?

We encourage employers to participate in the consultations so that decisions reflect the feedback from a wide variety of organisations.

EU Omnibus Proposals – Sustainability & Consumer Protection

The EU’s Omnibus proposals aim to simplify and reduce compliance burdens across sustainability and consumer protection frameworks. Two major strands are in play:

• Sustainability Omnibus (CSRD, CS3D, Taxonomy): Parliament adopted its negotiating position on 13 November 2025, raising thresholds for in-scope companies (CSRD now applies to firms with ≥1,750 employees and €450m turnover; CS3D to ≥5,000 employees and €1.5bn turnover). Mandatory transition plans and civil liability provisions have been dropped.

• Digital/Consumer Omnibus: Proposed on 19 November 2025, revising GDPR, ePrivacy, Data Act, and AI Act to reduce administrative burdens and clarify rules for AI and data processing.

Trilogue negotiations are scheduled to conclude by end of 2025, with implementation expected from 2026 onwards.

How could it impact your business?

For sustainability reporting, fewer companies will fall under CSRD and CS3D due to higher thresholds, but those still in scope face streamlined reporting standards (simplified ESRS, voluntary sector-specific disclosures).

Removal of mandatory transition plans reduces complexity, but risk-based due diligence remains.

For digital compliance, expect changes to GDPR definitions, cookie consent rules, and AI governance - potentially easing compliance but requiring updates to privacy policies and data-handling practices.

Consumer protection obligations under the earlier Omnibus Directive (price transparency, verified reviews) remain, with penalties of up to 4% of annual turnover for non-compliance. Businesses operating online must maintain robust transparency and review verification processes.

What steps should you take?

• Monitor legislative progress: Final texts may shift during trilogue but expect clarity by early 2026.

• Gap analysis: Check if your entity remains in scope under revised CSRD/CS3D thresholds and review sustainability reporting processes for simplification opportunities.

• Digital readiness: Prepare for GDPR and AI Act amendments—update data governance frameworks and cookie consent mechanisms.

• Consumer compliance: Ensure price transparency and review authenticity processes to ensure they meet Omnibus Directive standards to avoid fines.

Failure to act could lead to misaligned compliance strategies, reputational risk, and significant financial penalties once enforcement begins.

Overhaul of Settlement Rules: What increased timelines would mean for employers

The Home Office has announced major reforms to rules around when a migrant will be eligible for “settlement” in the UK. Settlement refers to a person’s right to live and work in the UK permanently without any restrictions.

Under the announced proposals, the standard qualifying period for most migrants will rise from 5 years to 10 years. These changes are based on the Government’s principle that becoming a permanent resident in this country is not a right but a privilege, and one that must be earned.

Under the new “earned settlement” model proposed by the Government, all migrants will need to evidence:

• English language at B2 level and pass the Life in the UK test;

• A clean criminal record and no financial debt; and

• A sustained economic contribution to the UK (annual earnings above £12,570 for a minimum of 3 to 5 years, subject to consultation).

Accelerated settlement may apply for high taxpayers, senior public service workers, community volunteers, or those with exceptional talent. Conversely, reliance on public funds or immigration breaches will extend a migrant’s qualifying period up to 20 years.

These proposed changes aren’t yet law and are still subject to Government consultation. The consultation process which has recently started should further shape these proposed changes and how they will be implemented. The consultation will run until 12 February 2026, with implementation expected from late 2026 following legislative changes.

How could it impact your business?

These proposed reforms are intended to apply to migrants currently in the UK who haven’t yet obtained settlement. Migrants on Skilled Worker and Health & Care routes, previously eligible for settlement after 5 years, will now potentially face a 10 year baseline qualifying period, or 15 years for roles below RQF Level 6.

This will significantly increase sponsorship costs, as employers may need to submit additional visa applications to keep Skilled Workers employed until they reach the extended settlement threshold.

While accelerated routes for high earners are likely to remain, these apply to a narrow pool. As such, these changes are likely to reduce the attractiveness of UK roles for international talent, particularly in lower-paid sectors. This will lead to greater reliance on the domestic workforce, potential staff shortages, increased recruitment costs and challenges in retaining employees who anticipated faster settlement.

What steps should you take?

Employers should act now to mitigate risks by:

• Reviewing sponsorship and retention strategies in light of extended settlement timelines;

• Budget for increased sponsorship costs;

• Identify critical roles and explore alternative visa routes where roles are no longer eligible under the Skilled Worker route (e.g., Global Talent, Innovator Founder) or for accelerated settlement; and

• Once changes come into effect, communicate these clearly to affected employees to manage expectations.

