This Practice Note sets out the requirements in relation to adoption placement orders, including steps to be taken prior to the application, who may apply for a placement order, procedure and the effect and duration of a placement order. It also provides guidance on the discretion to apply for a placement order, dispensing with consent and conditions that may be exceptionally attached to a placement order. Principles With the abolition of the power to apply for freeing orders, the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002) introduced a framework for authorising the placement of children for adoption, either with parental consent or under a placement order. Consent to placement for adoption may be given under ACA 2002, ss 19–20. A placement order is one that authorises the adoption agency to place the child with any adopter(s) to be chosen by the agency, which may include an existing foster carer. Parliament has made a clear choice to bring forward the timing of this critical decision by a court, before the adopter and child are committed to each other. The Family

Barrister Adrian Berry KC has published a blog on his website ‘Nationality and Citizenship Law’, examining the UK government's May 2025 immigration White Paper ‘Restoring Control over the Immigration System’, which proposes making settlement and citizenship conditional on migrants’ contributions and integration. He notes that the proposals closely resemble the Labour government’s 2007–2010 earned citizenship programme, which was not implemented. Both approaches frame settlement and citizenship as privileges rather than rights and introduce extended qualifying periods alongside a points-based system to assess applicants’ contributions.

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T- 794/25 ARCHIVED—this case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 5 September 2025; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU investigation into Google’s alleged distortion of competition in the advertising technology industry (AT.40670) Latest development On 5 September 2025, the Commission issued its infringement decision and imposed a fine of €2.95m for abusing its dominant position in the market for advertising technology industry (‘adtech’) by favouring its own display adtech services to the detriment of competing adtech providers, advertisers and online publishers. Parties • Google: Google is a US multinational technology company. Google's flagship service is its search engine Google Search. Google also operates other popular services, such as the video streaming platform YouTube or the mobile operating system Android. Background On 21 June 2021, the Commission launched its formal investigation.On 14 June 2023, the Commission issued its statement of objections. Market(s) Advertising

This Practice Note considers the data flows that power programmatic advertising. It considers data sources (including first-party, second-party and third-party), bid request information, user identification (including third-party cookies and their alternatives) and targeting criteria. It also considers industry solutions to improve the use of data within the adtech supply chain, such as privacy enhancing technologies. See also Practice Notes: • Adtech and programmatic advertising—introduction • Adtech and programmatic advertising—legal issues • Adtech and programmatic advertising—tracker • Adtech and programmatic advertising—glossary Quick view The table below provides an overview of the topics considered in this Practice Note, with links to the relevant section where more detailed information can be found. Section Overview Data used in programmatic advertising Data used in programmatic advertising can be categorised into user data, contextual data and analytics data. User data can come from a variety of sources, which can be categorised into first-party, second-party and third-party. This section considers the different types of data and sources. User data collection, processing and sharing The data flows in programmatic advertising are complex.

This Practice Note provides a glossary of terms frequently used in the context of adtech and programmatic advertising. A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z Ad Ad is an abbreviation for advertisement. Advertisements are used to promote products or brands in order to increase brand awareness, brand engagement and/or sales. The actual ad displayed on a website is referred to as the creative. Ad campaign An ad campaign (advertising campaign) is a series of ads that share the same message and are intended to achieve the same goal. When creating an ad campaign, advertisers will consider budgets, target audiences, what advertising channels will be used, what objectives the ad campaign is intended to achieve and how these will be measured, among other things. Ad exchange An ad exchange is a piece of

This Practice Note provides an overview of the adtech ecosystem and the programmatic buying and selling of online display advertising. It considers the technologies and transaction processes that power programmatic advertising, the differences between the programmatic transaction types, pricing models, the key participants in the adtech ecosystem and programmatic advertising more generally, and the real-time bidding (RTB) auction process. See also Practice Notes: • Adtech and programmatic advertising—data use • Adtech and programmatic advertising—legal issues • Adtech and programmatic advertising—tracker • Adtech and programmatic advertising—glossary Quick view The table below provides an overview of the topics considered in this Practice Note, with links to the relevant section where more detailed information can be found. Section Overview What is adtech? Adtech (advertising technology) refers to the technologies, software and services used by advertisers and publishers to create, run, manage and optimise digital advertising campaigns, and for the process of buying, selling, delivering and targeting digital advertising. This section considers how adtech is defined, why it emerged and how it can be distinguished from martech. What is digital advertising? Digital

