On 16 January 2025, the UK Office of Communications (Ofcom) published its Statement on Age Assurance and Children’s Access, and officially commenced the process for user-to-user and search services (“Service Providers”) to conduct a children’s access assessment and implement robust age checks based on Ofcom’s published guidance. For completeness, we note that Ofcom also has published separate guidance on robust age checks for platforms that allow, display or publish their own pornographic content, but this is not considered further below.
Latest Articles
Law of Privilege: ‘Shareholder Rule’ Held to Be Unjustifiable
In its decision last year in Aabar Holdings SARL v. Glencore PLC & Others,[1] the High Court handed down a landmark ruling overturning the ‘shareholder rule’, which has been applied to the analysis of legal professional privilege as between a company and its shareholders since the 19th century. The court deemed this long-settled principle of the law of privilege to be ‘unjustifiable’ and held that it should not be applied.
Cap in Hand: Should Liability Caps Be Applied Before or After Set-Off?
In Topalsson GmbH v. Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited,[1] the Court of Appeal helpfully re-affirmed that the ‘commonsense’ approach to the application of liability caps is to apply them before any set-off calculation.
UK Online Safety Act: Ofcom Publishes First Codes of Practice
The first binding Codes of Practice under the UK’s Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA) have now been published, requiring those in scope to take immediate action to become compliant. In particular, it is now a legal duty to carry out risk assessments for in-scope services against 17 kinds of illegal harms – including terrorism, hate, child sexual exploitation and abuse, fraud, and encouraging or assisting suicide.
‘After the Event’ Insurance Policy Given No Weight in Security for Costs Application
In Asertis Ltd v. Bloch,[1] in the context of a security for costs application, the English High Court determined that it could give no value to an ‘after the event’ (ATE) insurance policy even though it was supplemented with an ‘anti-avoidance endorsement’ (AAE). The policy at issue does not appear to have met market norms – in particular, it did not provide benefits directly to the defendant.
Gaming Industry Does Not Owe General Duty of Care to Customers
In a significant judgment for the gaming industry, the High Court of England and Wales held in Gibson v. TSE Malta LP (t/a Betfair)[1] that gambling operators do not owe a general duty of care to their customers to prevent gambling-related harm, and that licence conditions imposed on operators do not create implied terms in the contract between the consumer and the operator.
Tech Class Actions: The Headlines from across Europe
For our Cooley colleagues in the US, defending class actions against technology platforms has been a part of their day-to-day for many years. However, the need for class action defence lawyers is spreading rapidly to the UK and beyond. For many countries this is a relatively new but very significant trend. It’s one we could dedicate pages to, but we set out below the TLDR summary of what’s happening.
Consideration for Call Option Held Not To Be Turnover
In Aymes International Ltd v. Nutrition4U BV, the Court of Appeal held that the consideration paid by a purchaser for a call option should not be included in the calculation of the target company’s turnover on which the calculation of the purchase price was based.
UK Publishes Guidance on Failure to Prevent Fraud: Companies Without “Reasonable Prevention Procedures” Could Be Held Criminally Liable
On 6 November 2024, the UK government published guidance in respect of the failure to prevent fraud offence, which was introduced in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA).Under this offence, companies may be held criminally liable if they did not have ‘reasonable prevention procedures’ in place when a fraudulent act was committed by persons associated with them. The guidance helpfully outlines which factors businesses should consider when developing such procedures. Below, we have summarised key aspects of the guidance.
Conflicts of Law: Norwich Pharmacal Orders in Liechtenstein
In Magomedov & Others v. Kuzovkov & Others,[1] the High Court handed down an interesting decision examining the conflict of foreign criminal law with the discretion of the Courts of England and Wales to grant a Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO).