Legal Awareness Newsletter - Edition 7
January 16th 2024
Dear all,
Welcome back to the LAN! I hope you’re enjoying your first week of term 2 and had restful holidays.
We have a big edition for you today, with 7 articles, plus our terms and links.
Make sure to give it a read!
All the best,
Jago Cahill-Patten
Publication’s Officer
General Section
Meta’s Fact Check-Out
Jenn Tan
On January 7, Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg announced that Meta would be ending its fact-checking programme across all of its platforms in the US. This decision is significant, especially with the rising spread of misinformation.
Under the fact-checking programme, content deemed as “false” would be downgraded in news feeds. Fewer people would see it, and if one tried to share that content, they would be presented with a notice explaining how the post is misleading. With the scrapping of this programme, Zuckerberg revealed that Meta would be introducing an alternative feature in its place – one similar to “Community Notes” on X – a crowdsourcing tool that “leaves fact-checking up to the community”. However, researchers have repeatedly questioned the feature’s effectiveness in combating fake news.
Why is This Happening?
In a five-minute video explaining the changes, Zuckerberg claimed that the fact-checkers Facebook had been working with were “too politically biased”, thus harming user trust. Putting these changes in place would protect freedom of expression, returning Facebook to its “roots”.
Though not explicitly said by the chief, these reasons echoed arguments that President-elect Donald Trump and his supporters have continuously made about the platform, signalling an effort from Zuckerberg to appease the future POTUS. Within the US’ hyperpolarised political climate, fact-checking and claims of disinformation have been pertinent political issues, sparking disagreements between both sides. Conservative US advocates assert that their right to free speech has been unjustly curtailed, often framing such “fact-checking programmes” as a convenient pretext for censorship of right wing content.
Legal Considerations
Though there are currently only plans for implementation in the US, critics around the world have expressed their concerns.
According to Arnav Joshi, a senior technology lawyer from the law firm Clifford Chance, if it were to roll out similar changes in the UK and EU, Meta would be sure to face heightened regulatory scrutiny. This could include the EU’s Digital Services Act and the UK’s Online Safety Bill, which demand greater transparency, accountability, and action against harmful content. In the event of non-compliance with these regulations, significant financial penalties would be awarded to Meta.
Oliver Marsh, a former Downing Street adviser and the head of technology research at the Berlin and Zurich non-profit AlgorithmWatch, shared similar considerations. He went further to suggest that, despite stringent EU regulations, Zuckerberg might choose not to comply. “His decisions – and the increasing likelihood he would refuse to comply with any enforcement action to impress Trump brings us closer to the moment when the EU may have to decide if it has the powers to ban Meta, or how else they could hold them accountable,” Marsh stated.
Practical Considerations
Beyond legal concerns, Meta must also carefully consider the practical implications that might arise from this decision.
Mr. Ross Burley, co-founder of the non-profit Centre for Information Resilience, described the move as a significant regression in content moderation, especially at a time when disinformation and harmful content are advancing at an unprecedented pace. While he acknowledged the importance of safeguarding free expression, Burley cautioned that eliminating fact-checking without introducing a credible alternative could “open the floodgates” to more damaging narratives.
In the same vein, this move will negatively impact social media users who rely on accurate and reliable information to make informed decisions about their daily lives and interactions. Angie Holan, director of the International Fact-Checking Network, described the decision as an unfortunate development in the current political climate, expressing disappointment over the external political pressure from the new administration and its supporters.
A New Future for Social Media
In conclusion, Meta’s decision to dismantle its fact-checking programme has led to significant public discourse, particularly on the broader implications of such a move. As the organisation shifts its approach to content moderation, the tension between protecting free speech and preventing the spread of misinformation intensifies. While the move may resonate with some who see it as a step toward reclaiming online discourse, it raises critical questions about the effectiveness of crowdsourced solutions in combating fake news. Moreover, Meta's decision could set a precedent for other platforms, complicating the already fraught landscape of digital regulation.
