Innovation Law Insights

Artificial Intelligence

AI and copyright: British artists and journalists against the copyright law reform

The UK government has concluded its consultations on the reform of copyright law to adapt it to the rise of AI. British artists and journalists strongly criticized the proposed amendments, arguing that they would facilitate the exploitation of copyright protected works by AI systems.

On 25 February 2025, many newspapers across the UK, including the Guardian and the Times, featured the slogan “MAKE IT FAIR” on their front pages. The initiative, organized by the Creative Rights in AI Coalition, was aimed at raising awareness in the UK government about the importance of protecting artists' rights over their creative works, which are used to develop and train AI systems.

On 28 February, the album Is this what we want? was released on major streaming platforms. The album consists of “silent” tracks, recordings without music of empty studios and performance spaces. For the artists involved, the album symbolizes the impact the UK government's proposals could have on the music industry and musicians' careers. Over 1,000 singers were credited as authors and co-authors, including Kate Bush, Annie Lennox, Paul McCartney, Elton John, and Hans Zimmer.

The current regulatory framework in the UK

The protest stems from the proposed amendment to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA). According to the UK’s creative industries, the amendment would facilitate the use of copyright-protected data and information by companies training AI models. Currently, the application of the CDPA’s provisions to AI training activities is difficult to interpret.

Section 29A of the CDPA provides for a copyright exception that’s poorly suited to AI model training, as it only allows copies of a work to be made for computational analysis, strictly for non-commercial research (whether public or private), and only if the person making the copy has lawful access to the work.

As a result, UK rights holders currently have no control over how their works are used by AI systems and are unable to effectively exercise their rights or receive fair compensation. The legal uncertainty surrounding the application of current UK copyright law to AI development has discouraged investment and innovation in the sector.

The UK government's reform proposal

When launching the public consultation on the proposed changes, the UK government emphasized the need to grant rights holders greater control over the use of their content and ensure they receive fair remuneration for the exploitation of copyright protected works. It also stressed the importance of enabling the development of AI models in the UK with legitimate access to large amounts of high-quality data.

The government's proposal includes the introduction of an exception that would allow AI developers to use any content lawfully accessed, including works that have been made available on the internet and those made available under contractual terms, to develop and train AI systems. Rights holders would have the option to opt out, explicitly reserving the use of their works for data mining purposes. In such cases, their content could only be used for AI training under specific licensing agreements. However, in the absence of an explicit prohibition by the rights holder, copyright protected works could be freely used for AI training.

The UK government argues that this mechanism would ensure that artists are compensated for the use of their copyrighted content while fostering the development of advanced AI models in the country. But it acknowledges that the proposed approach would require greater transparency from AI developers regarding the material used for training and how it’s acquired. Additionally, simple technical tools should be made available to help artists exercise their rights, both individually and collectively. Achieving this would require collaboration between AI developers and the creative industries to design new technical systems that provide greater control and enable effective license management for content usage.

The position of British artists

According to representatives of the creative industries who organized the various protest initiatives, the UK government's proposed copyright reforms wouldn’t protect authors but instead facilitate the exploitation of UK-produced content without ensuring any compensation. A letter sent to the Times by a group of artists, including Ed Sheeran and Dua Lipa, describes the government's proposals as “a wholesale giveaway of rights and income from the UK creative sectors to big tech.”

The proposed changes to the CDPA would severely weaken the moral rights of artists and undermine the foundations of UK copyright law. The law attracts investment and ensures that the creative industries, which contribute GBP126 billion to the UK economy and employ 2.4 million people, continue to thrive.

Additionally, concerns have been raised about the challenges of implementing the opt-out system. Each rights holder would have to individually notify a large number of companies and entities engaged in AI training to inform them that they don’t want their work to be used. They’d also be responsible for constantly monitoring the activities of those they’d notified and verifying how their works are made available online. In light of these critical issues, the proposal has been made to eliminate the opt-out system and instead require that copyright protected content be used for AI training only under specific licensing agreements.

AI Act and copyright in Europe

At the European level, the new provisions of EU Regulation 2024/1689 (AI Act) have also sparked controversy. Many cultural organizations have called for stronger copyright protection regarding the use of creative works and content by AI systems.

For general-purpose AI models, which generate texts, images, and other content and require vast amounts of training data, the AI Act establishes that any use of copyrighted content requires the authorization of the relevant rights holder, except when covered by copyright exceptions and limitations such as the text and data mining exception under Directive (EU) 2019/790 (Copyright Directive) (Recital 105, AI Act).

The Copyright Directive, which inspired the UK government's proposal, defines text and data mining as the automated analysis of digital texts and data to extract information, patterns and trends. Copyright exceptions or limitations for text and data mining activities are allowed on works that are legally accessible. But Article 4(3) of the Copyright Directive states that these exceptions don’t apply if rights holders have explicitly reserved the use of their works, for example, through measures preventing automated extraction online.

Under the AI Act, rights holders can opt out of allowing their works to be used for AI training. If the right to reserve the use of their works has been explicitly exercised in an appropriate manner, AI developers seeking to extract text and data must first obtain authorization from the rights holders.

To ensure transparency regarding the data used for AI training, including copyright protected content, the AI Act requires AI system providers to prepare and make publicly available a sufficiently detailed summary of the content used to train general-purpose AI models (Recital 107, AI Act). While considering the need to protect trade secrets and confidential business information, AI developers are expected to provide broad, high-level summaries rather than detailed technical disclosures. They should list the main datasets or data sources used in training, such as large private or public databases and archives, while also providing a general description of other data sources.

Some representatives of the European creative industries have raised doubts about the effectiveness of the Copyright Directive’s text and data mining exception in the context of AI training. The text and data mining exception was originally designed for specific cases, particularly scientific research, making it poorly suited for the large-scale, non-commercial use of massive amounts of copyrighted data and content in AI training.

Further criticism has emerged regarding transparency obligations on the data used in AI training. Many fear that AI companies could provide vague and non-detailed information, which would fail to ensure effective protection of the creative works and copyright protected content used.

Future perspectives

the numerous legal uncertainties at both EU and national levels, as demonstrated by the heated UK copyright reform debate, the legal framework regulating the use of copyright protected works in AI training may need to be strengthened to provide more effective protection for rights holders. Beyond recognizing the economic value of creative works, this would allow authors to maintain control over the use of their content, ensuring fair remuneration and preventing unauthorized exploitation.

To balance copyright protection with technological innovation in AI, a clear and transparent system could be introduced to grant artists the right to authorize or prohibit the use of their works in AI training datasets. This could be achieved through legal mechanisms requiring explicit consent from rights holders, complemented by fair and remunerative licensing systems.

Author: Chiara D’Onofrio

 

Data Protection and Cybersecurity

The European Health Data Space now in the Official Journal of the European Union

On 5 March 2025, the Eu published Regulation (EU) 2025/327 on the European Health Data Space and amending Directive 2011/24/EU and Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 (Regulation) in the Official Journal of the European Union. It signals a fundamental step toward creating a robust European Health Union. The Regulation will enter into force 20 days after publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and will become applicable from 26 March 2027.

The Regulation is one of the pillars of the Commission’s ambitious “European Data Strategy,” which aims to create a “single market for data,” ensuring Europe’s global competitiveness and sovereignty over data, including through creating common spaces for sharing information.

The Regulation has a dual-purpose: it’s designed to enhance an individual’s access to and control over their health data, while unlocking its reuse for public interest purposes (known as “secondary use”). The EU hopes this will bring tangible benefits to patients and society as a whole, heralding a new era of healthcare innovation.

The Regulation arrives on the back of a wave of other EU regulations affecting data and data driven technologies – in particular in the health and life sciences sector, creating a risk of conflict and regulatory fatigue. The draft specifies that the Regulation is without prejudice to the application of European and national laws that already regulate the sector, including the GDPR, the e-Privacy Directive, Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, the AI Act – whose final approval is expected to be imminent – and the Medical Devices and In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulations.

The most significant provisions

EHR systems

The Regulation requires that manufacturers of electronic health record systems (EHR systems) comply with the specifications set forth for the European electronic health data exchange format, to ensure data security and to facilitate data sharing across national borders.

One of the significant provisions concerns the obligation to adopt two software components: the “European interoperability component for EHR systems” and the “European logging component for EHR systems.” This will ensure technical interoperability and facilitate the sharing of data across the borders of member states.

The Regulation also introduces the concept of a “European digital testing environment,” which the Commission will develop for testing EHR systems. Before putting EHR systems on the market, manufacturers will have to evaluate their systems using these digital testing environments, and the results of the tests will have to be included in the technical documentation accompanying the systems.

