Archive: June 2026

 Subscribe to June 2026

The rising cost of AI errors: Key takeaways from 2026 sanctions rulings

June 26, 2026

Gen AI tools have become commonplace in legal practice, offering attorneys a means to research, draft and refine legal documents at unprecedented speed.

Data centres: What makes a successful investment strategy

June 26, 2026

This episode of the Uptime Now podcast explores key factors influencing data centre investment decisions.

Behind the privilege shield: Safeguarding AI bias-testing data in employment decisions

June 24, 2026

On May 28, 2026, a California federal judge held in Mobley v. Workday that artificial intelligence bias-testing data may be protected against discovery based on the attorney-client privilege shield.

How to manage AI risks in financial services investigations

June 16, 2026

This article explores how AI use affects legal professional privilege in Financial Conduct Authority inquiries and offers safeguards to mitigate disclosure risks.

AI privilege after Heppner: What courts are saying

June 12, 2026

Recent decisions are beginning to define how courts treat privilege claims involving generative AI, particularly when parties use publicly available tools.

Early access to AI: What the EO sets in motion

June 12, 2026

A new June 2026 Executive Order gives the federal government a chance to review certain advanced AI models before they’re released—part of a broader push to stay ahead of emerging cybersecurity risks.

Deepfakes and AI: can existing IP rights provide protection?

June 02, 2026

While the UK government stalled in its plans to respond to the rise of AI with legislative change in its March 2026 Report and Impact Assessment on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence (the Report), celebrities have turned to trade mark law to combat deepfake imitations of their voices, catchphrases and appearance.

A new anchor for patent claims: Expanding UPC jurisdiction through compliance roles

June 01, 2026

The CJEU’s forthcoming decision on so called “long arm jurisdiction”, under which courts have assumed jurisdiction beyond the limits of strictly national or contractually defined territories could enable far-reaching centralisation of patent litigation in the EU, turning authorised representatives into jurisdictional anchors and significantly increasing procedural and liability risks for global market participants.