Innovation Law Insights

Legal Break

Managing AI risk: compliance starts with assessment

Under the EU AI Act, risk assessment isn’t optional – it’s a continuous legal obligation. In the new episode of The Legal Break, Giulio Coraggio explains how to build an effective and compliant AI risk assessment framework. Watch the video HERE.

 

Artificial Intelligence  

The impact of Law 132/2025 on legal practice: Obligations, responsibilities and fiduciary relationships

Law 132/2025 on AI entering into force on October 10, 2025, is a crucial regulatory step for intellectual professions, particularly for the legal profession. The legislator has introduced regulations that directly affect some of the pillars underlying lawyers' work: the personal nature of the relationship, professional responsibility, and transparency in the relationship with the client, redefining the scope of when it's lawful and compliant to use generative AI tools.

One of the cornerstones of the new legislation is the principle that AI can only be used for instrumental and support activities. Article 13, paragraph 1, of the law establishes that professional services must be performed “primarily” by the professional, which excludes the possibility of delegating the substantive content of the assignment to technology. Lawyers can use AI systems for auxiliary activities – like case law research, document analysis, or drafting – but must maintain full and conscious control over the final result. This reaffirms the centrality of the professional's critical judgment, experience and expertise, which are at the heart of legal advice. AI is permitted as a tool, not as a substitute. The law aims to protect the quality of service and ensure that the professional maintains effective control over the decision-making process.

In terms of transparency, the law introduces, in paragraph 2 of Article 13, a prior disclosure obligation: the lawyer must communicate to the client, in a clear and comprehensible manner, which AI systems are used and how they will be used. Although the regulation doesn’t impose a specific form, current practice suggests that this information should be included in the letter of engagement or professional mandate, preferably in writing. The content of the information should include: the type of AI used (eg generative, predictive, conversational); the type of platform used (on-premise, cloud, European, or non-EU); confirmation that AI is used only for support activities; and the statement that ultimate responsibility remains with the professional. This requirement reinforces the principle of transparency and aims to preserve the relationship of trust and personal rapport between client and professional. The client must be able to understand the role of technology in the service received, avoiding any ambiguity or opacity. The disclosure, therefore, is not a mere formal requirement, but a defining moment in the contractual relationship.

With regard to professional liability, the law makes it unequivocally clear that using AI doesn’t mitigate the professional's liability. The lawyer is the sole guarantor of the final result and is personally liable for any errors, inaccuracies or distortions generated by the system. In this sense, uncritical reliance on technology can have direct legal consequences, as demonstrated by a recent ruling by the Court of Turin.

In judgment no. 2120/2925, the court sanctioned a lawyer for filing an appeal containing irrelevant content generated by AI. The law requires a conscious and competent approach to using AI. Lawyers must be able to evaluate, verify and correct the output generated, maintaining control over the content and effectiveness of the service. Responsibility cannot be delegated and technology cannot serve as a shield.

Analysis of the new regulations shows that, while the rule protects the fiduciary relationship with the client, it risks burdening the legal profession with formal and substantial obligations that could hinder the widespread adoption of AI in the legal sector. The legislator has, in fact, chosen a cautious, but perhaps overly conservative, approach that not only ignores, at least partially, the ethical obligations already incumbent on professionals. But it also raises questions about the actual value of professional services in the digital age. Ultimately, the challenge will be to balance ethics and progress on the one hand, and technological and traditional skills on the other, ensuring that the legislative regulation of the legal profession doesn’t become a hindrance rather than a driving force for more efficient and accessible justice.

Author: Giovanni Chieco

 

Intellectual Property

Recognising “Significant artistic character” under Copyright Law for museum installations: The ruling of the Regional Administrative Court (TAR) of Emilia-Romagna

With a ruling of notable importance for the field of cultural heritage and copyright law, on October 8 the Regional Administrative Court (TAR) of Emilia-Romagna provided significant clarification on the possibility of classifying a museum installation as a work of authorship endowed with “significant artistic character” (TAR Emilia-Romagna, Section II, 8 October 2025, No. 246/2025).

The case originated from an application submitted in 2024 by the architect who had designed the exhibition layout. The architect requested that the Superintendency of Archaeology, Fine Arts and Landscape of the Metropolitan City of Bologna recognize the Museum of History (also known as Palazzo Pepoli Antico) – considered as a whole, including the interior installation he designed – as possessing “significant artistic character” as provided by Article 20(2) of Law No. 633 of April 22, 1941 (Italian Copyright Law).