Further novelty lies in the possibility for manufacturers of “wellness applications” to establish interoperability with EHR systems for the primary use of data. The sharing or transmission of data through such applications will be subject to the user's consent, who will be able to choose which categories of health data available on the application they wish to include in the EHR systems.

The primary use of electronic health data

Chapter II of the Regulation creates legal rights and obligations in relation to the primary use of electronic health data. Again, there’s a focus on technical interoperability to remove barriers to data sharing. Specified categories of electronic health data must be created and exchanged in commonly used and machine-readable formats that allow for the transmission of electronic health data between different software applications, devices, and healthcare providers, supporting both the transmission of structured and unstructured health data. The European Commission will be in charge of clarifying, through appropriate implementing acts, the precise format for exchanging this information by 26 March 2027.

The Regulation also allows patients and their representatives to exercise a number of rights, including the right to access electronic health data, the right to insert further information directly in their electronic health record, the right to rectification of health data, and the right to portability of data (reinforcing the equivalent rights that exist under the GDPR). The most significant novelty is the possibility for member states to provide for the right to opt out, ie the right of patients to inhibit access to their health data by both health professionals for primary use and other parties entitled to use the data for secondary use. In that case, the right to opt out is subject to some strict conditions.

Finally, the Regulation prohibits healthcare providers from charging fees:

• to patients, for requesting access to or sharing their health data; and
• to other parties, for making electronic health data available to them.

The secondary use of electronic health data

Chapter IV of the Regulation governs the secondary use of electronic health data and is perhaps the most widely discussed aspect of the Regulation. It promises to have material implications for a wide range of businesses that collect health data, and those who need access to health data for research purposes.

Chapter IV identifies the main actors involved in the secondary use of health data and defines their tasks:

• Health data access bodies: these bodies – designated by Member States – are responsible for granting access to data upon receiving requests by health data users for their secondary use.
• Health data holders: any natural or legal person, public authority, agency, or other body in the health or welfare sector that (i) has the right or obligation to process electronic health data as controllers or joint-controllers under the GDPR, or (ii) can make non-personal electronic health data available, including for recording, providing, limiting access to, or exchanging, through control of the technical design of a product and related services.
• Health data users: natural or legal persons, including EU institutions, bodies, or agencies, who are legitimately granted access to electronic health data for secondary use.

Health data users wishing to have access to electronic health data for secondary use need to submit a request to the competent health data access body, according to one of the following procedures:

• Data permit procedure (Articles 67-68 of the Regulation): Health data users must submit a data access application, detailing the intended use, expected benefit, a description of the requested data, their format and sources, where applicable reasons for seeking pseudonymized data, and planned safeguards. The health data access body will assess the application against Article 67 criteria, considering risks to national defence, security, public security, public order, and the confidentiality of governmental databases. If approved, the health data access body issues a data permit and requests the data holder to provide the data user with the electronic health data within two months, unless the permit sets out for a longer period.
• Anonymized statistical data request (Article 69): Health data users can submit a request for anonymized statistical data. The health data access body will only provide anonymized responses, and the user won’t have access to the underlying electronic health data.

Upon request of the health data access body, based on a data permit (Article 68) or a data request (Article 69), health data holders must make relevant electronic health data available. They must provide the requested data within a reasonable time, no later than three months after receiving the request, with a possible extension of up to three months in justified cases. Health data users must process the data obtained only on the basis of and in accordance with the purposes laid down in the relevant data permit or data request.

Access to electronic health data granted by health data access bodies must occur through a secure processing environment, pursuant to Article 73 of the Regulation, adhering to technical and organizational measures, and security and interoperability requirements. This secure environment must comply with specific security measures to ensure data protection.

The Regulation identifies several purposes for which secondary use is permitted and others for which it must be considered radically prohibited. For example, health data access bodies may grant access for secondary use to electronic health data where the processing of this data by the data user is necessary for one of the following purposes:

• those of public interest in the area of public and occupational health;
• policy making and regulatory activities; and
• scientific research related to health or care sectors, contributing to public health or health technology assessment, or ensuring high levels of quality and safety of health end-users.

