MLex: X’s Grok deepfake scandal has shone a light on the EU’s enforcement of its extensive digital rulebook. Even though the landmark EU AI Act, the EU Digital Services Act (EU DSA) and national laws theoretically all apply, the EU has been criticised for not moving decisively enough. The episode raises questions about its capability as a leading tech regulator to respond quickly and coherently to fast-moving online harms driven by Artificial intelligence (AI).

MLex: A court hearing in X’s legal battle against Ireland’s Online Safety Code has been scheduled for 3 June 2025. The social media platform is challenging the code, arguing it exceeds EU regulations such as the Digital Services Act (DSA). X is also seeking to overturn its designation under the code, and in December it asked the High Court in Dublin to refer the matter to the EU Court of Justice.

These are optional clauses in NEC3/NEC4 contracts (known as secondary options). Option Y(UK)1 covers the use of a project bank account in relation to the works. Option Y(UK)2 ensures that the contract's payment provisions comply with the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Option Y(UK)3 allows a third party to a contract (eg a tenant or purchaser) to enforce terms of the contract in certain circumstances under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. See also W options, X options and Z clauses.

In the case of Y v. France (application no. 76888/17), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has held that there was no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) when the applicant, who is biologically intersex, complained when domestic courts did not grant their request to have 'neutral' or 'intersex' on their birth certificate instead of 'male'. The ECtHR has taken into consideration the arguments of the French authorities in refusing the applicant's request, based on respect for the principle of inalienability civil status and the need to retain consistency of civil status records and social and legal arrangements in France. The ECtHR has also noted that granting the applicant’s request would mean recognising existence of another gender and therefore exercising a normative function, which is a matter for the legislature, not the judiciary. The ECtHR has concluded that France had not failed in its positive obligation to secure effective respect for the applicant’s private life, and thus there had been no violation of Article 8 of the ECHR.

Term in finance documents allowing the company to require any dissenting lender to transfer their rights to a new lender of choice, usually in return for being paid at par plus interest and break costs.

A facility borrowed by a European company but marketed to US investors, governed by New York law and drafted in a US style.

1. What is the applicable legislation? The primary legislation governing foreign investment in Yemen is the Investment Law 3/1446/2025 (Investment Law 2025), which replaced the former Investment Law 15/2010. The Free Zones Law 4/1993 continues to apply to investments made in designated free zones. Overall, the Yemeni FDI regime remains underdeveloped. Despite the enactment of the Investment Law 2025, the regime continues to take a largely traditional approach to the regulation of foreign investment, restricting foreigners from engaging or investing in certain sectors or imposing increased regulatory requirements on them. A comprehensive FDI review or screening procedure—such as those existing in many EU jurisdictions—does not exist in Yemen. Furthermore, the ongoing instability in Yemen significantly impacts the functioning of governmental agencies and authorities. Administrative procedures may be protracted, and public officials may be inaccessible for extended periods of time. In addition, due to the shifting control over parts of the country among conflict parties, it is often unclear which authority is competent to enforce and administer laws and

NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in Yemen and throughout the world are met, see Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Yemeni merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Yemen? The Yemeni merger control regime is comparatively rudimentary both with respect to scope and implementation. Regulatory reforms of the Yemeni merger control statutes have been slow and inconsistent. The first competition-specific legislation was introduced in 1999 when the majlis al nuwaab—the Yemeni House of Representatives—issued Republic Decree Law 19/1999 on Promoting Competition and Prevention of Monopolies and Commercial Fraud (Competition Law 1999). The Competition Law 1999, however, did not address merger control. The first merger control provisions were introduced in 2007 with Ministerial Decree 128/2007 on the Executive Regulation of the Competition and Prevention of Monopolies (Competition Regulations 2007) issued by the Ministry of Industry and Trade. Both the Competition Law 1999 and the Competition Regulations 2007 provide for the establishment

CASE HUB (NOTE—appeal lodged by ICAP before the General Court in Case T- 180/15, see Case T- 180/15 Icap and Others v Commission ) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the final decision of 4 February 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into a cartel in the Yen interest rate derivatives market (Case AT.39861). Five banks (UBS, RBS, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan and Citigroup) and RP Martin settled with the Commission and were fined a combined total of €669.719m on 04/12/2013; a second broker, ICAP, chose not to settle and was subsequently fined €14.96m by the Commission on 04/02/2015. Latest developments On 28 May 2021, the Commission issued itsre-adopted decision in which it imposed fines totalling €6.45m on ICAP. This decision followed the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 180/15 which annulled the fines imposed on ICAP by the Commission in 2015 for insufficient reasoning (a judgment subsequently upheld by the Court of Justice in Case C-

Usually refers to the overall return on the facilities, including fees and margin.

In the context of incremental facilities, a yield cap means that the all-in-yield on the incremental debt incurred within a specified period after the original financing must not exceed a certain level over the all-in-yield for the original term debt.

Definitions (General) Competent Authority • any authority having jurisdiction in relation to the Property, its occupation or use; Restricted Period • any period [exceeding [number] [continuous] weeks] during the Term in which a Pandemic Restriction applies; Pandemic Restriction • any Legislation, or any requirement