Legal Awareness Newsletter - Edition 12
March 26th 2025
Dear all,
Welcome to the final edition of the LAN!
This year we’ve released 12 editions and over 70 articles, which is a major milestone. I’d like to thank all the staff writers - such an endeavour wouldn’t be possible without your hard work.
This is a great edition, with articles on Meta and data protection; DOGE; the arrest of the Philippines former president; and Trump’s swipe at big law.
Do enjoy and good luck with all exam prep - you will all do a great job :)
All the best,
Jago Cahill-Patten
Publications Officer
General Section
The Threat to Meta: The Future for Data Protection Laws in the UK
Mia Ramage
There’s a high chance that if you’re reading this, you’ve used a Meta platform - reporting over 3 billion active users in 2024, the tech conglomerate, comprising enterprises like Facebook and Instagram, has long thrived on its business model which sees 97% of its revenue coming from advertisements. Despite these impressive figures, its recent settlement with Tanya O’Carroll suggests a threat to the success of this model if it is to comply with data protection standards.
O’Carroll, a human rights campaigner, brought an action against Meta after noticing an increased number of ads surrounding motherhood shortly after finding out she herself was pregnant. If you’ve used a Meta platform, you’re no stranger to this sensation, with a quick search on google for a new pair of shoes suddenly turning your Instagram feed to a stream of ads for Uggs, Reeboks, and Nike. Despite trying to opt out of personalised ads on Facebook, she continued to see personalised ads across the platform. O’Carroll’s lawsuit against Meta hinged on the UK’s General Data Protection Regulation, which protects consumers from direct marketing, defined in the Data Protect Act 2018 as “the communication (by whatever means) of advertising or marketing material which is directed to particular individuals”. O’Carroll argued that such targeted advertisements as she had received are examples of direct marketing, and as such customers are allowed to object to the use of their data in this manner. Facebook’s response relied on the fact that its ads had at least 100 viewers; as such, their use of adverts was blanket marketing, given its reception by multiple users.
The case was due to be heard in the High Court this Monday; instead, Meta and O’Carroll reached a private settlement. On its face, the private settlement between O’Carroll and Meta sets no binding legal precedent for Meta to be obliged to follow. However, with the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) backing O’Carroll’s claim, the ICO have demonstrated a willingness to support future claims based on a breach to the General Data Protection Regulation, on the basis that there must be a clear option to opt out of targeted ads. Meta may have settled with one individual, but the support of the ICO in this case indicates that further claims against Meta for direct marketing have a viable chance of succeeding, and the implications for Meta’s advertising-based business model are worrying. It’s not the first-time privacy and data laws have forced an alteration to Meta’s services; a subscription-based model has already been launched in some European Union member countries in an attempt to comply with the EU’s Digital Markets Act legislation. Meta was fined £343 million following the European Court of Justice finding that Facebook’s use of personalised ads went against the EU’s data protection. Although no longer in the EU, the UK’s General Data Protection Regulation is retained law from the EU, meaning that a case tried in the UK would likely reflect the ruling delivered by the European Court of Justice. With reports of Meta considering a subscription-based model in the UK, which has seen relatively little success after its implementation in the EU, there is a clear understanding that European judiciaries are tightening their control over data protection and its exploitation by corporations, and Meta will have to adapt to this to avoid further penalties.
Welfare Wars: Labour Retreads a Moral and Fiscal Battleground
Elise Lunt
As of late (and by late, I mean the last thirty-odd years) Labour has had a tenuous relationship with those it was founded by and for. This month, Liz Kendall, the Government’s Work and Pensions Secretary, announced what the Institute for Fiscal Studies has described as a “fundamental break from the past few decades of welfare policy.” Delivering her plans, she described changes to the welfare system and policy in attempts to save an estimated £5bn a year.
Attempts by Labour governments to, in the words of Kendall, give welfare spending a more “sustainable footing” is no new phenomenon. Famously, Blair did the same in 1997 – a decision he would never forget thanks to the demonstrations that followed (think protesters chaining themselves to the gates of Downing Street, painting ‘Blair’s blood’ in red). The justifications Blair gave at the turn of the century are not dissimilar to those given by Kendall, and the Starmer government; the amount spent on welfare is neither fiscally nor morally sustainable. These justifications, echoed by Starmer’s government, did not prevent Blair facing rebellion against his means-test incapacity benefit policy by more than 80 Labour MPs, an eerily similar number may now oppose these new policy announcements.
Number 10 is expectedly treading carefully; the green paper on social and welfare reform was originally expected last week but has been delayed, while ministers and MPs alike have been called to Downing Street for extensive policy briefing. And this is arguably necessarily considering the controversy that has already arisen from the policy.
