IP analysis: In June 2024, a new front opened up on the copyright war against current generative AI practices, and this one is set to music. In this article, Caroline Day, partner at Haseltine Lake Kempner LLP, discusses the ongoing legal battle between major record labels and AI companies Suno and Udio over the use of copyrighted music in generative AI models.

MLex: AI providers including OpenAI, Anthropic and Google are gearing up for a step change in EU enforcement. From 2 August 2026, the EU AI Office will be able to undertake a number of investigative steps, including accessing AI models and restricting them from the market. The European Commission agency is expected to first tackle priority issues, such as safety and security, that are widespread among all providers of general-purpose AI models.

STOP PRESS: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 and Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 as regards the simplification of the implementation of harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Digital Omnibus on AI) was published in the Official Journal on 24 July 2026 and entered into force on 27 July 2026. This checklist will be updated shortly to reflect amendments to Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, the EU Artificial Intelligence Act. For further information on the changes introduced by the Digital Omnibus on AI, see Practice Note: EU Digital Omnibus—tracker and News Analysis: Digital Omnibus proposal—re-writing the EU's digital rulebook. How to use this Checklist This Checklist provides a structured framework for implementing AI governance within a professional services business. Implementing effective AI governance requires a highly specific approach, tailored to the relevant business, It will vary according to the type of business, its attitude to risk, level of resource, and the nature and maturity of its existing governance framework. However this Checklist is designed to provide an overview of the aspects to consider, in order to help firms adopt AI responsibly, and while

Law360: A Canadian court annulled a Montreal arbitrator's award in a healthcare dispute, saying that in writing his decision, he wrongly relied on numerous 'hallucinated' legal authorities provided to him by a generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool.

Law360: Nearly one in five insurance claim handlers believe that many fraud claims now involve fake supporting documents created or altered using artificial intelligence tools, a new report shows.

Construction analysis: The significant development in the capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) in recent years may have a significant impact on construction disputes. Paddy Mockler of Philip Lee consider various potential uses of AI, its benefits in construction disputes as well as the risk it may pose.

This Practice Note discusses the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in debt capital markets (DCM) transactions, with a focus on the associated risks, legal considerations and regulatory framework. It highlights emerging AI technologies, their potential impact on DCM and provides strategic considerations for DCM practitioners. AI applications in debt capital markets (DCM) AI in underwriting and issuance A debt securities issuance is the process by which an entity offers new securities, eg bonds, to investors to raise capital by borrowing money (debt). This process involves several steps, including a large suite of legal documents, to include a prospectus, as well as engaging an underwriter and marketing the securities to potential investors. In Debt Capital Markets (DCM), underwriting describes the commitment by a financial institution (the underwriter) to purchase securities that are not able to be sold to investors or to be paid for by investors in a securities offering. This commitment means that an underwriter assumes the risk from the issuer that the securities being offered will not be taken up by investors. The underwriter

Arbitration analysis: The Superior Court of Québec set aside an arbitral award after finding that the arbitrator had materially relied on hallucinated legal authorities generated by artificial intelligence. While rejecting a public policy challenge based on contractual notice provisions and limitation periods, the court held that article 646 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits annulment where improper use of AI undermines the integrity of the arbitral process. The judgment draws an important distinction between permissible technological assistance and impermissible delegation of adjudicative functions. It establishes that arbitrators must independently verify and supervise AI-assisted work and signals that material AI-related failures may provide a basis for challenging awards where confidence in the decision-making process is compromised. Produced in partnership with Philippe Boisvert and Olivier Bourdon of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP.

Dispute Resolution analysis: Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform dispute resolution, promising to drive efficiencies and reduce costs. As the influence of AI in the law is rapidly growing, so too does the need to balance its associated opportunities with the risks it is likely to pose to reliability, accountability, privacy and ethics. The purpose of this article is to explore the evolving role of AI in dispute resolution, its benefits, its limitations and the need for thought to be given as to how to mitigate the risks that it could potentially raise. Written by Rebecca Warder, Head of Knowledge Management, Hausfeld & Co, Lucy Pert, Co-Head of Commercial Disputes and Partner, Hausfeld & Co and Edward Nyman, Senior Associate, Hausfeld & Co.

Public Law analysis: This article discusses the transformative impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the public sector, highlighting its role in improving administrative practices and policy-making across various domains such as social welfare, law enforcement, healthcare, and transportation. It addresses the legal and ethical challenges posed by AI, including concerns about human rights, privacy, accountability, and environmental impacts. The article examines the evolving regulatory frameworks in the EU and the UK, which aim to manage these challenges through risk-based regulation. It emphasises the need for public sector lawyers to understand these regulations and balance innovation with the protection of fundamental rights and transparency. Written by Erica Stanford, Crypto, digital asset and AI advisor at CMS.

Practice Management analysis: While the most forward thinking law firms are ready to embrace artificial intelligence (AI), robots are not taking over the legal world any time soon. That said, its utilisation is undoubtedly proving valuable for law firms who are investing in it. Nicola Laver talks to Isabel Parker, director of legal services innovation at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, and Charles Kerrigan, partner and head of the international finance practice group at Olswang, about the latest developments as part of a special report examining the relationship between new technology and the legal sector.

This Practice Note tracks key legislative and regulatory developments, government initiatives and strategies, and consultations relating to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in life sciences and digital health in the UK. The rapid development of AI in life sciences and digital health has drawn attention on its potential to transform research, innovation and patient care, while also raising complex regulatory challenges. In the UK, AI intersects with a range of existing legal and regulatory regimes, most notably the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (MDR 2002), SI 2002/618 (as amended). The UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is currently progressing a package of reforms to the UK medical device framework, with important implications for AI and digital health, particularly in relation to Software as Medical Device (SaMD), AI as Medical Device (AIaMD) and cybersecurity requirements (see News Analyses: Life Sciences UK—key developments in 2025 and horizon scanning for 2026—AI and digital health, UK medical devices regulatory reform—where are we now and what’s next for 2025?, A closer look at MHRA’s proposals