Competition law has long shaped the European aviation sector, from liberalisation in the 1990s to scrutiny of mergers and alliances. While past enforcement focused on slots, routes, and network structures, digitalisation has shifted competitive dynamics toward control over passenger data. Airlines and intermediaries now rely on vast datasets, raising novel issues under Article 102 TFEU. Data-driven practices, such as loyalty schemes, personalised pricing, and mandatory data sharing, can both entrench market power and undermine transparency, fairness, and privacy. Recent case law confirms that data protection concerns, particularly under the GDPR, may be relevant in competition assessments when dominant firms exploit consumers through unfair terms. In aviation, where choice is often limited and regulatory obligations complex, the intersection of competition, consumer, and privacy law is especially acute. This article examines exploitative and exclusionary abuses linked to data, arguing that data has become aviation’s “new jet fuel” and requires regulatory vigilance.
The Indian refusal of Stephen Thaler’s DABUS patent application represents more than a routine rejection of artificial intelligence inventorship; it exposes a foundational crisis within anthropocentric patent theory. This commentary examines the Indian Patent Office's decision against the broader transnational DABUS jurisprudence and argues that, while the refusal is doctrinally defensible under the Patents Act, 1970, it is theoretically insufficient for an era in which innovation increasingly emerges from human–machine collaboration. The Controller's reasoning rests on the statutory interdependence of inventorship, legal personality, entitlement, assignment and proof of right. Since DABUS lacks the capacity to own property, execute legal instruments or transfer rights, it cannot qualify as a "true and first inventor" under Indian law. In this respect, the decision aligns with the prevailing approach in the United Kingdom, United States and Australia, where courts have similarly confined inventorship to natural persons. However, this convergence should not be mistaken for conceptual resolution. Across jurisdictions, courts have largely avoided the normative question of whether patent law should recognise AI-generated invention, instead resolving the issue through narrow statutory interpretation. The Indian decision therefore reveals the limits of judicial minimalism in responding to technological disruption. It preserves the coherence of the existing patent framework, but only by reaffirming assumptions that invention is necessarily human, creativity is inseparable from legal personhood, and rights must flow from a human inventor. The commentary further situates the decision within India’s broader AI policy landscape. India’s developmental strategy actively promotes AI-driven innovation through initiatives. Yet its patent law remains anchored in a human-centred model of inventive activity. This creates a regulatory contradiction between India’s technological ambitions and its intellectual property architecture. The DABUS refusal thus marks a transitional moment in innovation governance: it confirms the current legal impossibility of AI inventorship while simultaneously demonstrating the inadequacy of existing patent categories. The future challenge is not simply whether AI should be named as an inventor, but how patent law should govern invention in such systems.
This book review of Law and Technology: A Methodical Approach by Ryan Calo discusses the two core contributions of Calo's work: (1) the contextualization of the field of law and technology and (2) the Methodical Approach to the study of law and technology. For (1), we examine Calo's survey of conceptual challenges that beset the study of technology, especially with respect to policy objectives and legal interventions. We also discuss Calo's situation of Science and Technology Studies (STS) as an ally to the study of law and technology, with valuable insights to contribute and exchange. For (2), we examine the four steps of the Methodical Approach as proposed by Calo: Definition, Envision, Analysis, and Intervention. We will canvass and discuss the "intellectual tasks" in each step that Calo sets out for prospective authors in law and technology. We will also contemplate potential additions or qualifications to this proposed approach. To conclude, we offer two alternative approaches to the titular Methodical Approach: the Reverse Approach, which deploys the Methodical Approach in reverse order, and the Ambiguous Approach, which leverages the Methodical Approach's recommended avenues of exploration to highlight areas of uncertainty in the topic studied.