That provision grants the author of a work the moral right to claim authorship and to oppose any modification that might prejudice their honor or reputation. But this protection doesn’t extend to the exception concerning architectural works, for which the author may not prevent modifications necessary for the construction or adaptation of the existing work, unless the work has been recognized by the competent state authority as having “significant artistic character.” In such a case, it’s the author who is entitled to design and implement the necessary alterations.

In the case at hand, the Superintendency – following a favorable opinion from the Technical-Scientific Committee for Contemporary Art and Architecture – granted the request, recognizing “significant artistic character” not only in the restored building but also in its internal museum installation.

The entities Genus Bononiae – Musei della Città S.r.l., a company of the Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Bologna, and the Fondazione itself, both owners of Palazzo Pepoli Antico, brought an appeal against the decree issued by the Ministry of Culture.

The appellants argued that the recognition in question effectively transformed a mechanism designed to protect artistic authorship into a constraint of immutability on the museum, incompatible with the dynamic and communicative nature of exhibition installations. They also claimed that the objective and subjective prerequisites for extending copyright protection to the installation were lacking, since it resulted from a collaborative effort involving several professionals rather than solely the architect who made the request. They also argued that the Superintendency had failed to verify the correspondence between the original design and the current state of the installation, which had been modified multiple times over the years.

The TAR first clarified that the purpose of Article 20 of the Copyright Law isn’t to establish a public-law constraint preventing modification of a work, but rather to protect the personal and moral interests of the author. Consequently, the Superintendency’s decision – later confirmed by the Ministry – was not affected by a misuse of power, since its purpose wasn’t to impose a protection regime akin to that applicable to cultural heritage, but instead to acknowledge the artistic and authorial value of the architect’s project.

Having dismissed the first ground of appeal, the court upheld the second, finding that granting the architect’s request lacked both logical and legal justification. As noted by the panel, a distinction must be drawn between “museum organization” and “installation.” The former concerns the conceptual arrangement of the works and is defined by the curator, while the latter translates the curator’s directives into spatial and material form.

An installation is, by its nature, instrumental, temporary, and adaptable: it must be capable of evolving over time to reflect changes in communicative approaches, exhibition technologies, and visitor experience. Preventing modifications to an installation would negate the “physiology” of a museum – a view the State Attorney’s Office also shared during the proceedings.

The TAR identified further grounds for declaring the recognition unlawful: first, the difficulty of defining the object of protection, since the installation was the result of a synergistic effort by several contributors and couldn’t be attributed to a single author. Secondly, the absence of an updated assessment of the current state of the installation, which had been altered over the years. Lastly, the lack of compliance with the requirements of Circular No. 29/2021 of the Directorate-General for Contemporary Creativity, which demands at least two national or international technical publications dedicated to the work. The journals cited didn’t fully meet this criterion and failed to describe the distinctive features of the installation in a meaningful way.

The Regional Court annulled the ministerial decree and related acts insofar as they extended recognition of “significant artistic character” to the museum installation, while confirming the legitimacy of the recognition for the architectural component of the project.

This ruling provides valuable insights for both copyright law as applied to architecture and the management of contemporary museums, encouraging reflection on the relationship between authorial protection and public administration of museum heritage – especially in contexts involving collaboration among foundations, local authorities and designers. Looking ahead, the decision is likely to limit the automatic extension of copyright protection to museum installations, reaffirming the need to balance the creative rights of designers with the evolving demands of accessibility and renewal in museums.

Author: Noemi Canova

 

Technology, Media and Telecommunications

Infratel publishes report on the progress of the National Ultra-Broadband Plan as of September 30, 2025

In a press release dated October 21, 2025, Infratel announced the publication of its report on the progress of the National Ultra-Broadband Plan, updated to September 30, 2025.

The National Strategy for Ultra-Broadband – “Towards the Gigabit Society,” included in the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (Piano Nazionale di Ripresa e Resilienza – PNRR) and approved on May 25, 2021, by the Interministerial Committee for Digital Transition (Comitato interministeriale per la Transizione Digitale – CiTD), aims to bring 1 Gbp/s connectivity across Italy by 2026 and foster the development of fixed and mobile telecommunications infrastructure.

The strategy encompasses several public intervention plans to promote and incentivize the coverage of geographical areas where the provision of infrastructure and ultra-high-speed digital services by the operators is either absent or insufficient.