On the other hand, health data users mustn’t process the data obtained for the following purposes:

• advertising or marketing activities;
• taking decisions detrimental to an individual or a group of individuals, based on the electronic health data obtained for secondary use;
• taking decisions relating to an individual or a group of individuals in relation to job offers or offering less favourable terms in the provision of goods and services to individuals or a group of individuals;
• developing products or services that may harm individuals, public health, or societies including illicit drugs, alcoholic beverages, tobacco and nicotine products, and weaponry.

Article 51 of the draft Regulation also identifies minimum categories of electronic health data that are available for secondary use under the Regulation, with a far more substantial list than the one outlined in Article 14 for the primary use of health data. Member states can provide for additional categories of information to be made accessible for secondary use.

In the case of reuse of health data, the need to protect personal data as well as intellectual property rights and trade secrets is also addressed. Member states will also be able to adopt stricter measures to regulate access to certain types of sensitive data (eg genetic data), for scientific research purposes, providing for additional limitations to those established by the Regulation.

The text of the Regulation also includes an exemption from the obligations laid down in relation to the secondary use of electronic health data for individual researchers and individuals and legal persons that qualify as micro-enterprises.

Conclusions

The entry into force of the EHDS will significantly impact the entire health sector, generating enormous benefits for public and private actors in this sector and for the community as a whole.

It’s of the utmost importance for practitioners to delve into the intricacies of the EHDS Regulation, not only to brace themselves for its implementation but also to strategize on how to maximize the opportunities it presents.

The new arrangement also carries some significant risks, particularly for the privacy of individuals, the protection of patients, and the protection of trade secrets and intellectual property rights.

It’s crucial that the European institutions and member states rise to the occasion and effectively tackle the significant risks that accompany the EHDS. This can be achieved through a thorough risk assessment and implementing appropriate safeguards for shared health data.

The success of the European initiative will largely depend on the ability of the actors involved to make the operation of the EHDS secure and reliable. In closing, we think it’s appropriate to quote the EDPB and the EDPS from their joint opinion 03/2022 issued on the proposed Regulation: “The European Health Data Space should serve as an example with regard to transparency, effective accountability and proper balance between the interests of the data subjects and the shared interest of the society as a whole.”

Authors: Cristina Criscuoli, Roxana Smeria

 

Intellectual Property

UPC and long arm jurisdiction: Court of Justice of the European Union issues decision in BSH v Electrolux case

On 25 February 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued its long-awaited decision in the BSH v Electrolux case (C-339/22), clarifying the scope of Article 24 (4) EU Reg. Brussels I bis. The implications of the ruling also extend to the Unified Patent Court's jurisdiction, with regard to the infringement of European patents validated in Countries that haven't signed and ratified the UPCA.

Art. 24(4) EU Reg. Brussels I bis provides that the national courts of the member states where the patent has been applied for or registered have exclusive jurisdiction on its registration or the validity.

But the rule doesn't clarify what happens when an action concerning (also) the infringement of a foreign patent is filed in the forum of the defendant, and a claim or a counterclaim for revocation is filed in the same proceeding.

The rule doesn’t specify whether the court will decline jurisdiction only with regard to the validity of the patent or also with regard to its infringement, and doubts might arise both with regard to patents granted in an EU member state and patents valid in a non-EU Country.

This ultimately led to a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union, which was asked to answer the following questions:

“Is Article 24(4) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents … irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or as a defence’ implies that a national court, which, pursuant to Article 4(1) of that regulation, has declared that it has jurisdiction to hear a patent infringement dispute, no longer has jurisdiction to consider the issue of infringement if a defense is raised that alleges that the patent at issue is invalid, or is the provision to be interpreted as meaning that the national court only lacks jurisdiction to hear the defense of invalidity?

[...]

Is Article 24(4) of the [Brussels I bis Regulation] to be interpreted as being applicable to a court of a third [State], that is to say, in the present case, as also conferring exclusive jurisdiction on a court in [Türkiye] in respect of the part of the European patent which has been validated there?”

With regard to the first question, the court confirmed that Article 24 (4) Reg. Brussels I bis exclusively deals with questions concerning the validity of the patent. Therefore, the court is competent by virtue of the forum of the defendant has jurisdiction to rule on the infringement of the foreign patent even if a counterclaim for revocation has been raised. Instead, with regard to the validity, only the member state where the patent was granted is competent to decide.