Exceptions and limitations play a pivotal role in European copyright law and have been the subject of significant developments in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In this context, the judgment in Pelham II (C-590/23) is particularly noteworthy. First, it provides long-awaited clarification of the notion of “pastiche” under Article 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29/EC by recognising it as an autonomous concept of EU law and by articulating a structured framework governing its application. Secondly, the ruling may have far-reaching implications for the legal treatment of AI-generated outputs within the European copyright framework. This comment examines the Court’s interpretation of pastiche as requiring an artistic or creative dialogue with a pre-existing work that is objectively recognisable, whilst rejecting any requirement of subjective intent on the part of the user. It further analyses the emergence of the “recognisability” criterion in the CJEU’s recent case law and considers the broader implications of the judgment for transformative uses, artistic freedom, and the balancing of fundamental rights in EU copyright law. Particular attention is paid to the relevance of Pelham II for generative AI. Th comment argues that the Court’s flexible conception of pastiche may encompass certain AI-generated outputs, whilst highlighting the continuing importance of the three-step test as a potential limiting principle.
This article critically evaluates whether the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) provides adequate protection for micro and small enterprise (SME) buyers in international business-to-business (B2B) transactions. The CISG is founded on the assumption that commercial parties possess comparable bargaining power, legal expertise, and capacity to safeguard their interests. However, this assumption increasingly diverges from commercial reality, as micro and small enterprises participate more actively in cross-border trade. Focusing on key provisions governing nonconformity and remedies, including Articles 35, 38, 39, 47, and 49, the article demonstrates that the CISG’s strict notice requirements, indeterminate legal standards, and reliance on judicial discretion can impose disproportionate procedural and legal burdens on SME buyers.Brief comparative reference to English law illustrates that, although domestic legal frameworks may offer greater doctrinal certainty in some respects, they similarly fail to recognise the structural vulnerability of SME buyers. The article contributes to existing scholarship by shifting focus from abstract doctrinal balance to the practical impact of CISG rules on vulnerable business participants. The article concludes by proposing recognition of SME buyers as a distinct category in international sales law.
This article examines how the final version of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (“AI Act”, adopted 2024) allocates obligations across the AI value chain, with a focus on general-purpose AI (“GPAI”) or foundation models. It proposes a taxonomy of key actors – foundation model providers, fine-tuners, integrators, and deployers – and analyses the interfaces between them, including documentation tools (model cards, system cards) and logging requirements. Building on principles of control, foreseeability, benefit, and capability, the article argues for a principled distribution of compliance duties: those who design and train foundational AI models should bear upstream transparency and safety obligations, while those who adapt or deploy AI in specific contexts shoulder downstream risk management and oversight duties. The analysis discusses the EU Act’s enforcement model (market surveillance authorities and an EU AI Office) and contrasts it with data protection supervision, highlighting the need for coordination in areas of overlap. A comparative outlook considers the UK’s pro-innovation, context-driven approach and the evolving US regulatory landscape. Finally, the article offers recommendations for regulatory guidance and standards development (ISO/IEC, CEN/CENELEC) to support effective implementation, accounting for recent developments including the Digital Omnibus Regulation, the AI Office’s emerging guidelines, and the broader debate on EU regulatory competitiveness triggered by the Draghi Report. This approach aims to clarify how the EU AI Act’s final provisions on general-purpose AI models can serve as a global benchmark for balanced AI governance.
A book review about Chilling Effects Repression, Conformity, and Power in the Digital Age, written by Jonathon W. Penney. It is a book reconstructing Chilling Effect doctrine beyond legal contexts.
This review examines Professor Liu's monograph, which advances a market-oriented theory of IP and applies it to compulsory licensing, patent and work pools, FRAND licensing of standard-essential patents, the secondhand branded-goods market, and data and algorithms. It commends Liu's governance-oriented reform proposals and comparative methodology, notes certain limitations in the book's geographic scope and some proposals that risk duplicating existing flexibilities, and situates it against recent developments. Overall, the review recommends the work as a holistic and methodical point of departure for policymakers, scholars, and practitioners navigating the intersection of IP and competition law in Asia and beyond.
