Doing business in key global jurisdictions

Businesses are becoming increasingly global. However, while business itself may transcend jurisdictional borders, every jurisdiction will maintain its own regulatory approach and will have its own customs and practices with which businesses operating in that jurisdiction will need to comply.

There may be increased political or legislative risks that should be taken into consideration by businesses before they commence operations in certain jurisdictions.

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Commercial News

CMA warns 54 firms over non-compliance with fake reviews guidance

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has announced the results of its latest compliance review into online consumer reviews, following a three-month adjustment period after issuing new guidance in April 2025. The review assessed whether over 100 businesses had implemented appropriate policies to prevent fake and misleading reviews. As a result, the CMA has contacted 54 businesses to raise concerns about non-compliance, urging them to update their practices. To support compliance, the regulator will hold a webinar on 4 September, marking a shift in its approach from support to enforcement.

European Parliament publishes study on AI and civil liability

The European Parliament’s Policy Department for Justice, Civil Liberties and Institutional Affairs has published a study examining the EU’s regulatory approach to civil liability for artificial intelligence (AI) systems. The study, commissioned at the request of the Committee on Legal Affairs, recommends implementing a strict liability regime for high-risk AI systems. It advocates for a single responsible operator model to prevent regulatory fragmentation across EU Member States and emphasises the importance of legal certainty, efficiency and harmonisation in the regulatory framework.

Commercial weekly highlights—24 July 2025

This week's edition of Commercial weekly highlights includes: judgment of the Supreme Court in Stevens v Hotel Portfolio II UK Ltd where the court allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent was jointly liable for the loss caused by the dissipation of unauthorised profits in breach of fiduciary duty to the appellant, judgement in Trans Trade v State Food and Grain Corp of Ukraine where the court determined that the seller’s claims for the price under section 49(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 were unsuccessful as the conditions of the sub-section were not satisfied, and news that the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill has received Royal Assent becoming the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025.

High Court discharges super-injunction in Afghan data breach case (MoD v Global Media and Entertainment Ltd)

Public Law analysis: The High Court discharged a super-injunction in the case of Ministry of Defence v Global Media and Entertainment Ltd, marking a significant moment in the intersection of privacy, national security, and open justice. This judgment (the Judgment) rebalances the competing interests of state secrecy and the public’s right to know, with the Judgment emphasising the need for democratic accountability in the handling of sensitive government errors. The Judgment (which was made public together with the earlier judgments in the case) serves as a crucial reminder of the limits of secrecy in the face of evolving evidence and the fundamental importance of freedom of expression. Written by Dan Tench, partner, and Rosie Coles, associate, at CMS.