The operational activities of the National Ultra-Broadband Plan were initiated in 2016 by Infratel Italia S.p.A. Infratel’s aim is to intervene in market failure areas by building and integrating broadband and ultra-broadband infrastructure to extend access opportunities to high-speed internet for citizens, businesses and public administrations. Through Infratel, the Ministry of Enterprises and Made In Italy implements measures defined in the National Ultra-Broadband Strategy to reduce infrastructure and market disparities across Italy, creating favorable conditions for the integrated development of electronic communications infrastructure.

The report describes the plan’s progress, focusing on the five main operational phases: final design (progettazione definitiva), executive design (progettazione esecutiva), works' execution, testing and start of service.

During the final design phase, the layouts of the networks to be built are identified, along with the infrastructure to be reused, the authorities responsible for granting authorizations for FTTH (Fiber To The Home) technology deployment, and the necessary sites for FWA (Fixed Wireless Access) technology deployment. Once Infratel approves the final designs, the executive design phase begins, aimed at obtaining the necessary authorizations. Subsequently, works can commence on the sites. Upon completion of the work, Infratel conducts final verifications, which, if successful, result in the issuance of a positive testing certificate (collaudo).

The report indicates that as of September 30, 2025, the final design for the FTTH network has been approved in 6,069 municipalities, 10 more than in March 2025. As highlighted in the report, the number of planned projects may vary over time due to redesigns prompted by various obstacles. Specifically, during the progress of the executive design phase, some municipalities were found to lack any so-called “white” housing units to connect, leading to new regional technical plans being issued that incorporated the cancellation of interventions in some municipalities. As a result, the number of municipalities with approved final designs for the FTTH network is slightly lower than the figure recorded in March 2025.

As for the number of municipalities in which the final design for the FWA network has been approved, there has been an increase of six municipalities. In fact, as of September 30, 2025, the number of municipalities with approved final designs for the FWA network amounts to 6,962.

As stated in the report, the municipalities for which the executive design of FTTH (Fiber to the Home) network infrastructure has been approved total 6,042, while a total of 3,501 executive projects have been approved for the implementation of FWA (Fixed Wireless Access) technology networks. This is an increase of ten municipalities with approved executive designs for FTTH networks. For FWA technology, the number of approved executive projects has decreased by three compared to March 2025. As noted above, the number of projects may vary due to the cancellation of interventions in certain areas.

As of September 30, 2025, infrastructure work has been completed in 10,143 out of 11,779 total active sites for fiber construction and in 3,434 out of the 3,499 sites for the FWA network construction.

Infrastructure work for FTTH technology was completed with positive testing in 5,064 municipalities, covering a total of 9,409 projects; compared to March 2025, projects related to the FTTH network have been positively tested in an additional 318 municipalities and the number of positively tested projects increased by 679 units.

Infrastructure work for FWA technology was completed with positive testing in 2,759 sites, an increase of 187 units compared to last March.

Authors: Flaminia Perna, Matilde Losa

 

---

Innovation Law Insights is compiled by DLA Piper lawyers, coordinated by Edoardo Bardelli, Carolina Battistella, Noemi Canova, Gabriele Cattaneo, Giovanni Chieco, Maria Rita Cormaci, Camila Crisci, Cristina Criscuoli, Tamara D’Angeli, Chiara D’Onofrio, Federico Maria Di Vizio, Enila Elezi, Nadia Feola, Laura Gastaldi, Vincenzo Giuffré, Nicola Landolfi, Giacomo Lusardi, Valentina Mazza, Lara Mastrangelo, Maria Chiara Meneghetti, Giulio Napolitano, Andrea Pantaleo, Deborah Paracchini, Maria Vittoria Pessina, Tommaso Ricci, Marianna Riedo, Rebecca Rossi, Dorina Simaku, Roxana Smeria, Massimiliano Tiberio, Federico Toscani, Giulia Zappaterra.

Articles concerning Telecommunications are curated by Massimo D’Andrea, Flaminia Perna, Matilde Losa and Arianna Porretti.

For further information on the topics covered, please contact the partners Giulio Coraggio, Marco de Morpurgo, Gualtiero Dragotti, Alessandro Ferrari, Roberto Valenti, Elena Varese, Alessandro Boso Caretta, Ginevra Righini.

Learn about Prisca AI Compliance, the legal tech tool developed by DLA Piper to assess the maturity of AI systems against key regulations and technical standards here.

You can learn more about “Transfer,” the legal tech tool developed by DLA Piper to support companies in evaluating data transfers out of the EEA (TIA) here, and check out a DLA Piper publication outlining Gambling regulation here, as well as Diritto Intelligente, a monthly magazine dedicated to AI, here.

If you no longer wish to receive Innovation Law Insights or would like to subscribe, please email Silvia Molignani.