The reduction in spending is seemingly being accounted for by cuts to the welfare state. These cuts are largely being made through reform to the benefits system, emphatically through changes to Personal Independence Payments (PIP) – a welfare benefit affording those living with long-term physical or mental illness support, regardless of if they are in work. Eligibility for the benefit is expected to be tightened in addition to possible payment freezes, meaning that the amount of financial assistance would not rise alongside inflation.
The policy is, expectedly, receiving backlash from multiple factions of Parliament, and the Labour Party itself. Identified by the New Stateman’s George Eton, those in opposition broadly fit into three main categories. Firstly, the Socialist Campaign Group, a parliamentary caucus of the Labour Party, unequivocally oppose the policy for moral reasons, arguing it breaches the party’s founding principles. Secondly, there are those that Eton describes as the ‘waverers’; those that accept the need for welfare reform, and the fact that its current state is unsustainable, yet are wary in regard to how these policies might impact those with the most severe illnesses and disabilities, and are equally uncertain how the government aims to support those transitioning into work. Lastly, Eton identified the ‘outriders.’ MPs that are “seeking to ensure that ministers do not lose their nerve” and that true, wider reform of the welfare system ought to emphasise not only the fiscal reasoning, but the moral. MP David Pinto-Duschinsky has formed the Get Britain Working Group, along with 34 of his parliamentary colleagues; in a letter to Kendall they wrote that they “believe reforming our broken system is not only necessary, but also a truly progressive endeavour.” One which will ensure those who need support receive it, in the form that is most suited and appropriate to their needs and capabilities. Needless to say, revolt is brewing over the matter.
This area of policy is one of the most emotive, especially within the Labour Party. Considering its history, particularly its connection with labour rights and the post-war welfare state, and the factions it continuously seeks to unite, contention over policy is nothing to remark at. Ultimately, some believe that “the clue is in the name” – that Labour should emphasise ‘labour.’ Yet, in our modern economy, many are drawn to a more nuanced view of the market economy. It is to be determined how these policies will be implemented and will play out if and when they are.
Bringing an injunction to a chainsaw fight. Judicial activism in the DOGE era.
Oskar Puntmann
The United States is in a constitutional crisis. The new Trump administration has taken a steamroller technique to governance, seeking to reduce bureaucracy and federal spending. The primary vehicle for this, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), is proving controversial, especially in regard to its legitimacy and the consequences it may have for the future of America.
Establishment of DOGE
DOGE is not a federal department, rather has been created as an advisory body. Its purpose is questionable, since officially, it was created to perform IT upgrades for the government, with this work to be finished by July 2026. Nevertheless, it has been primarily focussed on other matters, slashing the federal workforce and cancelling p rojects and contracts, with Musk seeking to cut a third of government spending.
Musk, the richest man in the world has a controversial role. Officially, he is an unpaid special government employee, a designation given to those working for the government for 130 days or less a year. Nevertheless, he is also a walking conflict of interest. His corporate empire has many federal contracts and has been in hot water with government agencies. The SEC has taken action against X (formerly Twitter), SpaceX is in conflict with the EPA. Musk’s new power could allow him to undermine these agencies, reducing their oversight abilities and deregulating them to benefit himself.
USAID
USAID (the United States Department for International Development) is, or rather was, the primary means of providing foreign aid across the world, acting as the US’s soft power arm for foreign policy. It had over 6,000 projects from providing HIV treatment centres in South Africa to landmine removal in Vietnam. It was abruptly dismantled in February by DOGE, a move which has since been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge. An injunction was issued to prevent further cuts and restore various aspects of the agency. USAID is a federal agency and thus can only be abolished through an Act of Congress. DOGE has sought to sidestep this by simply slashing its workforce and projects. However, it was found Musk had exceeded his power in closing the USAID building, and deleting its website.
Privacy Concerns
DOGE has gained the ability to digitally see sensitive government payment information, being able to see bank account and social security information of US citizens. This is concerning, especially due to the lack of transparency with which DOGE and the power they attained to alter the system and block payments. A judge issued a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order), following a suit by 19 States, limiting this access, holding that to do so was in public interest. The ability to view this information is restricted to certain civil servants with security clearance. The extension of this to DOGE, an inherently politically motivated body, could have nefarious consequences, turning social welfare into a political weapon.
Trump’s return to the White House has thus far been marked by judicial activism in the name of the rule of law. There is a noticeable plethora of TROs being issued, a measure usually used sparingly. Even the Supreme Court of El Salvador is now involved, hearing a habeus corpus case on the legality of the extradition of alleged gang members to Salvadorian prisons. DOGE sits at the centre of much of this, with Musk’s chainsaw technique to cutting bureaucracy proving rash and judicially destructive. In this new era of tech bro government, federal judges are leading the fight to preserve the rule of law.
Situation in the Philippines: Rodrigo Roa Duterte in ICC Custody
Aykhan Allahveranov
Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte was arrested on March 11, 2025, at Ninoy Aquino International Airport in Manila pursuant to a warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC). The warrant relates to alleged crimes against humanity committed during his administration’s anti-drug campaign between 2016 and 2022. Duterte was subsequently transferred to The Hague, where he is expected to stand trial.
The ICC’s case against Duterte stems from thousands of alleged extrajudicial killings carried out as part of his administration’s “war on drugs.” Human rights organizations have long contended that these operations constituted systematic and widespread attacks against civilians. The ICC has asserted that there are reasonable grounds to hold Duterte criminally responsible for these actions under the Rome Statute.
Duterte’s arrest was facilitated by the administration of his successor, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., who has expressed a commitment to upholding international legal obligations. This move marks a departure from Duterte’s own stance, as his government had previously withdrawn the Philippines from the ICC’s jurisdiction in 2019. However, the ICC has maintained that it retains authority over crimes committed while the Philippines was still a member state.
The arrest has provoked strong reactions within the Philippines. Vice President Sara Duterte, the former president’s daughter, has denounced the ICC’s actions as politically motivated and an infringement on national sovereignty. Duterte himself has maintained his innocence, arguing that any legal proceedings should take place within the Philippine judicial system rather than an international tribunal.
Duterte’s case represents a significant development in international criminal law, as he is the first Asian head of state to face trial before the ICC. Human rights advocates have welcomed his detention as a crucial step toward accountability, while his supporters argue that his policies were necessary to combat illegal drug activity. The legal proceedings at the ICC are expected to set a precedent for the prosecution of state leaders accused of human rights violations.
Commercial Section:
Security Clearance:
A status granted to individuals allowing access to classified information. The suspension of security clearances for lawyers at targeted firms restricts their ability to engage in matters involving national security, impacting their professional capabilities and client representation.
Separation of Powers:
A foundational principle in constitutional law that divides government responsibilities into distinct branches to prevent the concentration of power. The executive orders in question may challenge this principle by potentially encroaching upon the judiciary's role and the autonomy of legal practitioners.
Simone Liang
Big Law, Big Target: Why Trump is Taking Aim at Elite Firms
Adrien Charles
In a significant escalation beyond his flurry of executive orders, President Donald Trump has begun singling out prominent law firms with ties to the Democratic Party. His most recent directive instructs federal agencies to terminate contracts with clients of Paul Weiss, while also suspending security clearances for the firm’s lawyers. This follows similar measures recently enacted against Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling. In anticipation of more executive orders against Big Law firms in the near future, it becomes critical to examine the motivations behind these targeted measures and explore strategies for law firms navigating this new landscape.
Why is Trump targeting law Big Law?
Trump has framed his executive orders as an effort to dismantle “the weaponisation of our system by law firms”, which he claims are being used to paralyse government and facilitate the “destruction of bedrock American principles.” More generally, these executive orders were made parallel to Trump instructing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to investigate Big Law firms for discrimination in their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. In truth, the president has exclusively targeted firms with prior links to the Democratic Party or acting in cases against him.
The pattern is unmistakable: Covington & Burling assisted Jack Smith, who led the unsuccessful prosecution of Trump on behalf of the Justice Department under the Biden administration; Perkins Coie represented Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and was involved in commissioning the Steele dossier on Trump’s alleged connections with Russia; Paul Weiss led pro bono work against right-wing groups Proud Boys and Oath Keepers over their involvement in the January 6th riot at the US Capitol.
Leveraging these perceived partisan affiliations as justification, Trump has implemented punitive measures with far-reaching consequences. Firstly, he has instructed federal agencies to terminate their contracts with clients of the concerned firms and align their funding decision with “the interests of the citizens of the US.” This directive creates immediate concerns for major government contractors like Boeing, General Dynamics and BAE Systems, who now face potential contract disruptions based on their legal representation choices. Secondly, by restricting security clearances, the Trump administration has effectively barred these firms’ lawyers from engaging with government officials on classified national security matters, an essential function for many corporate legal teams. The impact of these measures has already materialized, with Perkins Coie claiming to have lost longtime clients since the order was handed down earlier this month.
What is next for Big Law? Navigating Trump’s Backlash
The wider legal industry has been largely quiet in response to the president’s moves against Paul, Weiss and its peer firms. Many are avoiding public commentary to prevent becoming subsequent targets, while others are pre-emptively reviewing their DEI initiatives, which the Trump administration has explicitly cited as factors in its ongoing investigation of which firms may face future restrictions.
In the case of those firms already restricted by executive orders, legal resistance has begun to materialise. In a significant development, Perkins Coie has achieved an initial victory when a US District Court judge temporarily blocked the enforcement of key provisions of the order targeting the firm, potentially establishing a precedent for Paul Weiss and Covington & Burling to pursue similar legal remedies. Legal experts who have anticipated these challenges will likely centre on constitutional questions regarding separation of powers and potential First Amendment implications for legal representation.
Due Diligence:
A comprehensive appraisal conducted by a prospective buyer to evaluate a target company's assets, liabilities, and commercial potential. In this context, AstraZeneca would perform due diligence to verify EsoBiotec's clinical trial results, patent portfolio, and regulatory compliance.
Milestone Payments:
Conditional payments made to the seller upon achieving specified objectives post-acquisition. Here, AstraZeneca's agreement to pay up to $575 million in milestone payments is contingent upon EsoBiotec meeting certain development and regulatory milestones.
Simone Liang
AstraZeneca’s $1 Billion Acquisition of EsoBiotec: A Cross-Border M&A Deal in Cell Therapy
Jessica Li
AstraZeneca has announced its agreement to acquire Belgian biotech firm EsoBiotec in a deal worth up to $1 billion, further strengthening its position in the rapidly evolving cell and gene therapy space. The transaction includes an initial payment of $425 million, with up to $575 million in additional payments tied to development and regulatory achievements.
The acquisition aligns with AstraZeneca’s strategy to expand in cell therapies, which involve modifying a patient’s own cells to combat cancer. AstraZeneca was drawn to the technology after seeing promising early data from EsoBiotec’s clinical trials in multiple myeloma, a type of bone marrow cancer. EsoBiotec’s technology offers a faster, more cost-effective approach to CAR-T therapy by engineering immune cells inside the patient’s body through targeted viral delivery - potentially transforming access to cell therapy. Only 10–20% of patients currently have access to cell therapy due to the complexity and cost, but EsoBiotec’s simpler method could significantly widen that access and reduce the burden on health systems like the NHS.
AstraZeneca moved quickly to secure the deal after seeing encouraging early patient data presented at JP Morgan’s healthcare conference in January 2025. The deal builds on AstraZeneca’s previous acquisitions, including its $1.2 billion purchase of Gracell Biotechnologies in 2023, and expands its cell therapy pipeline to seven programmes. The acquisition is set to close in the second quarter of 2025, at which point EsoBiotec will become a wholly owned subsidiary, continuing operations in Belgium.
AstraZeneca’s acquisition of EsoBiotec represents a significant M&A transaction, particularly within the pharmaceutical and biotech sectors, and is a cross-border deal involving complex international elements. Legal teams involved in this type of transaction must conduct extensive due diligence, including a thorough review of EsoBiotec’s pipeline, ongoing clinical trials, and potential regulatory risks. In addition, the deal would involve detailed negotiations, especially concerning the price structure and milestone-based payments. Law firms Covington & Burling and Cooley are acting as legal counsel in the deal. Covington is advising AstraZeneca, continuing its long-standing relationship with the pharma giant, while Cooley is representing EsoBiotec, with a cross-border team led by partners in London and San Diego. AstraZeneca has also maintained its relationship with Freshfields, which advised on major deals including the $39 billion acquisition of Alexion in 2020, still its largest to date.
This deal further reinforces AstraZeneca’s commitment to leading in oncology innovation, while offering a textbook example of how international M&A activity in the biotech sector engages legal teams across jurisdictions, specialisms, and practice areas.
Links:
EU Enacts Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive – European Commission
The European Union has adopted the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), aiming to promote sustainable and responsible corporate behaviour. The directive requires companies to identify and address adverse human rights and environmental impacts within their operations and global value chains. It applies to EU and non-EU companies operating in the EU that meet specific thresholds, including a net turnover of over €450 million. Companies must conduct due diligence to prevent, mitigate, and remedy potential negative impacts, with enforcement mechanisms in place to ensure compliance.
US Senators Introduce Bill to Shield Companies from EU Sustainability Rules – ESG Today
U.S. Senate Republicans have introduced the "PROTECT USA" Act, legislation designed to protect U.S. companies from enforcement actions related to the EU's Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). The bill aims to prevent adverse actions against U.S. entities for non-compliance with foreign sustainability regulations, reflecting concerns over the extraterritorial reach of the EU directive.