The European Parliament's Agriculture and Rural Development Committee (AGRI) has adopted new rules strengthening cross-border enforcement against unfair trading practices in agricultural supply chains by 44 votes to 1. The legislation requires mandatory information exchange between national authorities, enables ex officio intervention powers, and extends protection to cover buyers from third countries. Non-EU buyers must designate an 'EU responsible person' for regulatory compliance. The framework also allows cooperation between authorities on additional unfair trading practices beyond current EU law. The Committee will begin negotiations with EU countries following expected Plenary approval in September 2025.

The European Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) has approved a provisional agreement to simplify EU common agricultural policy (CAP) requirements by 34 votes to three, with one abstention. The package aims to reduce administrative and regulatory burdens on farmers during the current CAP programming period. Key provisions include allowing land classified as arable on 1 January 2026 to retain this status without ploughing, tilling or reseeding, and implementing a 'once-only' principle, whereby farmers are subject to no more than one official on-the-spot check per year. The provisional agreement will require approval by Parliament in a future plenary session, followed by Council approval before it can enter into force.

The European Parliament's Agriculture and Rural Development Committee (AGRI) has adopted its position on reforms to simplify the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), passing with 38 votes to 8 and 2 abstentions. The changes include expanded automatic compliance with environmental requirements for organic and conservation farms, shifting crisis payments from direct payments to rural development funds, and increasing small farmer support limits to €5,000 annually. The proposal lowers the threshold for crisis insurance schemes from 20% to 15% of losses and reduces Commission approval time for strategic plan amendments to two months. The report will be put to a plenary vote during 6-9 October 2025, with member state negotiations to follow, aiming for final adoption in November 2025.

Air Handling Unit

Arbitration analysis: In the 2022 Australian Open tennis tournament, Rafael Nadal and Daniil Medvedev battled it out at the men’s finals. At one point in the match, the score read 6-2, 7-6, 3-2 and 40-0 in favor of Medvedev and an artificial intelligence (AI) model predicted he had a 96% chance of victory. At that stage of the match, such a prediction did not seem unreasonable. Nadal had recently recovered from COVID and surgery, and Medvedev was overwhelmingly in the lead. But in a surprise finish, Nadal then won the third, fourth and fifth sets, eventually winning his second Australian Open and 21st Grand Slam title. While some commentators lauded the victory of humans over AI, it was not so much a failure of AI as an illustration of its inherent limitations. AI simulates human intelligence and problem-solving capabilities—and most humans likely would, on the basis of the available evidence at that moment in time, have predicted a Medvedev victory. AI works by applying logic and probability to quantitative data. It is, however, less good at dealing with variables that are more subjective or qualitative and therefore difficult to measure. In this article, we discuss the various AI tools that have already been or are expected to be applied in disputes as well as their benefits and limitations. Further, we explore the use of AI in business valuations. By Nikki Coles and Lucia Yau

How to use this Checklist This Checklist provides a structured framework for identifying and assessing key legal and commercial issues that arise when negotiating AI contracts. Negotiating effective AI contracts requires a context‑specific approach, informed by the particular AI use case, delivery model, regulatory exposure and risk profile of the arrangement. The appropriate focus and depth of analysis will vary depending on factors such as the nature of the AI system, the extent to which it is bespoke or uses customer data, the sector in which it is deployed, and the parties’ relative bargaining power and risk appetite. However, this Checklist is intended to provide an overview of the principal areas where negotiation may arise and the issues to consider. For further reading, see also: • Practice Note: Negotiation guide—AI contracts • Practice Note: AI contracts and procurement resource kit • Precedent: AI clauses—Warranties • Practice Note: The AI project lifecycle—a quick guide • Practice Note: AI governance—professional services—checklist • Precedent: Policy—use of generative artificial intelligence • Practice Note: Negotiation guide—IT contracts • Practice Note: Artificial intelligence—intellectual property • Practice Note: Artificial

IP analysis: In a significant ruling for the AI and tech sectors, the IPEC dismissed Engineer.ai’s trade mark infringement claims against Appy Pie and invalidated Engineer.AI’s seven ‘Builder’ trade marks. This judgment touches on important areas of trade mark law, including family marks, inherent and acquired distinctiveness, as well as providing insight on the required quality of evidence in cases with such issues. The court in this instance found the marks to be lacking inherent distinctive character in the context of app-building services, highlighting the dangers of descriptive brands in the novel AI space. The ruling also emphasises the need for robust evidence to support a finding of acquired distinctiveness in an otherwise descriptive mark. It underscores the importance of selecting and protecting distinctive brand names in the rapidly evolving AI and technology fields. The importance of witness evidence being backed by consistent documentary evidence is also a clear takeaway. Written by Lakmal Walawage, partner and Head of Intellectual Property, and Vincent Liu, associate (IP) at JMW Solicitors LLP.

TMT analysis: ‘At present, the application of UK copyright law to the training of AI models is disputed’. This sentence, in the introduction to the government's December 2024 consultation on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, gives little indication of the strength of feeling on this topic and the tensions between the tech and creative industries that have emerged. Proposals to resolve the matter in the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA 2025) did not make it into the final version of the legislation, which continues to leave wide open the question of how the UK will satisfy the conflicting interests of two powerful lobbies currently at loggerheads. Written by Aaron Cole and Patricia Wade, Ashurst LLP.

IP analysis: This News Analysis considers recent developments in AI and copyright law in the UK. It summarises the key points set out in the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee report on AI, copyright and the creative industries and in the government’s report and impact assessment on copyright and AI, and considers the practical implications for IP right holders, AI developers and users. It sets out the ways in which the UK position and EU position diverge, and considers the next steps and how to prepare for them. Written by Anna Skurczynska, partner, and Bridget O’Donnell, paralegal, at Open Plan Law.

IP analysis: Rachel Alexander at Wiggin LLP comments on a recent letter to the Prime Minister, signed by numerous individuals and organisations across the creative industries, which argues that the government’s current stance on safeguarding copyright from potential AI-driven infringement ‘fails to account for international and UK human rights law’.

This Practice Note considers how artificial intelligence (AI) intersects with planning law in England and Wales. It looks at AI as a tool used in plan-making, development management, appeals and evidence, and at the planning issues raised by AI-related development, particularly data centres and associated infrastructure. It also highlights the public law, governance and information law issues which may arise where AI is used in the planning process. This Practice Note was last updated on 14 May 2025. AI in planning terms In planning practice, AI commonly arises in two ways: • as a tool used within plan-making, development management, enforcement, consultation, appeals and other planning functions • as a driver of development, most obviously data centres and associated energy and communications infrastructure AI does not create a separate planning code. The legal questions usually arise within existing planning and public law frameworks. In most cases, the central issues will be whether the statutory decision-maker has exercised its own planning judgment, whether relevant material has been handled lawfully and transparently, and what planning consequences flow from

Law360: The British company tied to popular artificial intelligence art platform Stable Diffusion has denied claims that it developed or used the software in any way that infringes Getty Images' intellectual property, marking a new chapter in the premier UK copyright claim over generative AI.