Business Law International (BLI)

On 21 January 2026, the European Commission released a much-awaited Proposal for the Digital Networks Act (the ‘DNA’). The aim of the DNA is to create a comprehensive regulatory regime for digital connectivity that brings together and updates today’s key legislative materials governing the electronic communications sector, including the existing European Electronic Communications Code, the Open Internet Regulation and the Commission’s Spectrum Policy Programme.

This article aims to analyse the likely success of the key provisions of the DNA in light of a series of policy drivers declared by the Commission to underpin the legislation. The interplay between these various policy drivers arguably results in some unexpected consequences regarding the escalation or diminution of the responsibilities and authority of the key actors subject to the DNA, namely the Commission, Member States, national regulatory authorities and incumbent fixed and mobile telecoms operators.

Read this article online     

This article, co-written by the EU Ambassador to Uruguay and Mercosur, looks at the Partnership Agreement concluded between the EU and the Mercosur nations on 16 January 2026. The Ambassador explains how the Agreement crystallises the EU’s search for reliable partners in an increasingly fragmented international economic order, while offering the Mercosur nations a historic opening towards one of the world’s largest integrated markets. Beyond issues of tariff liberalisation, the authors argue that the Agreement embodies a broader form of association grounded in shared values, such as rules-based trade and political cooperation. As such, the Agreement therefore carries both significant economic and geopolitical weight, the authors say.

Read this article online     

Over the last few years, the press has reported scores of well-known companies in the content and creative industries bringing to court developers of generative AI models. Many of these cases are still pending, while others have been partially or totally decided, or else settled. The cases embrace different types of protected works: news, literature, film, images, music and software code.

This article reviews key judgments to date in the United Kingdom, Germany (as a means to review the European Union approach) and the United States. It then explains why creative industry claimants often struggle in practice, even where the facts seem clear.

Read this article online     

Ukraine has responded to Russia’s full-scale invasion not only with traditional sanctions but also with an extraordinary legal measure: the sanction of asset recovery to the state. This sanction allows the courts to recover assets for the benefit of the state from persons deemed to support the aggressor state through a non-criminal and court-ordered procedure. Its significance lies in its transformative potential for sanctions regimes globally, showing how states may recalibrate their traditional sanctions frameworks to respond to unprecedented security threats, while managing the tension between individual rights, including principles of legal certainty and proportionality.

This article explores the legal nature of asset recovery to the state and how it was integrated into Ukraine’s sanctions regime. It also examines the evolving court practice that has emerged in response to its application and the practical challenges arising from its effect on non-sanctioned persons. The article begins by outlining the national legal framework and key features of this measure, before turning to standards of judicial review and burden of proof that distinguish court proceedings on asset recovery to the state from procedures applicable to other sanctions. Finally, the article addresses the protection of non-sanctioned asset holders, an area requiring urgent legal development to prevent disproportionate interference with property rights. Together, these issues highlight the need for a clear and principled approach to ensure the legitimacy and effectiveness of asset recovery to the state as a wartime sanction.

Read this article online     

The UK’s class action regime over the last ten years has grown considerably, though not without a few twists and turns. Consumer law-related mass redress claims are being filed in the UK’s High Court either as group litigation orders or representative actions with some of the most high-profile mass tort and largest-value claims. For competition law-related cases, the collective action regime (either as opt-in or opt-out) has gained momentum, with the UK now being the world’s second-largest litigation funding market.

There are over 15 cases worth billions, involving tens of millions of consumers, awaiting the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s green light for certification or trial. Many allege abuse of dominance, and many are against technology platforms. As technology platforms have millions of users, this means that any alleged harm can affect very large classes of consumers and result in substantial damages claims. Mass redress in the European Union has also been on the rise.

This article explores the UK’s class action procedure and cases against the technology platforms and then summarises the status of the regime in the United States and EU Member States.

Read this article online     

In Inteligo Media SA v ANSPDCP (C-654/23, 13 November 2025), the Court of Justice of the European Union addressed the relationship between Article 13(2) of the ePrivacy Directive and Article 6(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in circumstances where a data controller reuses email addresses obtained during user account registration to send unsolicited marketing communications. The case concerned a free digital content provider that required users to create accounts to access additional articles and receive newsletters, without obtaining explicit consent for marketing emails.

The Court held that where Article 13(2) of the ePrivacy Directive applies, the lawfulness conditions in Article 6(1) of the GDPR are excluded for the specific act of sending such communications, but this does not transform Article 13(2) into an autonomous lawful basis for personal data processing generally. The exclusion is act-specific and does not extend to the initial collection, storage or other uses of email addresses, which remain subject to GDPR requirements. The judgment has significant implications for publishers and free-service providers relying on contact details for marketing purposes, clarifying the narrow scope within which Article 13(2) operates, while preserving the exhaustive nature of Article 6 of the GDPR.

Read this article online     

The UK’s Supreme Court has unanimously held that a taxpayer could not recover the VAT paid on professional fees it incurred in selling shares in its subsidiary, even though the proceeds of the sale were used to make taxable supplies. In this case comment, the authors explain that while many taxpayers will be disappointed with the Supreme Court judgment, it is in many ways a return to orthodoxy. The Supreme Court has agreed with the Court of Appeal that in earlier decisions, the First-Tier and Upper tribunals had erred in their application of Court of Justice of the European Union case law.

Read this article online     

• Volume 27 Number 1, January 2026
• Volume 26 Number 3, September 2025
• Volume 26 Number 2, June 2025
• Volume 26 Number 1, January 2025
• Volume 25 Number 3, September 2024
• Volume 25 Number 2, May 2024
• Volume 25 Number 1, January 2024
• Volume 24 Number 3, September 2023
• Volume 24 Number 2, May 2023
• Volume 24 Number 1, January 2023
• Volume 23 Number 3, September 2022
• Volume 23 Number 2, May 2022
• Volume 23 Number 1, January 2022
• Volume 22 Number 3, September 2021
• Volume 22 Number 2, May 2021
• Volume 22 Number 1, January 2021
• Volume 21 Number 3, September 2020
• Volume 21 Number 2, May 2020
• Volume 21 Number 1, January 2020
• Volume 20 Number 3, September 2019
• Volume 20 Number 2, May 2019
• Volume 20 Number 1, January 2019