Net Zero Exodus? Why Big Banks are Ditching Their Climate Targets
Max Currie
With president-elect Donald Trump set to begin his 2nd term next week, some of the US’ largest banks have announced their withdrawal from the UN’s Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA). Household names such as Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase all exited the alliance in December, signalling a huge shift away from net zero targets that could have a lasting impact on global climate efforts.
The NZBA was established in 2021 to help align banking practices and investments with global 2050 net zero targets and meet the 1.5°C temperature increase limit set out in the Paris Agreement. Prior to the departure of some of the US’ biggest banks, the NZBA’s members collectively held around 40% of global banking assets, with robust, optimistic frameworks to manage their $70 trillion in total assets.
Why?
The mass exodus of these banking powerhouses comes in light of increased pressure within the Republican party to steer away from alliances such as the NZBA for fears of creating industry monopolies and reducing the allocation of funding for traditional fossil fuels in the US. Furthermore, with the president-elect’s repeated support for scrapping the country’s environmental regulations and increasing fossil fuel drilling during his next term, there may be less incentive to focus on climate-friendly investment practices. As the political pendulum swings in the other direction with a more right-wing dominated government and Trump’s anti-woke sentiment, acting in the best interests of the environment may not be as high on the banks’ priority lists anymore.
What does this mean for climate action?
So what does this mean for banking and climate finance? First of all, the withdrawal of so many massive institutions from the NZBA demonstrates a potential realignment of banks’ focus towards climate action. This includes a need to not only transition the global energy industry but also achieve a balance of profitability and energy security in the short term. For example, JPMorgan Chase explained its focus on “pragmatic solutions to help further low-carbon technologies while advancing energy security”, suggesting a shifting of priorities between sustainability and ensuring profit from other energy sources in the US. Secondly, the mass withdrawal could significantly hinder global progress towards meeting the net zero 2050 targets. With less banks setting stringent environmental criteria on their investments and not being required to allocate certain levels of funding to alternative energy, some industries may face less pressure to transition away from fossil fuels. With global investment from big backers as a fundamental catalyst for the shift to green energy, this could jeopardise the goal of limiting the planet’s warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
Despite the departure of these household names, many European, Asian, and smaller US banks are still upholding their commitments and climate objectives under the NZBA, with some hope of continued industry confidence in the UN’s initiative. Whilst the decision of these important banks does pose a challenge for successful climate action, it also highlights the need for a more balanced and innovative approach to combating the climate crisis, one that meets both the profitability and environmental objectives of the world’s largest energy funders.
Walking the Legal Tightrope: Can Innovation and Data Privacy Coexist?
Abha Kulkarni
DeepMind, an artificial intelligence research laboratory and subsidiary of Google, has spent the better part of the last decade embroiled in regulatory scrutiny. This is over a representative action against its 2015 Data-Sharing deal with the NHS. Recently, in December 2024, the courts dismissed an appeal against a first instance decision favouring Google DeepMind, handing yet another win to the tech giant. Yet, this apparent victory appears to do little to ease the challenges of ensuring data privacy in innovation, leaving behind significant regulatory uncertainty.
What was the deal and why was it controversial?
In 2015, the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust transferred 1.6 million patient records to DeepMind, per a joint undertaking for the data to be used to develop “Streams”- a medical app to identify and treat patients with acute kidney injury. This was problematic as patients had not consented to their data being used in this way. A “representative action”, roughly representing 1.6 million people, was filed in reaction.
However inherent to the nature of such an action, for the claim to succeed, is a “common interest” or unifying element across the circumstances of the affected 1.6 million people. This had to be identified. The prospects of this common interest then meeting the threshold of success required to prove “Misuse Of Private Information” (MPI) would determine the verdict for the entire group.
Yet, on the facts of the case, the court struggled to satisfy the common interest requirement.
The class of 1.6 million people included claims with varying degrees of seriousness, as well as individuals who had already placed some of their private information in the public domain prior to the data exchange. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, thus setting a steep challenge for future data privacy class actions.
