UK law
Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal strikes off lawyer for use of AI (among other things)
In SRA Ltd v Abhishek Kumar (Case 12884), the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered Kumar to be struck off the register of Registered Foreign Lawyers, following findings relating both to a criminal conviction for knowingly employing a person disqualified from employment by their immigration status and, significantly, to his use of generative AI in the disciplinary proceedings themselves. In submissions and correspondence, Kumar had included non-existent cases and incorrect, fabricated, misleading or unsupported authorities, quotations and legal propositions generated through AI. He admitted using AI and making consequent errors, denied intending to mislead and relied on ill-health and stress in mitigation. However, the Tribunal found breaches of his professional obligations, while distinguishing mere typographical citation errors as insufficiently serious to constitute misconduct. Dishonesty was not alleged. The Tribunal described the case as the first occasion on which a lawyer’s use of AI or large language models in legal proceedings had been litigated before it, and accepted the SRA’s submission that the issue was of “profound public importance” because of AI’s potential impact on the administration of justice and the rule of law, referring to the High Court’s call in Ayinde v Haringey LBC for regulators urgently to consider what further action was required beyond issuing guidance. The SRA issued a warning notice in August.
Personal Data (Digital Twins) Bill introduced to House of Commons
The Personal Data (Digital Twins) Bill has been introduced to the House of Commons to make provision about the regulation of software or algorithms which use or hold personal data for the purpose of modelling the preferences or behaviours of a person; to make provision about the rights of individuals in respect of the holding and use of their personal data by such software or algorithms; and for connected purposes. Second reading is scheduled to take place on 13 November. This is a private members’ bill so is unlikely to become law.
Regulations establishing new Information Commission come into force on 30 September 2026
The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (Commencement No 9 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Regulations 2026, SI 2026/1015 come into force on 30 September 2026. Regulation 2 brings into force various provisions (namely sections 117(4)(a), 118 and 119 of the Data Use and Access Act 2025) which relate to the replacement of the Information Commissioner with the Information Commission. Section 118 of the 2025 Act abolishes the office of the Information Commissioner, and as part of that, omits Schedule 12 to the Data Protection Act 2018. Section 117(4)(a) makes a related amendment to remove an internal cross reference to Schedule 12 of the 2018 Act which is no longer required because of the changes made by section 118. Section 119 of the 2025 Act transfers the functions of the Information Commissioner to the Information Commission. Regulations 3 and 4 make appropriate transitional and saving provision to ensure continuity in respect of any act, omission or other thing done or being done by or in relation to the Information Commissioner, and also to ensure that there are no accounting gaps whilst functions are transferred from the Information Commissioner to the Information Commission.
ASA issues rulings on advertising AI tools
The Advertising Standards Authority has issued five rulings about whether paid-for social media advertisements for artificial intelligence (AI) products sexualised and objectified women and consequently were irresponsible, offensive and harmful. One ruling considered if an advertisement portrayed someone who appeared to be under 18 years of age in a sexual way. All five rulings upheld the concerns raised. It emphasised that advertisers of AI products must make sure that their advertising is socially responsible and does not objectify or sexualise women or reinforce harmful gender stereotypes, particularly by presenting AI tools as enabling users to manipulate women’s images to create sexually explicit content without their consent. This follows guidance on the application of the advertising codes to ads for AI assistant tools, including chatbots used for productivity, companionship, dating, health and wellbeing.
Ofcom consults on Code of Practice for designated radio selection services
The Media Act 2024 introduced a new regulatory framework for internet radio delivered through voice assistants to safeguard audiences’ access to broadcast radio streamed online. This aims to make sure that audiences will continue to have access to internet radio in the future. Ofcom is consulting on a code of practice including recommended actions that the providers of designated voice assistant services should follow to comply with their duties. The consultation sets out Ofcom’s proposed recommendations. A draft code of practice document is also attached to the consultation. It will issue a statement along with the final code of practice next year, taking into account any responses to this consultation. The consultation ends on 9 November 2026.
EU law
Advocate General Szpunar clarifies the criteria for assessing the compatibility of national legislation with EU law
The Advocate General has opined in Case 661/24 that key parts of Belgium’s 2022 law on retaining electronic communications data breach EU privacy rules. The Advocate General emphasised in the ruling that keeping traffic and location data is a serious interference with fundamental rights and is only lawful when strictly necessary and proportionate. While recent case-law allows for limited retention in certain controlled circumstances, Belgium’s regime lacks the necessary separation of data categories and allows telecommunications providers too much discretion over what they can retain and for how long. Therefore, the Advocate General says that the system is unclear, insufficiently protective and goes beyond what is necessary. The Advocate General also stresses that national courts may not temporarily preserve national rules once found incompatible with EU law.
General Court upholds the Commission’s decision not to designate Microsoft as a gatekeeper in relation to Edge
In Case T357/24, the General Court has upheld the European Commission’s decision not to designate Microsoft as a gatekeeper in relation to Edge, rejecting Opera Norway’s challenge. The Court agreed that Edge is not an ‘important gateway’ for businesses to reach users due to its relatively low usage compared with other browsers. It is reliant on Google’s Blink engine and, although installed on Windows, this does not translate into meaningful market power. The Court found that even though Edge met the Digital Market Act’s numerical thresholds, Microsoft had provided enough evidence to demonstrate that the browser does not play a significant gateway role, meaning the Commission was correct not to designate it as a gatekeeper.
