This report outlines how the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is addressing Artificial Intelligence (AI) in exercising its competition functions. As a cross-sectoral regulator, the CMA has had to address the growing impact of AI as it relates to its remit.

The widespread use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in decision-making has significantly impacted individuals and societies. In response to the growing need for transparency and accountability in AI systems, the European Council (EC),in May 2024, approved an updated text of the previously proposed 2021 EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA).

Those interested in the European Union’s approach to AI regulation could not have asked for a better test of its effectiveness than the emergence of DeepSeek, a Chinese startup that launched a highly advanced large language model in late January 2025.

Neither law nor machines were ever designed to grasp the profound intricacies of human emotions. Law is rooted in reason, and computer code, by its nature, leaves no room for subjective nuance. As such, both law and machines stood on the same starting line in their approach to emotion.

On 12 February 2025, the Swiss government decided how Switzerland would proceed regarding law and governance of artificial intelligence (AI) . Essentially, Switzerland strives to ratify the Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI, while adapting its existing legislation to account for AI.

Those interested in the European Union’s approach to AI regulation could not have asked for a better test of its effectiveness than the emergence of DeepSeek, a Chinese startup that launched a highly advanced large language model in late January 2025.

Innovation and regulation are sometimes presented as two opposing forces. As CEO of the UK’s Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum (DRCF), in the author’s experience the relationship is more nuanced. The need is not for no regulation, but for effective regulation. In many areas of life, from air travel to medicines, regulation provides certainty and predictability for businesses, and gives people confidence to use products and services in the knowledge that there are robust safety standards in place. Effective regulation works to protect people’s safety, while promoting innovation and economic growth by creating a level playing field in which responsible players can have confidence to compete.

In a sequel of two articles, the authors comprehensively examine China’s evolving AI regulation, focusing on the interplay between fragmented laws, technical standards, and sectoral governance frameworks. This reflects the tension between central regulatory control and sector-specific governance in aligning rapid technological advancement with coherent legislative oversight.

This timely and thought-provoking work explores how generative AI (GenAI) is reshaping the delivery of legal services, particularly in corporate legal departments and their interactions with outside counsel. The authors assess both the potential benefits—such as increased efficiency and reduced costs—and the significant risks of over-reliance on AI tools in matters requiring professional legal judgment, confidentiality, and ethical oversight.

Innovation and regulation are sometimes presented as two opposing forces. As CEO of the UK’s Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum (DRCF), in my experience the relationship is more nuanced. The need is not for no regulation, but for effective regulation. In many areas of life, from air travel to medicines, regulation provides certainty and predictability for businesses, and gives people confidence to use products and services in the knowledge that there are robust safety standards in place. Effective regulation works to protect people’s safety, while promoting innovation and economic growth by creating a level playing field in which responsible players can have confidence to compete.

In a sequel of two articles, the authors comprehensively examine China’s evolving AI regulation, focusing on the interplay between fragmented laws, technical standards, and sectoral governance frameworks. This reflects the tension between central regulatory control and sector-specific governance in aligning rapid technological advancement with coherent legislative oversight. The two papers, read together, argue that a phased legislative strategy emphasizing flexibility, cross-sectoral consistency, and proactive engagement with emerging technologies is essential for China to sustain global competitiveness while ensuring ethical and safe AI development.

In June 2024, the EU AI Act came into force. The AI Act includes obligations for the provider of an AI system. Article 10 of the AI Act includes a new obligation for providers to evaluate whether their training, validation and testing datasets meet certain quality criteria, including an appropriate examination of biases in the datasets and correction measures. With the obligation comes a new provision in Article 10(5) AI Act, allowing providers to collect sensitive data to fulfil the obligation. Article 10(5) AI Act aims to prevent discrimination. In this paper, I investigate the scope and implications of Article 10(5) AI Act. The paper primarily concerns European Union law, but may be relevant in other parts of the world, as policymakers aim to regulate biases in AI systems.

In June 2024, the EU AI Act came into force. The AI Act includes obligations for the provider of an AI system. Article 10 of the AI Act includes a new obligation for providers to evaluate whether their training, validation and testing datasets meet certain quality criteria, including an appropriate examination of biases in the datasets and correction measures. With the obligation comes a new provision in Article 10(5) AI Act, allowing providers to collect sensitive data to fulfil the obligation. Article 10(5) AI Act aims to prevent discrimination. In this paper, I investigate the scope and implications of Article 10(5) AI Act. The paper primarily concerns European Union law, but may be relevant in other parts of the world, as policymakers aim to regulate biases in AI systems.

Generatieve AI wordt in het auteursrecht vaak gezien als een externe bedreiging waartegen ‘het TDM-voorbehoud’ moet worden gemaakt. Maar uitgevers willen ook allemaal zo snel mogelijk aan de slag met AI met hun eigen content vanwege de beloofde efficiency en andere voordelen. Dat roept vragen op. Wat mag een uitgever met AI doen met het werk van zijn eigen auteurs? Hoe moeten bestaande auteurscontracten worden uitgelegd met betrekking tot AI-gebruik? Wat is de invloed van het auteurscontractenrecht hierop? Zijn de persoonlijkheidsrechten hierbij nog van belang? Wanneer is aanvullende toestemming nodig? Wanneer is een aanvullende vergoeding verschuldigd?

In juli 2024 werd het expliciete gebruik van ChatGPT door een kantonrechter voornamelijk met argwaan ontvangen. De kantonrechter bediende zich van dit artificial-intelligence-systeem (AI-systeem) zonder transparant en controleerbaar te laten zien hoe het was gebruikt en ogenschijnlijk zonder te reflecteren op de potentiële risico’s. In dit redactioneel bespreken wij enkele kansen en problemen bij het gebruik van AI in de rechtspraak, met een aanbeveling ten aanzien van verantwoorde implementatie van AI in het rechtsstelsel.

AI-tools worden steeds vaker gebruikt door zogenaamde justice professionals om de snelheid en efficiëntie van juridische procedures te verbeteren en administratieve lasten te verlichten. Digitale en AI-tools kunnen een revolutionaire rol spelen bij het verbeteren van de kwaliteit van justitie en stellen hen in staat zich te richten op meer inhoudelijke taken. Digitalisering en het gebruik van AI in de rechtspraak bieden aanzienlijke voordelen, maar kunnen ook bepaalde risico’s met zich meebrengen, waardoor een duidelijk regelgevend kader nodig is. In de afgelopen jaren is op EU-niveau een aanzienlijk aantal nieuwe regels overeengekomen die verschillende aspecten van de digitale ontwikkelingen in onze samenleving en economie bestrijken.