Regulatory implications of the decision
While dismissal of collective claims is clear, stronger individual privacy claims aren’t eliminated from succeeding. This opens floodgates of litigation that will strain court resources. Courts appear conflicted between prioritising privacy rights and supporting usage of data for socially beneficial AI-medical innovation. On the one hand, this allows individual claims to succeed but inversely only emphasizes transparency around data usage on a broader basis.
This indicates much regulatory uncertainty, likely to slow innovation in Artificial Intelligence, particularly the development of socially beneficial medical innovation. A definitive ruling in the future could cause a major disruption, as companies would need time to adjust their practices to new standards. This would prompt an increased reliance on law firms to navigate regulations and ensure legal usage of data while also not compromising on commercial objectives.
Given a public demand for accountability and the critical nature of “medical records”, public relations efforts to restore trust and repair reputation will be crucial. This doesn’t apply just for the NHS and Google DeepMind but any entity in the technological sector with extensive data needs, when proposing similar innovation.
As the pace of technological development accelerates, the demand for vast datasets will only continue to grow, pressing both policymakers and courts into increasingly difficult decisions. The challenge lies not just in regulating data usage but ensuring that the pursuit of groundbreaking innovation does not come at the expense of fundamental privacy rights. When such a definitive decision is made, a question persists: Will the legal tightrope hold, or will it continue to strain under the weight of privacy and progress?
Justice After Assad: Legal Obstacles to Accountability in Post-Assad Syria
Aykhan Allahveranov
Following the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, evidence of large-scale atrocities has come to light, including mass graves, torture chambers, and extensive documentation of systemic human rights abuses. In areas like Tadamon, near Damascus, investigators have found shocking evidence of mass executions, underscoring the brutality of Assad’s government. However, delivering justice in post-conflict Syria presents its legal challenges, particularly in the absence of a functioning judicial system.
The current lack of judicial capacity within Syria is a major obstacle. Years of conflict have eroded the rule of law, leaving no clear institutions to handle complex war crimes trials. Building a credible domestic legal framework will take significant time and resources, as well as political stability, which remains elusive. Moreover, the presence of armed groups such as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), designated as a terrorist organization by many countries, further complicates efforts to establish legitimate courts or mechanisms to ensure impartial justice.
One potential path forward is the creation of transitional justice mechanisms, such as specialized tribunals, modelled on successful precedents like the Special Court for Sierra Leone or hybrid courts used in Cambodia. These tribunals could combine domestic and international legal expertise to deliver credible prosecutions while respecting local sovereignty. Another approach could involve establishing truth and reconciliation commissions to give victims a voice and document abuses comprehensively, which would support future prosecutions.
On the international front, Syria’s war crimes could potentially be addressed by the International Criminal Court (ICC) or an ad hoc tribunal established under United Nations auspices. However, such efforts are hampered by political challenges, especially Russia’s veto power at the UN Security Council, which has blocked ICC referrals. Universal jurisdiction laws in countries like Germany, which have already prosecuted Syrian officials, offer a parallel route for accountability.
Ultimately, a multi-layered legal framework combining international support, regional cooperation, and local participation offers the best hope for justice. Such a system could ensure that victims’ voices are heard and that impunity for war crimes does not undermine Syria’s fragile future.
“From Free Speech Supporter to Defamation Threatener: Truss's Cease and Desist Letter to Starmer
Sam Schajer
Background
Free speech supporter Lizz Truss has sent a letter to Keir Starmer asking him to “cease and desist from repeating the defamatory statement” that she crashed the economy.
In the six page letter, Truss’s lawyers set out that Starmer ought to have known the statements were false and were likely going to damage Truss’s reputation. The letter also sets out the reasons why the argument that Truss crashed the economy is inaccurate, informed by a report from right-leaning think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs.
Whilst this isn’t a letter of claim, it is worth evaluating the merits of the potential legal cases to judge if it is a serious attempt at reputation repair, or simply the political equivalent of flipping the Monopoly board in frustration.