Failure to plan could result in workforce instability, loss of skilled staff, and reputational risk if employees feel misled about their settlement prospects.

Impact on use of AI following Getty Images v Stability AI Judgment

Getty Images (Getty) brought a complex claim against Stability AI which centred around Intellectual Property (IP) infringement, namely in relation to copyright, database rights, trade marks and passing off.

Getty made the case that their copyrighted works were scraped from the web and were used unlawfully and without permission by Stability AI to train its AI model (Stable Diffusion). Getty also alleged that the AI model reproduced their images, which even contained their trade marks (watermarks) on occasion, further infringing Getty’s brand rights.

Getty further claimed that Stability AI made the model weights (the parameters learnt during training which determine its behaviour) public to which Getty further objected.

The Judgment

The High Court dismissed the claims of copyright infringement for the use of Getty’s images in training Stable Diffusion, as Getty was unable to evidence that this was completed in the UK, meaning the matter did not fall under UK jurisdiction. The model weights were also held by the court to not store, and therefore copy, the visual information of the copyright works.

However, Getty’s trade mark infringement claim was successful after the court made several findings which found “historic and extremely limited” instances of trade mark infringement in early versions of the AI model. As a result, Stability AI was found liable for trade mark infringement related to the inclusion of Getty’s watermarks. As the passing off claims would not add further to the trade mark claims, the court decided not to give further judgment.

The full 205 page judgment can be accessed here.

How could it impact your business?

The case is significant, as it is one of the first key IP disputes concerning generative AI, as well as web scraping in the UK.

Whilst Getty was unsuccessful in the majority of its claims, the judgment still acts as an important reminder that AI models and model weights (and other intangible articles) can be subject to copyright infringement claims, similar to that of tangible goods.

The ruling also exposed limitations in UK law, namely in relation to protection of rights against modern AI technologies. In a world where AI use is becoming more frequent and questions of IP ownership are being discussed, it is particularly notable that even large companies such as Getty are facing challenges in protecting their IP against AI technologies under current legislation.

What steps should you take?

As stated above, the 2025 judgment has exposed gaps and limitations in current copyright and AI laws. It highlights how, under the current laws, it can be a struggle for businesses to control or prevent the use of copyrighted content in AI.

It is important to consider that this judgment relates to the way in which this specific AI model uses and stores data, however for anyone involved in the development of AI models, the judgement is a useful indication as to how the courts are likely approach AI learning when it comes to copyright and trade mark infringement.

For businesses using AI in the creation of material, further clarification is needed on the implications for IP ownership and therefore care should be taken to understand how AI models are trained before they are relied upon. In particular, the “intelligent” removal of trade marks is advisable, but perhaps trickier in practice.

Renters’ Rights Act 2025 – Government’s Implementation Roadmap Published

The biggest change in residential landlord and tenant law in the last 40 years occurred when the Renters’ Rights Act (the Act) received Royal Assent on 27 October 2025. The Act aims to abolish Section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions, to introduce rolling periodic tenancies, and to strengthen tenant protections. The roadmap confirms that these reforms will not take full effect until 1 May 2026.

Key milestones include:

• Phase 1 (from 1 May 2026): Abolition of Section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions, introduction of Assured Periodic Tenancies to replace fixed-term tenancies, limiting rent increases to once per year, and banning rent in advance.

• Phase 2 (from late 2026): Regional rollout of a database for landlords, anti-discrimination measures, and development of a new Landlord Ombudsman scheme.

• Phase 3 (from 2030): Introduction of Awaab’s Law to address mould and damp issues and the Decent Homes Standard (DHS) 2026, setting minimum home standards.

How could it impact your business?

For residential landlords, the roadmap’s agenda reiterates that time is running out to use Section 21 notices. Once the ban takes effect in May 2026, there will be no opportunity to rely on this route to take possession.

Instead, possession claims will need to rely on Section 8 grounds, which require specific reasons such as rent arrears or breaches of the tenancy agreement. Landlords will also not be able to simply wait until the end of the tenancy, as fixed-term tenancies will be replaced by rolling periodic tenancies.

Rental pricing strategies will also need to be reviewed, as rent increases will be limited to once per year and will require two months’ notice.

What steps should you take?

Landlords should prepare for the changes by considering the following:

• Act early: Identify properties where you may need to regain possession before 1 May 2026 when Section 21 ‘no-fault’ evictions will be abolished. If required, ensure all legal preconditions for serving a valid Section 21 notice are met, including a current gas safety certificate and Energy Performance Certificate (EPC).

• Prepare for the new regime: Update tenancy agreements for rolling periodic tenancies, plan for annual rent increase limits, and stay informed on Property Portal registration and Ombudsman scheme requirements.