On the other hand, if the counterclaim for revocation is raised in a case of infringement of a patent valid in a non-EU country, according to the Court, reference should not be made to Art. 24(4) EU Reg. Brussels I bis, the application of which is limited to patents that are applied for or registered in an EU member state. Consequently, the article doesn’t give the court of a third state exclusive jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the patent (which might be in any event done by international agreements).

According to the court, national judges of the member states will exercise their jurisdiction in compliance with the general principle of non-interference, according to which a state won’t interfere in matters which, by their nature, are an expression of the national sovereignty of a third state. Even though the court of a member state can, in the absence of preclusions contained in any international agreements, rule on the validity of a non-EU patent, the decision can only have effects inter partes.

The conclusions reached by the Court of Justice of the European Union, which were not unexpected, also have important consequences for the jurisdiction of the UPC, which is subject to EU law.

While the UPC recently already confirmed the possibility of extending its jurisdiction to infringement of portions of European patents valid in states that haven’t joined the UPCA, it’s now clear that it will be able to do so regardless of any action or counterclaim for revocation of the patent.

Author: Massimiliano Tiberio

 

Gambling

Italy to lift gambling advertising ban? A key moment for market entry

The gambling advertising ban, introduced in Italy in 2018 under the Dignity Decree, will now be reviewed by the Italian government. It might decide to, at least partially, lift the ban, creating a unique opportunity for new operators to enter the market as the tender for new licenses is currently ongoing.

The Culture Commission of the Italian Senate has adopted a resolution asking the government to review the legislation on the gambling advertising ban. The commission considers that the current ban has failed since it applied the same regime to licensed and unlicensed gaming operators which led to the flourishing of the black market, which is more dangerous for players. If the Italian gambling advertising ban is lifted, combined with the country’s new online gambling licenses, this could be a game-changing opportunity for companies looking to expand into Italy’s regulated sector.

Italy’s gambling advertising ban under review

The 2018 “Dignity Decree” imposed a strict prohibition on all gambling-related advertising and sponsorships in Italy, significantly impacting industries such as professional football, where betting companies were major sponsors. The law was intended to curb problem gambling but has faced criticism for driving players toward unlicensed operators that fall outside of regulatory oversight.

Now, the Italian government will assess whether these restrictions need to be revised, introducing exceptions to the ban with reference to sponsorship initiatives, and allowing licensed operators to promote their services responsibly. A decision is expected soon, and if approved, it would align Italy with other European markets that permit controlled gambling advertising.

New gambling licensing framework enhances market stability

In parallel with this regulatory shift, Italy has launched a new licensing framework for online gambling operators. As of December 2024, new licenses valid for nine years are available as part of a license tender process that will last for a few months.

Italy is the second largest gambling market in Europe after the UK, and the gambling advertising ban has been frequently seen as a blocker for new entrants that the general public don’t know. But lifting the ban might represent a major opportunity for companies looking to enter or expand in Italy. Securing a license now could be highly advantageous, also taking into account that a new tender for online gambling licenses isn’t expected to occur any time soon.

The ability to promote regulated services legally would allow new entrants in the market and operators that need to grow their presence to compete with well-established operators. It will also provide licensed operators with a competitive advantage over unlicensed platforms that have been flourishing in recent years because of the Italian gambling advertising ban.

Why this is a prime opportunity for gambling operators

The combination of a potential lift on the gambling advertising ban and the issuance of new licenses presents a unique moment for operators to enter Italy’s regulated market.

Key benefits include:

• Stronger Market Presence – Advertising and sponsorships will allow licensed operators to build brand awareness and credibility.
• Regulatory Protection – Operating under Italy’s new licensing system will increase the protection for players and enhance the credibility and the trustworthiness of the gambling market.
• Growing Demand – Italy has one of Europe’s largest gambling markets, with high engagement in sports betting, casino and online gaming in general due to the progressive shift from land-based gambling to online gaming.

Lifting the gambling advertising ban in Italy and a new phase for the market

With Italy’s gambling advertising ban under review and new licenses being issued, the market is entering a pivotal phase. Companies that act now – securing a license and preparing for potential advertising opportunities – will be best positioned to succeed in this evolving landscape.

For operators seeking a strong foothold in a highly regulated and lucrative market, now is the time to invest in Italy’s gambling sector. You can read more on the ongoing tender for new licenses in this article “New Tender for Italian online gaming licenses Launched – Here are the updated FAQs!” Also, don't miss DLA Piper's Gambling Laws of the World Guide, available here.