Legal Argument
The first step of a defamation claim is proving that the words are capable of being defamatory. This requires the statement in question to expose the claimant to hatred, ridicule, or contempt, and to lower the claimant in the estimations of right-thinking people generally (Berkoff v Burchill).
Then, per Section 1 (1) of the Defamation Act 2013, the statement must cause, or be likely to cause, serious harm to the claimants reputations.
It is important to note that the courts have a higher bar for what counts as a defamatory statement when it comes to political figures. In Crow v Johnson, a wider degree of freedom of expression was given to statements made against public figures.
Truss must also prove that there is a causal link between the alleged defamatory statements and her losing her seats. If Truss can overcome this challenging causation requirement, then she could likely argue that the statement that she “crashed the economy” was defamatory per Section 1.
Starmer’s Potential Defences
If a defamatory statement is substantially true, then the defendant has a defence (Defamation Act 2013 s.2). This would place the burden of proof on Starmer to show the statement was substantially true. On one hand, Starmer could point to the rise in inflation and mortgage costs that were attributed to Truss’s mini budget. On the other hand, Truss could point out that the economy did not crash in the technical meaning of the term; there was no drop in GDP or employment. The viability of the truth defence is dependent on what expert evidence is brought and how an economic crash is defined.
Another defence against defamation is that the statement is an opinion (Defamation Act 2013 s.3). For this defence to be used, the basis of the opinion must be indicated, and the opinion must be one that an honest person could have reached based on any facts that existed at time of publication. Starmer can only use this defence if he actually held the opinion. The difficulty in using this defence would be evaluating if Starmer set out the basis of his opinion sufficiently. However, broadly speaking the courts have not interpreted this requirement so strenuously (Spiller v Joseph). The “cease and desist” letter sent to Starmer provides quotes of when Starmer said Truss crashed the economy, but the footnotes are not available. Thus, it is not possible to evaluate if Starmer provides a basis for his opinion in the context of his statements. However, if he did even generally, and an honest person could have reached the same conclusion based on any facts at the time, then Truss’s claim would fail.
A further defence available to Starmer would be to say that making the defamatory comments was in the public interest (Defamation Act 2013, s.4). For this to succeed as a defence, Starmer would need to show that publication was in the public interest, and that he reasonably believed the statement to be in the public interest. When determining the validity of this defence, the court will take into consideration a range of factors such as the seriousness of the allegation, the urgency of the information, and the context of the publication (Serafin v Malkiewicz). Making a statement on the economy in the run up to a general election seems to be within the scope of the public interest defence, but this would have to be determined by a court taking into full account the details and context of the claim.
It is also worth noting that anything Starmer said in the House of Parliament itself cannot ever give rise to a defamation claim per the concept of absolute privilege.
Conclusion
This headline generating claim has significant hurdles to overcome to succeed due to the range of defences available to Starmer. Time will tell if this letter amounts to ‘see you in court’ or simply just ‘see me in tomorrow's headlines.’
Commercial Awareness Section
Antitrust Law:
Antitrust laws refer to regulations on the market, made with the goal of encouraging competition between businesses in a particular market. This typically involves rules preventing and limiting anti-competitive practices amongst businesses, which are believed to hinder free market economics. Such anti-competitive practices may include collusion and price-fixing, which is when businesses work together to influence a market or pricing to their advantage, and achieve a monopoly over said market. Antitrust laws help prevent this and are believed to be crucial for the economy as they help facilitate competition, which leads to innovation and efficiency amongst businesses, and therefore economic growth.
An example of an antitrust law against collusion and price fixing was seen in 2025. Here potato processing companies in the US faced lawsuits for allegedly conspiring to inflate prices on frozen potato products, to gain an unfair market advantage, and hinder competition.
Muyiwa Oladokun
“Training a machine to break the law is still breaking the law”: US Department of Justice v RealPage Inc.
Iman Khalil
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has made evident its commitment to holding software developers accountable through its claim against property management software company RealPage Inc. and its irresponsible users.
