Blockchain

Blockchain, which is a type of distributed ledger technology, underpins bitcoin, other virtual currencies and the operation of decentralised Metaverse platforms. It has generated significant attention for its potential to reduce error, fraud and cost in a range of scenarios including banking, supply chain management, copyright royalty management and voting to name but a few.

For more information about blockchain and the key legal and regulatory issues associated with it, see Practice Note: Blockchain—key legal and regulatory issues.

What is blockchain?

A blockchain is a shared database containing information recorded in blocks. Each block is recorded on a ledger and linked to other blocks through the use of encryption. This creates a chain which can be verified to ensure that all of the recorded transactions are valid and have not been entered fraudulently.

The core characteristic of blockchain is that the ledger is not held by a single person. Instead, it is decentralised and identical copies of the ledger are distributed to a number of different servers (referred to as nodes) and updated simultaneously. When a new block is entered, all of the nodes communicate with each other and use

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest TMT News

Commission preliminarily finds TikTok breached Digital Services Act over addictive design

The European Commission has preliminarily found that TikTok breached the Digital Services Act (EU DSA) due to its addictive design, citing features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, push notifications and its highly personalised recommender system, which the Commission says fuel compulsive behaviour and weaken users’ self control, particularly among minors and vulnerable adults. It states that TikTok failed to adequately assess risks to users’ physical and mental wellbeing and disregarded indicators of compulsive use, including minors’ night time screen activity and the frequency with which users open the app. The Commission further considers that TikTok has not implemented reasonable, proportionate or effective risk mitigation measures, noting that existing screentime and parental control tools are easy to dismiss, introduce limited friction and require additional time and skills from parents. At this stage, the Commission suggests that TikTok must change the basic design of its service, such as by disabling key addictive features like infinite scroll over time, implementing effective screen time breaks and adapting its recommender system, and confirms that these findings do not prejudge the final outcome. TikTok may now exercise its right to defence by examining the investigation files and responding in writing, while the European Board for Digital Services will be consulted before any final non-compliance decision, which could lead to a fine of up to 6% of TikTok’s worldwide annual turnover.

Commission issues objections to Meta for restricting third‑party AI assistants on WhatsApp

The European Commission has issued a Statement of Objections to Meta, setting out its preliminary view that Meta breached EU antitrust rules by excluding third‑party Artificial Intelligence (AI) assistants from WhatsApp after updating its WhatsApp Business Solution Terms on 15 October 2025, which resulted in only Meta AI being available on the platform from 15 January 2026. The Commission considers Meta likely to be dominant in the European Economic Area (EEA) market for consumer communication applications and preliminarily finds that refusing access to WhatsApp for competing general‑purpose AI assistants may amount to an abuse of this dominant position, creating barriers to entry and risking serious and irreparable damage to competition in the rapidly growing AI assistants market. It intends to impose interim measures subject to Meta’s reply and rights of defence, noting that the Statement of Objections, which covers the EEA except Italy where the Italian Competition Authority imposed interim measures in December 2025, does not prejudge the investigation opened on 4 December 2025, and that interim measures may be adopted under Article 8(1) of Regulation 1/2003 if conditions are met.

Joint authorship in literary works (Boghossian v IOP Publishing Ltd)

IP analysis: The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) dismissed a copyright infringement claim brought by Professor Boghossian, who argued that she was a joint author of an academic paper published by IOP Publishing Ltd (IOP) in 2017. The paper was written by Dr Djokic, a postdoc researcher employed in her lab and supervised by Professor Boghossian. Contributions to a work of joint authorship are not limited to textual contributions; they can consist of contributions of skill and labour in other ways, provided they are expressed in the final work (deletions are not relevant contributions). To be considered an authorial contribution, there must be elements which are the expression of the author’s own intellectual creation. This case is of interest because it examines the important difference between authorial contributions and editorial changes in the context of joint authorship. Written by Georgina Straughan and Rebecca Hamilton at Bird & Bird.

Commission publishes guidelines for online platforms on media content protections

The European Commission has published guidelines to assist Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) and media service providers in implementing article 18(1) of the EU Media Freedom Act. The guidelines clarify safeguards designed to protect professionally produced media content from unjustified removal, including requirements for VLOPs to provide advance notice to media service providers and allow a 24-hour response window. They also set out how VLOPs should operate the declaration functionality, which enables media service providers to declare that they meet criteria, such as editorial independence and regulatory oversight, in order to benefit from content protections. Further guidance is provided to assist media service providers in completing these declarations. In addition, the guidelines outline procedures for VLOPs to consult relevant regulatory authorities and involve civil society organisations, including fact-checkers, when reviewing declarations. The guidelines were developed following consultation with media service providers, civil society and fact-checking organisations, regulatory authorities, as well as VLOP representatives.