Author: Giulio Coraggio

 

Technology Media and Telecommunication

BEREC launches a call for inputs on the Outline Work Programme 2026

The BEREC (Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications) recently launched an early call for inputs in preparation for the adoption of the BEREC Work Programme for 2026, scheduled for December 2025.

The aim of the consultation is to gather feedback from stakeholders regarding the Outline BEREC Work Programme 2026, which is the draft Work Programme for 2026. Every year, BEREC must publish a work programme by January 31 of the year preceding the one to which the draft refers.

The objectives of the draft Work Programme for 2026 are based on the provisions established at the EU level, and in particular by Directive 2018/1972 (European Electronic Communications Code – EECC), and reflect the goals set out in Article 3(2) of the EECC, namely:

• promoting connectivity and access to very high-capacity networks (VHCN);
• promoting competition and efficient investment;
• contributing to the development of the internal market;
• promoting the interests of the citizens of the EU.

The draft published by BEREC consists of various sections, including some high-level strategic priorities, cooperation with EU institutions and institutional groups, BEREC’s tasks under the EU legislation, projects brought forward by BEREC in 2025, and potential work for 2026 and beyond.

In the first section, BEREC outlines the high-level strategic priorities, which were previously considered in past work programmes and which BEREC intends to continue for 2026, specifically:

• promoting full connectivity, particularly by improving the conditions for the expansion and take-up of secure, resilient, competitive, and reliable very high-capacity networks (both land and undersea, fixed and wireless) across Europe;
• supporting sustainable and open digital markets, specifically by continuing to contribute to the implementation of the Digital Markets Act (EU Regulation 2022/1925 – DMA), the Data Act (EU Regulation 2023/2854), and the Digital Services Act (EU Regulation 2022/2065);
• empowering end-users in the context of a fast-evolving digital ecosystem, with the goal of enabling consumers to make better informed choices in relation to digital services, while also considering sustainability aspects.

In the following section, BEREC describes its cooperation with European institutions and entities working in related or different economic sectors emphasizing the relevance of cooperation with national regulatory authorities for its activities.

In subsequent sections, BEREC provides an overview of its tasks under European legislation. BEREC continuously engages in activities related to implementing:

• the provisions set forth by the EECC;
• the Open Internet Regulation (EU Regulation 2015/2120) and BEREC’s Open Internet Guidelines;
• the Roaming Regulation (EU Regulation 2022/612) and intra-EU electronic communications; and
• the provisions set forth by the DMA.

BEREC also carries out activities aimed at supporting and evaluating European regulations in the electronic communications sector.

At the end of the draft, BEREC provides information regarding its future commitments with particular regard to the continuation of projects initiated in previous years and included in the BEREC Work Programme 2025. These include the publication of a “Fact-Finding Report on the competitive landscape in different jurisdictions,” expected in 2026, and the publication of the “BEREC report on the integration of AI in the telecommunications sector,” also planned for 2026. It also includes information on new activities planned for 2026; for example, BEREC’s contribution to the review of the EECC and the Data Act, and the cooperation with the Commission to implement the EU toolbox for 5G security.

BEREC reports that, following the early call for inputs, it will publish a draft of the 2026 Work Programme, which will then be subject to a public consultation lasting four weeks in October and November 2025. BEREC plans to adopt the final 2026 Work Programme in December 2025.

Interested parties wishing to participate in the early call for inputs can submit their contributions by 10 April 2025.

Authors: Flaminia Perna, Matilde Losa, Arianna Porretti

---

Innovation Law Insights is compiled by DLA Piper lawyers, coordinated by Edoardo Bardelli, Carolina Battistella, Carlotta Busani, Giorgia Carneri, Noemi Canova, Gabriele Cattaneo, Maria Rita Cormaci, Camila Crisci, Cristina Criscuoli, Tamara D’Angeli, Chiara D’Onofrio, Federico Maria Di Vizio, Nadia Feola, Laura Gastaldi, Vincenzo Giuffré, Nicola Landolfi, Giacomo Lusardi, Valentina Mazza, Lara Mastrangelo, Maria Chiara Meneghetti, Deborah Paracchini, Maria Vittoria Pessina, Marianna Riedo, Tommaso Ricci, Rebecca Rossi, 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 a report analyzing key legal issues arising from the metaverse qui, and a comparative guide to regulations on lootboxes here.

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