The basis of the case
On the 23rd of August 2024, the DOJ, along with a coalition of eight states, filed a lawsuit against RealPage Inc for facilitating an unlawful information-sharing scheme between six major landlords across the country. The software created an algorithmic pricing tool, enabling landlords to coordinate their strategies to maximise profit. This resulted in drastic inflation, much to the dismay of renters. Given that the landlords collectively operate more than 1.3 million units, the implications of such anti-competitive behaviour are staggering.
Collusion and Monopoly: Violating the Sherman Act
The collusion violates Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the United States’ primary antitrust legislation.
The case primarily concerns the vertical scheme between RealPage and the landlords, through which sensitive data was inputted into software. Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits concerted actions that restrain trade, and the DOJ has identified RealPage’s software as a mechanism for facilitating actions. By creating a system that pooled sensitive pricing information and incentivised landlords to follow its pricing recommendations, RealPage set the stage for collusion. The software made it easier for landlords to accept price hikes than to reject them, effectively encouraging them to unlawfully coordinate.
There is also a secondary issue regarding RealPage’s illegal monopoly over the commercial revenue management software market. RealPage’s alleged market share of 80% significantly undermined competition. Its rival software providers lack access to the same sensitive (albeit unlawfully obtained) data, making them less attractive to property managers. Thus, RealPage has stifled competition and ensured its software’s outsized influence in the real estate sector.
On the 7th of January 2025, the DOJ took its case further, amending the claim to include the landlords as defendants. The investigation uncovered evidence that the landlords were active participants in what they knew to be illegal collusion. The term ‘price fixing’ explicitly arose in their communications. These landlords’ complicity in manipulating rents through RealPage’s software has left renters grappling with artificially inflated prices in an already challenging housing market.
Beyond Real Estate: A Wake-Up Call for AI Accountability
Algorithmic collusion is not an isolated problem. In addition to the multidistrict litigation (MDL) already pending against RealPage, similar antitrust concerns have arisen in the hospitality and health insurance industries, and even other real estate software providers like Yardi. This lawsuit highlights a broader commitment to ensuring that the development of AI remain within legal and ethical boundaries.
Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco explicitly addresses this: “Training a machine to break the law is still breaking the law.” The DOJ’s decision to pursue both RealPage and the landlords reflects its determination to prevent businesses from hiding behind algorithms to shield themselves from accountability.
Conclusion: A Defining Moment for AI Regulation
The RealPage case underscores the growing tension between technological innovation and regulatory oversight. As AI-driven tools become more integral to various industries, this lawsuit serves as a critical moment for defining the boundaries of lawful use – it establishes a precedent that could shape the future of AI regulation in the United States and beyond.
Foreign Direct Investment:
Foreign direct investment (FDI) refers to a large, long-lasting investment made by a company or government from one country, into a different country. This investment gives the investor significant ownership of the foreign company, or the ability to establish operations in the company. For example, the investment may include acquiring a source of materials or developing a multinational presence for the companies. Governments and companies that consider FDI usually invest in foreign companies that have open, lightly regulated economies, and a skilled workforce. A significant example of FDI is seen in China’s $1.8 billion FDI into Thailand in 2023, giving China some ownership and control over the Thai automotive industry and energy projects.
Muyiwa Oladokun
The Energy Charter Treaty: Towards a Greener Future?
Navika Jangra
After seven years of negotiations, long-awaited reforms to the Energy Charter Treaty were finally published in December 2024. Expected to take effect from September 2025, the changes mark a promising step forward in the protection of sustainable development goals.
What is the Energy Charter Treaty?
Adopted in 1994, the Energy Charter Treaty is a multilateral agreement between some 50 states designed to promote and safeguard foreign direct investment in the energy sector. It requires contracting parties to treat foreign investors ‘fairly and equitably’, prohibiting discriminatory policies, direct or indirect expropriation of assets and breaches of contract.
Since its inception, investors have frequently invoked the Treaty’s protections, resulting in 162 investor-state arbitrations and over $100 billion in arbitral awards to fossil fuel companies alone.
