The European Accessibility Act (EAA) (Directive (EU) 2019/882) introduces new accessibility requirements that will apply to a wide range of products and services when they are accessible in the EU, aiming to enhance access for persons with disabilities and improve the functioning of the EU single market.
A recent update to EU consumer law will require many businesses selling online to offer a simpler, more accessible way for customers to cancel contracts within the standard 14-day cooling-off period.
In this week’s News of Note, Amazon continues its competition with Starlink by launching another batch of internet satellites, WhatsApp receives a ban by congressional staffers and “the ChatGPT of quantum computing” launches in Canada. Elsewhere, Texas Instruments announces a major investment in semiconductor production in the United States.
In this week’s News of Note, Disney and Universal target alleged copyright infringement, OpenAI and Mattel team up to bring artificial intelligence to toymaking and China launches its production of the world’s first non-binary AI chip. Elsewhere, Nvidia announces its major expansion into Europe with its first industrial AI Cloud.
After years of contractual entanglements, public disputes and strategic reinvention, Taylor Swift has achieved something few global recording artists have: She now owns the master recordings of her entire musical catalog.
Quantum computing (QC) is poised to disrupt cybersecurity in ways that business leaders and legal professionals cannot afford to ignore. But what exactly is quantum computing, why does it pose such a significant threat to encryption, and what should businesses be doing about it today?
After a decade of litigation and a pivotal Supreme Court ruling from 2023, the legal battle between Jack Daniel’s and VIP Products has taken yet another turn, this time back in favor of Jack Daniel’s. On remand from the Supreme Court in the case VIP Products LLC v. Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc., the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona issued an amended order on January 21, 2025, finding that VIP’s “Bad Spaniels” dog toy is not likely to cause consumer confusion with Jack Daniel’s whiskey brand and trade dress, thereby not constituting trademark infringement. However, the district court found that it nevertheless dilutes the fame and distinctiveness of the whiskey maker’s reputation, thereby still running afoul of the Lanham Act’s anti-dilution provisions. The amended order follows the Supreme Court’s decision ending the application of the more liberal Rogers First Amendment test in trademark cases involving expressive works used as source identifiers. In doing so, while finding that the parody of the “Bad Spaniels” dog toy decreased the likelihood of confusion with Jack Daniel’s by modifying the analysis of certain factors in a light more favorable to VIP, the district court ultimately found VIP’s parody of the famous whiskey brand to be a double-edged sword that contributed to finding dilution by tarnishment.
Imagine you’re an associate at a consulting firm. You’re surprised to see a new “AI Assist” button appear in your email application one morning. Without any training or guidance from your firm’s IT department, you decide to try it out, asking the AI to draft a response to a client’s inquiry about tax implications for a proposed merger. The AI confidently generates a response that looks professional and well-written, which you quickly review and send. Three days later, your managing partner calls you into their office—the AI cited outdated tax regulations and recommended a structure that would create significant liability for the client. The incident triggers an urgent internal review, revealing that dozens of employees have been using the undisclosed AI feature for weeks, potentially exposing the firm to professional liability and damaging client relationships.
We recently discussed a number of updates in the world of name, image and likeness (NIL) rights. Among those recent developments was the signing by Georgia Governor Brian Kemp of an executive order that, inter alia, prohibited the NCAA and athletic conferences from taking “adverse action” against Georgia schools for directly compensating their athletes for NIL.
As 2024 comes to a close, permutations in the arena of name, image and likeness (NIL) impacting collegiate athletics continue unabated.
Most prominently, Northern District of California District Judge Claudia Wilken preliminarily approved the proposed settlement agreement to resolve the trio of pending antitrust cases known colloquially as Carter, House, and Hubbard. While a number of judicial hurdles must be cleared before the settlement is finalized and implemented, Judge Wilken’s ruling is a significant step toward a new system of rules and athlete compensation for collegiate athletics.
