MLex: The European Commission will issue guidelines on how the EU AI Act interacts with other EU laws such as the EU GDPR, product safety legislation, platform regulations and copyright rules only around the third quarter of 2026—meaning just before or just after the law’s high-risk obligations will take effect. The delay adds pressure on the commission as it weighs whether to pause the EU AI Act’s high-risk requirements.

Introduction The AI due diligence questionnaire in respect of the proposed purchase by [insert buyer name] (the Buyer) of the [entire share capital of [insert name of target company] Limited incorporated in England and Wales under number [insert company number] (the Company) OR [insert description of the business to be acquired] (the Business) as a going concern, together with certain assets used in the Business ] from [insert seller name] (the Seller) (the Project). This questionnaire is primarily intended to enable the Buyer and the Buyer’s professional advisors to obtain information relating to the use of artificial intelligence by the [Company and its affiliates OR within the Business] and to facilitate the collation of the documents which are required for inclusion in the data room (the Data Room) which will be made available to the Buyer. Please provide your answers in italics underneath each question. In addition, please provide copies of all relevant documentation in the Data Room, ensuring that all answers and documents are clearly marked

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.

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 protecting client trust, complying with regulatory obligations, and maintaining professional standards. Although framed for professional services generally, references in this Checklist to particular professional duties should be adapted to the relevant profession and applicable regulatory framework. The framework should operate as a continuous lifecycle—identifying and assessing AI use cases, approving and recording them, deploying them with appropriate controls, monitoring them and reassessing them where relevant changes, incidents or other review triggers arise. For further reading, see also: • Practice Notes: ◦ Artificial intelligence and machine learning—an introduction to the technology ◦ The AI project lifecycle—a

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.