Law360, London: Around 80 actors, performers and public figures backed the ‘Save Our Voices Now’ campaign, launched on 8 August 2026, calling for stronger legal protection against the unauthorised replication of voices by artificial intelligence.

AI washing describes the practice of presenting a product, service or business process as using artificial intelligence, or as more sophisticated than it is, in a way that may mislead regulators, investors, customers or other stakeholders. It is a descriptive expression rather than a defined legal term in UK or Irish legislation or case law, but is increasingly used in regulatory, commercial, financial services and technology law contexts across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland.In legal practice, AI washing commonly arises in relation to misleading advertising, consumer protection, unfair commercial practices, investor disclosures, prospectuses, due diligence, competition law and regulatory reporting (including to financial and data protection regulators). It may involve overstating AI capabilities, implying use of “generative AI” where tools are rules-based, or suggesting higher levels of automation, accuracy or safety than can be substantiated.AI washing can give rise to civil, regulatory and, in some circumstances, criminal liability under existing misrepresentation, fraud, market abuse and consumer protection regimes. Legal advisers should scrutinise AI-related claims, disclaimers and technical documentation and ensure they are accurate, verifiable and consistent with actual system design and deployment.

Law360, London: A recent High Court judgment exposed how nonexistent artificial intelligence-generated citations had been used in legal arguments—but experts say this could be the tip of the iceberg for increasingly sophisticated fake evidence making its way into disputes.

Law360, London: A London tribunal has rejected a health supplements company's attempt to void an ex-employee's successful sexual harassment claim based on her use of artificial intelligence to create a witness statement.

TMT analysis: AI-generated music is now commercially mainstream—but the legal framework is still catching up. Instead of clear rules, the industry is currently being shaped by a mix of litigation, private licensing deals, and early-stage regulation. Produced in partnership with Martha Campbell and Alishea Patel of Macfarlanes.

TMT Analysis: David Zeffman, partner, and Carter Rich, associate, at CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP consider the integration of AI into gaming. The analysis discusses the current use of AI in gaming, the developers’ point of view and the practical issues and legal considerations associated with AI in gaming.

MLex: An EU copyright licensing market for training AI technologies remains underdeveloped due to the reluctance of developers to engage in licensing negotiations, according to a summary of responses by European governments and collective management organisations (CMOs) to a policy questionnaire. The survey identifies transparency problems for rights holders and workable opt-out mechanisms for the EU Copyright Directive’s text and data mining exception.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is developing a Scientific Explorer Tool for data mining of scientific information to inform scientific decisions. The tool will be an Artificial Intelligence (AI)/Knowledge Mining led tool to allow simple and precise searching, finding, interrogating, and accessing of scientific information to inform scientific decisions. The scope of the tool’s first version are scientific advice letters.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has announced the launch of a new ‘Supercharged Sandbox’ programme enabling financial services firms to experiment with artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. The initiative includes a partnership with NVIDIA to provide firms with access to accelerated computing resources and AI Enterprise Software. This sandbox will benefit firms in the AI discovery and experiment phase and complements the FCA's AI Live Testing service for more developed projects. Applications are now open, with successful participants able to begin experimentation from October 2025.

Costs of the arbitration The costs of the arbitration include (Rule 47.1): • the Arbitral Tribunal’s fees; • the AIAC administrative fee; • reasonable expenses incurred by the Arbitral Tribunal; • any costs of using the AIAC’s facilities and additional services; • any other costs as directed by the Arbitral Tribunal; and • any applicable taxes or other charges Arbitral Tribunal’s fees and AIAC administrative fee Quantum The AIAC Court will fix the fees of the Arbitral Tribunal and the AIAC administrative fee according to the scales set out at Schedule 1A (for international arbitration) and 1B (for domestic arbitration) of the AIAC Rules (Rule 47.3). These fees are calculated based on the amount in dispute, including the value of any claims, counterclaims and any defence of set-off (Rule 47.3). • if the claims and/or counterclaims are unquantified, the Registrar will, after consulting the Arbitral Tribunal and the parties, determine the amount in dispute for the purpose of calculating the deposit towards the costs of the arbitration (Rule 47.4) • the minimum arbitrator’s

Request A party seeking urgent interim measures prior to the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal may request the appointment of an emergency arbitrator (Rule 12.1). The emergency arbitrator request may be filed (Rule 12.2): • before filing the notice of arbitration; • when filing the notice of arbitration; or • at any time prior to the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal If the request is filed before filing the notice of arbitration, the notice of arbitration must be filed within 7 days thereafter (Rule 12.3). The emergency arbitrator request must be in writing and include the following (Rule 12.4): • the names and contact details of the parties and any representatives; • a brief description of the legal and factual basis for the request, identifying the interim measure urgently sought and the grounds for requesting the appointment of an emergency arbitrator; • proof of payment of the emergency arbitrator request fee and the emergency arbitrator’s fees; • confirmation that a copy of the emergency arbitrator request has been delivered to all other parties

Applicable rules Save for the matters governed under Rule 7 and set out in this Practice Note, the remainder of the AIAC Rules will apply to any arbitration conducted according to the Fast Track Procedure (Rule 7.9). Request A party may request the operation of the Fast Track Procedure when commencing the arbitration or at any time before the Arbitral Tribunal is constituted if at least one of the following criteria apply (Rule 7.1): • the Parties have agreed to adopt the Fast Track Procedure or any edition of the AIAC Fast Track Arbitration Rules; • the amount in dispute in the notice of arbitration is less than USD 3 million (for international arbitration) or RM 2 million (for domestic arbitration); or • there is exceptional urgency A request for the Fast Track Procedure (other than based on parties’ agreement) will be determined by the President of the AIAC Court having regard to all relevant circumstances (Rule 7.2). Deposit and costs Amount The AIAC will request a deposit to cover