Introduction Programmatic advertising is not subject to specific legislation in the UK but is nevertheless subject to a wide regulatory framework. This Practice Note considers the following: • data protection and privacy • consumer protection • competition • ad fraud and brand safety • key industry, trade and self-regulatory bodies It should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Online behavioural advertising, which provides analysis of the commercial and legal issues specifically relating to online behavioural advertising (OBA), targeted advertising, profiling and automated decision-making, which play an important role in programmatic advertising. See also Practice Notes: • Adtech and programmatic advertising—introduction • Adtech and programmatic advertising—data use • Adtech and programmatic advertising—tracker • Adtech and programmatic advertising—glossary For information on the regulation of advertising more generally, see Practice Note: Advertising law and regulation. Retained EU Law At 11 pm on 31 December 2020 (IP completion day), the UK ceased to be an EU Member State. EU law introduced, or implemented, after this date is not binding on the UK. Instead, a new category of domestic

The adtech and programmatic advertising tracker is comprised of the following sections: • Legislation ◦ Bills in progress (when applicable) ◦ Acts in force • Research and consultations undertaken by the UK government • Regulatory action by: ◦ the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) ◦ the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) • Industry developments, including: ◦ IAB Europe, IAB Tech Lab and IAB UK ◦ Data and Marketing Association (DMA) ◦ Incorporated Society of British Advertisers (ISBA) • Significant cases • Consumer challenges See also Practice Notes: • Adtech and programmatic advertising—introduction • Adtech and programmatic advertising—data use • Adtech and programmatic advertising—legal issues • Adtech and programmatic advertising—glossary • UK ePrivacy law reform—tracker Much of the legislative framework applicable to the adtech industry, including eg Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR 2008), SI 2008/1277, originally derived from the EU. Following Brexit, much of this legislation

The Adult Dependent Relative route is designed to allow those lawfully settled in the UK to sponsor their adult dependent relative(s) for long term migration to the UK, in order to provide them with necessary care. There is a separate Practice Note which deals with the situation for Adult Dependent Relatives of a Hong Kong British National (Overseas) BN(O) visa, see Practice Note: Applying under the Hong Kong British National (Overseas) route—Adult Dependent Relatives. This Practice Note discusses the complex Adult Dependent Relative route in detail, looking at eligibility for this route and what evidence is needed in practice to meet the prohibitive dependency requirement. This Practice Note identifies key sections of Home Office policy and case law on Article 8 ECHR and sets out the different lengths and conditions of leave under this route. Background and overview In practice, this route is most likely to be utilised by those settled in the UK, wishing to sponsor elderly parents or other adult dependent family members who through age or illness require care. There used to be a route under the

Private Client analysis: Following the outcome of Nahajec v Fowle (heard in the County Court at Leeds), Adam Draper, a partner at Shoosmiths, advises that the successful claim provides a useful analysis of the law and approach to maintenance-based claims in the wake of the Supreme Court case of Ilott v The Blue Cross and others.

“adult gaming centre” means premises in respect of which an adult gaming centre premises licence has effect.

Local Government analysis: The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal challenging Birmingham City Council's decision to maintain its adult social care charging policy, which required severely disabled adults to pay the maximum amount permitted by the Care Act 2014 and associated regulations. The Court held that the Council had not breached the public sector equality duty (PSED) when it decided not to amend its policy following the High Court's decision in R (SH) v Norfolk County Councilwhich had identified discrimination against severely disabled adults unable to work. The judgment clarifies who must discharge the PSED within local authority decision-making structures and is significant for financially challenged local authorities facing similar challenges to their charging policies, as well as for severely disabled adults reliant on benefits but still subject to local authority charging. Written by Stephen Cragg KC, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers.