The European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) and its members have alerted the European Commission and the European Network of Consumer Authorities to the unfair practices employed by leading video game companies which have developed games such as Fortnite, EA Sports FC 24, Minecraft and Clash of Clans. The BEUC's analysis revealed that video game companies use premium in-game currencies to maximise consumer spending, prevent consumers from seeing the real costs of digital items and deny them their rights when using such currencies. It also found that children are especially vulnerable, spending on average €39 per month on in-game purchases.

The European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) reported that following the European Parliament's adoption of its position on the AI Omnibus on 26 March 2026, it cautions that the proposed changes would significantly weaken consumer protections just months after the original AI Act was agreed. The Parliament's proposal would result in many consumer-facing AI systems being removed from the high-risk classification under the AI Act. This change could potentially exclude AI-embedded products from essential compliance rules. BEUC reports that this approach leads to regulatory fragmentation rather than simplification, as it leaves AI-specific risks in products covered by sectoral EU product legislation unaddressed. Ahead of upcoming interinstitutional negotiations, BEUC is calling on EU institutions and national governments to maintain critical safeguards for consumers and uphold fundamental rights.

The European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) has warned that the adopted artificial intelligence (AI) omnibus risks weakening consumer protection. While intended to simplify regulation and enhance competitiveness, BEUC argues that it undermines consumer safety by delaying key provisions of the AI Act and introducing loopholes in the law’s scope. Although BEUC welcomed the continued inclusion of consumer‑facing products such as medical devices and toys, it expressed concern over the exclusion of machinery from stricter scrutiny, warning that reduced oversight of everyday systems could put consumers at risk.

BFP is an abbreviation for “bona fide purchaser” (often “bona fide purchaser for value without notice”). It describes a person who acquires property honestly, for valuable consideration, and without actual or constructive notice of any prior equitable interest or other adverse claim. Across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, the concept is broadly similar, though it arises within different property, conveyancing and registration regimes and is primarily developed through case law rather than exhaustive statutory definition. In common law systems (England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Ireland), a BFP of a legal estate for value without notice is traditionally protected against prior equitable interests, forming a key element of land and personal property priority rules. In Scotland, the concept appears through good faith acquirer doctrines in relation to heritable and moveable property, operating within a mixed system of common law and statute. In practice, BFP status is crucial in disputes over competing interests, priorities, rectification of the register, and setting aside voidable transactions, and informs due diligence standards for conveyancers, lenders and transactional lawyers.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 8 August 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline An appeal by BGL Holding Limited, BISL Limited and Compare The Market Limited against a fine imposed on BGL Holding Limited, BISL Limited and Compare The Market Limited for breaching the Chapter I prohibition and Article 101 TFEU by imposing wide MFN clauses on providers of home insurance selling through its platform (Case Number 50505). The CMA imposed a fine of f£17,910,062 on BGL Holding Limited, BISL Limited and Compare The Market Limited. Latest development On 8 August 2022, the CAT issued its judgment upholding the appeal and set aside the CMA’s infringement decision.. In particular, the CAT held that the: (i) made material errors in defining the relevant market; (ii) erred in its assessment of the market on the consumer side; and (iii) had not established the anti-competitive effects of the wide MFNs claues set out in its decision.However,

The British Geological Survey (BGS) has published its deep-sea mining review, which was commissioned by the UK government in March 2021. The review was undertaken by independent experts from BGS, the National Oceanography Centre and Heriot-Watt University, and covers four key areas of an assessment of the evidence available on eight themes (geography, geology, economics, environmental, technology, political, governance and societal), summary of stakeholder consultation, scenarios exploring possible future challenges associated with deep-sea mining, and commentary on the questions from the terms of reference.

The Better Hiring Institute (BHI) has published a report titled Removing Barriers in Work for Neurodiverse People, based on the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Modernising Employment meeting held on 15 July 2025. Developed in collaboration with Acas, Reed Screening, BBC CAPE, and the Association of Accessible Employers, the report outlines the employment challenges faced by neurodiverse individuals and provides detailed recommendations to improve workplace inclusion. These include revising recruitment practices to accommodate diverse needs, implementing co-created and ongoing training across all organisational levels, embedding neuroinclusion into workplace culture and leadership, and offering tailored support such as workplace buddies, Employee Resource Groups, and flexible working arrangements. The report also calls for clearer policies on reasonable adjustments and urges improvements to government schemes and employment strategies to ensure sustainable and equitable access to work for neurodivergent individuals.

Law360, London: BHP won an application in the London Court of Appeal on 16 March 2026 to avoid criminal contempt proceedings over allegations that it lodged a case in a Brazilian court to halt claims in England connected with the collapse of a dam.

Law360, London: A landmark ruling holding mining giant BHP liable for a catastrophic dam collapse in Brazil signals the English courts' growing readiness to hold UK-based multinationals to account for harm overseas.

Law360, London: A BHP executive said at a £36bn London trial on 28 October 2024 that the mining giant was not involved in the running of a mine that caused Brazil's worst environmental disaster, arguing it was a mere shareholder in the joint venture.

Law360, London: BHP failed 3 December 2025 to block Pogust Goodhead from pursuing deposition testimony from a US-based witness for potential use in English legal proceedings arising from compensation agreements with victims of the Fundão dam disaster in Brazil.

Law360, London: BHP lost its application on 26 June 2025 to block Brazilian municipalities from bringing criminal contempt proceedings in a £36bn case over Brazil's worst environmental disaster, with a London court ruling there were reasonable grounds to argue the mining giant was in contempt.