The proliferation of deepfake technology in India presents unprecedented challenges to existing legal frameworks, threatening individual dignity, democratic processes, and social harmony. This research conducts a comprehensive analysis of India's legal response to Artificial Intelligence-generated (AI-generated) synthetic media through doctrinal examination, empirical case studies, and comparative jurisprudence. The study reveals critical gaps in India's current legal architecture. While provisions under the Information Technology Act 2000, Indian Penal Code 1860, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and emerging data protection laws offer partial protection, they lack specificity for deepfake-related harms. The research examines landmark cases including Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP and high-profile celebrity deepfake incidents, demonstrating judicial evolution toward protective personality rights jurisprudence despite legislative ambiguity. Through systematic analysis of enforcement mechanisms, the study identifies significant implementation challenges including technical detection limitations, jurisdictional complexities, and inadequate institutional capacity. Empirical assessment of complaint data from the National Crime Records Bureau and state cybercrime cells reveals poor conviction rates and prolonged resolution timelines, highlighting the enforcement-legislation disconnect. The research proposes a comprehensive regulatory framework centred on a dedicated Synthetic Media Regulation Act, incorporating graduated harm-based penalties, platform accountability standards, and victim compensation mechanisms. The proposed multi-stakeholder governance model balances innovation promotion with fundamental rights protection through safe harbour provisions for legitimate uses while criminalizing non-consensual creation and distribution. Key contributions include the first systematic legal analysis of India's deepfake regulatory landscape, evidence-based policy recommendations, and an implementation roadmap addressing short-term enforcement needs and long-term institutional reforms. The study positions India to lead global synthetic media governance while protecting citizens from AI-generated deception in an increasingly digital society.
Against the backdrop of ongoing globalisation and the rapid development of the digital economy, the protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs) has become a key factor in the overseas investment decisions of multinational companies (MNCs). This paper first reviews the evolution of international IPR regimes and their essential status in investment agreements. It then takes the Eli Lilly v Canada case as a core example to deeply analyse three significant difficulties currently faced in the protection of IPRs in cross-border investment: first, the uneven enforcement of laws across countries, which leads to inconsistent effectiveness in IPRs protection; second, the vague, outdated, and insufficiently adaptive provisions in existing investment and trade agreements, which fail to cover emerging technological fields effectively; third, the divergence between the application of international agreements and domestic legal systems, which increases legal uncertainty and compliance costs for multinational enterprises. Finally, the paper puts forward recommendations from both state and corporate perspectives, including strengthening international cooperation, improving the dynamic adjustment mechanisms of agreements, and urging enterprises to establish localised IPR strategies and compliance management systems. The article emphasises the need to construct a more coordinated, efficient, and forward-looking international IPR governance system to balance the protection of innovation with national sovereignty and corporate interests.
The present paper critiques India's approach to cross-border data transfers under the Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules 2025. It highlights concerns with Rule 14 and Rule 12(4), which grant the government broad discretion to impose data localization mandates, potentially restricting the transfer of specific data types regardless of the destination country's safety. This "regressive" approach could stifle innovation and create compliance hurdles for businesses, especially social media intermediaries. The paper also points out the ambiguity in defining restrictions and the lack of provisions for "onward transfers" of data, contrasting it with the more comprehensive GDPR. It advocates for a balanced framework with clear criteria for restrictions and safeguards, aligning with international best practices to ensure both national security and economic viability.
The advancements achieved by generative AI have marked a significant step in creative art, raising copyright law questions, particularly around issues of authorship, originality and the role of AI in the creative process. Copyright law has grappled with similar challenges before, especially with the advent of emerging technologies, as evidenced during the early days of photography. Just as photography was initially viewed as the product of a machine rather than a human creation, so is output created with the support of generative AI often seen as predominantly AI driven. By drawing an analogy with the camera, this article explores how the users’ expression of free and creative choices, a fundamental aspect of originality under EU copyright law, can be identified at various stages in the production process of AI-supported output. It argues that the stage of ‘taking a photograph’ encompasses a series of human decisions rather than being an isolated act of pressing the shutter. Similarly, if the execution stage is seen as a process of converting users’ decisions into a preliminary output—much like ‘shooting a photograph’—those decisions can also serve as an additional element for attributing originality to AI-supported outputs. In analysing the emerging standards of authorial intent and control in assessing originality for AI-supported outputs, the article explores the distinction between semantic and categorial intentions, as well as the interplay between intent, control and the predictability of the outcome. It concludes that since categorial intent is always achieved and therefore infallible, the AI-supported output will consistently align with the author’s conception or fundamental approach to the work. Moreover, while authorial control and intent alone cannot establish originality, they can nonetheless contribute to assessing the originality of AI-supported output when they are evident in the creative process or its outcomes.