Climate Concerns
In recent years, the Treaty has been widely criticised for seemingly penalising states who take action on climate change. Indeed, the broadly drafted “fair and equitable treatment” clause has been used repeatedly by investors to challenge environmental policies which threaten their financial interests.
For example, in 2021, German energy giant RWE claimed €1.4 billion from the Dutch government for its phasing out of coal power plants. Closer to home, UK-based Rockhopper was awarded £210 million in 2022 after Italy refused to grant the company an oil concession, pursuant to a general ban on offshore oil drilling.
Unsurprisingly, several countries – including Italy, Germany, France and the UK – have withdrawn from the Treaty, citing it as a roadblock to their net zero commitments.
Key Updates
Heeding these concerns, the amendments strike a more appropriate balance between investors’ interests and states’ environmental targets.
Protections for fossil-fuel investments will be gradually phased out over the next 15 years. Renewable energy investments not previously within the Treaty’s scope - such as carbon capture, hydrogen and biogas - will now be protected. Most significantly, except under extremely rare circumstances, non-discriminatory measures enacted for legitimate policy objectives, such as climate change mitigation, will no longer breach the Treaty.
Changes to the Treaty’s dispute resolution procedures are also likely to reduce the number of challenges to climate policies. Now, claims that are “frivolous” and “manifestly without legal merit” can be dismissed without instituting full proceedings. Moreover, a new ‘Article 30 Bis’ provides that disputes relating to the Treaty’s sustainable development provisions should first be addressed through diplomatic channels or a conciliator.
Green or Greenwashing?
On their surface, these amendments promise a greener framework for energy investments. Gone are the days where investors’ financial interests reign supreme, as environmental goals will now also be protected.
However, critics remain sceptical. The International Institute for Sustainable Development has called the changes “too modest” and “too piecemeal” for the Treaty to be a genuine tool for environmental progress.
Ultimately, only time will tell how states, investors, and arbitral tribunals respond to and apply these provisions in practice.
Links:
Muyiwa Oladokun
Firms to raise prices due to tax and wage increases - BBC News
More than half of all UK companies are looking to increase prices in the next 3 months, as a result of the increase in taxes and national insurance contributions. The UK autumn budget involved a decision to increase taxes by £40bn, which included a £25bn increase in national insurance contributions, as well as substantial raises in capital gains tax. Accordingly, UK businesses are looking for ways to cope with the pressure caused by these heightened taxes, and increasing prices seems to be the most viable option.
Artificial Intelligence: Plan to 'unleash AI' across UK revealed - BBC News
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer unveiled the AI Opportunities Action Plan, supported by £14bn from tech firms, aiming to transform UK public services, boost economic growth, and create 13,250 jobs through initiatives like AI Growth Zones and infrastructure investment. While the plan shifts focus from AI safety to growth and innovation, critics question its feasibility amid stretched public finances and concerns over its narrow focus on big tech over smaller innovators. The government envisions AI reducing administrative burdens in public services, supporting sectors like healthcare and education, and positioning the UK as a global AI leader, though results may take years to come to fruition.
'Trump 2.0’ looms large over the global economy - BBC News
Following Trump’s election win in November 2024, there is much speculation as to how his stern economic and immigration policy may affect the global economy. Trump threatens to impose significant tariffs on countries such as China, Canada and Mexico. This is for the goal of facilitating US economic growth, albeit harming countries which have historically relied on the US for trade. This begs the question: how can the global economy adapt to Trump’s US-centric economic policy?
World breaches 1.5C global warming target for first time in 2024
In 2024, global temperatures rose to 1.6°C above pre-industrial levels, surpassing the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C target for the first time, driven by record greenhouse gas emissions and the lingering effects of El Niño. Climate experts shed light on how the extreme heat and related disasters, such as floods and heatwaves, signal a destabilized and increasingly volatile climate system. While 2024 marked a historic high, the upcoming year is expected to be cooler due to the onset of a La Niña cooling cycle.