In light of the increasing prominence of generative AI, this paper examines a number of critical challenges facing the stratified policy and governance frameworks shaping the adoption of this technology in the legal services sector. We argue that there are counterproductive tensions within the existing policy and governance framework, and that if we are to make the UK legal sector ‘ready, willing, and able’ to harness the potential of artificial intelligence, it is imperative that we set in place a new governance framework that is capable of setting, promoting, and supporting innovation across the legal sector as a whole. Furthermore, within this policy and governance framework we consider two critical factors that are relevant to state-of-the-art AI systems which present critical challenges to the development of legal AI: (1) data access issues in the domain of law and (2) knowledge, skills, and awareness of capabilities relating to the application of generative AI to legal problems.
With the dawn of artificial intelligence (AI), it is only a matter of time before it amplifies or even replaces human decision-making in corporate governance. This threatens to subvert the core concepts of a director as laid down in the Companies Act, 2013, like director duties, accountability, and the nature of corporate leadership. This article delves into the legal ramifications of integrating AI inside the corporate boardrooms, specifically from the statutory lens of Indian corporate laws. This paper focuses on Chapter XI, where it explores the applicability–or the lack thereof, of these provisions when AI systems are engaged in board decisions. The issues revolve around AI’s decision making–the legal status and the allocation of liability for harmful decisions influenced by AI systems–in light of directors’ fiduciary duties. Additionally, it examines the challenges of ensuring transparency, particularly in relation to algorithmic biases and the Black Box Phenomenon. This article concludes by proposing recommendations for a comprehensive regulatory framework governing the ethical use of AI in corporate boards, including, but not limited to–guidelines for algorithmic accountability, regular AI system audits, and enhanced disclosure requirements for companies employing AI in governance. Through this research, the author seeks to advance the emerging field of AI governance and provide insights for policymakers, corporate directors, and AI developers working at the intersection of technology and corporate law.
This paper presents the results of the first qualitative empirical study on digital legacy and post-mortem privacy in the UK, shedding light on experiences, practices, perceptions, and limitations in the field. Our research confirms and extends existing theoretical and doctrinal work, validating key arguments, assumptions and ideas. The study unveils critical issues surrounding awareness, platform behaviours, and the limitations of current practices, exacerbated by the global impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic. Central to our findings is the overwhelming lack of awareness among users, practitioners, platforms, and regulators, highlighting a pressing need for increased engagement from the media, academics, and professional associations. The study identifies key drivers for change, emphasising the role of individual grief, high-profile cases, and technological advancements. Legal professionals, facing obstacles in the absence of clear regulations, exhibit leadership and creativity in addressing client needs, claiming a new expertise in the evolving field of digital legacy. Contrary to the clear call for law reform among practitioners, regulators acknowledge the growing importance but prioritise other areas, necessitating a cross-cutting reform approach. Concerns about platform cooperation, jurisdictional differences, and the inadequacy of existing solutions emerge, urging a re-evaluation of technological and in-service solutions, such as Facebook or Apple Legacy Contact. Education and media literacy are identified as pivotal components, addressing the broader landscape of digital legacy and privacy. Our findings underscore the urgent need for legal and policy reform, conceptual clarity, and a review of technological solutions. The study's impact extends beyond empirical evidence, informing subsequent research on user perceptions and guiding the development of policy and law reform proposals in the underexplored realm of digital legacy and post-mortem privacy.
The author reviews Gianclaudio Malgieri's book entitled "Vulnerability and Data Protection Law" (Oxford University Press 2023; 304 pages; ISBN 9780192870339; £90).
