The House of Lords
July 27, 2024
Who, Robot – Can Artificial Intelligence be Protected Under Intellectual Property Law?
July 28, 2024
The King’s Speech: Real change or more of the same?
On the 17th of July 2024, King Charles gave the King’s Speech in the House of Lords, marking the opening of a new Parliamentary session. The King’s Speech sets the legislative agenda and highlights what bills the Government plans on introducing.
The newly elected Labour government has a clear appetite for reform, with 40 bills included in the speech. The legal changes outlined in the King’s Speech will be far-reaching in scope, meaning law students need to pay close attention to stay up to date.
Housing and the property market
One sector likely to see real change is Housing. The overarching theme in this area is to strengthen the rights and protections of renters at the expense of property owners.
Specifically, the Renters’ Rights bill will ban ‘section 21’ no-fault evictions and introduce new obligations for social landlords to keep their housing in good condition. This will provide more security for tenants as Landlords will now have to give a reason for evicting tenants, preventing unexpected and retaliatory evictions.
However, it is important to consider how these changes might affect landlords and the property market. Some landlords might exit the rental market after having bad experiences with tenants they cannot evict or being unable to justify extra expenses, leaving some tenants without security in an already competitive rental market.
For law firms, demand for conveyancing services may increase due to landlords selling properties, increasing revenue. Furthermore, lawyers may advise landlords to be more cautious when drafting tenancy agreements and suggest expressly including new terms leading to eviction.
Protection of employees
Another area likely to see real change is Employment law. In the King’s Speech, the Labour government pledged to introduce an ‘Employment Rights Bill’ banning zero-hour contracts, banning ‘fire-and-rehire’ practices and allowing employees to claim unfair dismissal from day one.
At first glance, this would massively strengthen the rights of individual employees against their employers. Ultimately, employees are in a much weaker bargaining position than employers, making these changes unsurprising.
However, it will still be possible to ‘opt-in’ to zero-hour contracts, which some employers might take advantage of to continue exploitative zero-hour contracts, making the changes potentially less significant.
Furthermore, these reforms might open the floodgates to many new employment tribunal claims, so it would not be surprising if the final bill is watered-down. As such, law firms might experience more employment tribunal claims and should expect to advise businesses around changes to employment contracts.
Constitutional changes
Interestingly, the King’s Speech promised several new constitutional changes. However, many of these changes seem to be a continuation of previous government policy.
These include abolishing the 89 remaining hereditary peers, which begun under the previous Labour government, and a Devolution bill to create more mayoral areas and transfer powers from central government to local government. This was started under the previous Conservative government.
These changes are significant as they will reach across many different sectors and change who makes laws. For example, local planning rules might differ regionally due to greater autonomy, meaning firms will have to keep on top of any changes made by local authorities to minimise disruption for the construction sector.
Aspects not addressed
It is also important to look at what was anticipated but not included in the King’s Speech to determine the scale of legal change, as there is evidence to suggest the Labour government are acting cautiously.
It was anticipated Constitutional reform would go further by forcing Lords to retire at 80 and lowering the voting age to 16. However, neither of these reforms made it into the King’s Speech.
Politically speaking, this may be because Keir Starmer is conscious of disrupting the markets in the same way Liz Truss did after her 2022 ‘mini-budget’. There is evidence to support this, as Labour have already suspended seven MPs who voted on July 23rd to remove the two-child benefit cap.
This may not be bad news for lawyers, as changes will come slowly and predicably, allowing law students and lawyers to familiarise themselves with changes before they are implemented.
Looking forward
Overall, the King’s Speech highlights Labour’s attempt at balancing change with stability. They need to offer political change to keep themselves relevant, but they also need to act cautiously to avoid upsetting the markets. Although the legislative agenda put forward in the King’s Speech is lacking in places, there is clear appetite for reform and there will be slow, predictable change over the coming years. Lawyers and law students should watch closely as these changes will be significant.
Article by Callum Stewart
AI on Trial
How workday’s novel bias lawsuit could reshape job searching
Recent years have witnessed AI become a crucial tool in the job market, streamlining hiring processes and enhancing efficiency. However, recent legal challenges have sparked a significant debate and potential biases.
Workday Inc., a prominent provider of HR software, has recently faced a groundbreaking class action lawsuit alleging that its AI-driven hiring tool discriminates against job applicants based on race, age, and disability. The case, while ongoing, has opened the floodgates for critical discussions on the inherent issues within AI-powered hiring practices.
Critical Issues
Bias and Discrimination
The core allegation is that Workday trains its AI software using data from a company’s existing workforce to filter out best applicants. Despite the intention to create neutral hiring processes, this approach does not account for the existing discrimination that it may reflect, potentially perpetuating discrimination in the screening of job applicants.
Transparency and Accountability
AI algorithms often operate as ‘black boxes,’ with their decision-making processes hidden from scrutiny. This opacity makes it difficult for affected individuals to understand or challenge discriminatory outcomes.
Wider Implications
Regulatory Changes
A ruling against Workday could set a significant precedent and lead to stricter regulations on AI in hiring, emphasizing the need for greater transparency and fairness. Potential mandates could include regular audits and clearer disclosures of AI decision-making processes.
While the case is ongoing, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which enforces federal laws against workplace discrimination, urged Judge Rita Lin, who is presiding over the case, to allow it to proceed in an April brief. The EEOC has warned employers that they can be held legally liable if their screening software has a discriminatory impact.
Shift in Hiring Practices
Companies might become more cautious in deploying AI for recruitment, possibly reverting to more human-centric approaches to avoid legal risks. Alternatively, and more likely, they might develop hybrid models that combine AI with human oversight to mitigate biases.
Enhanced Rights
Successful litigation could strengthen legal protection for job applicants, ensuring fair treatment regardless of AI-driven processes. This might lead to broader advocacy and support for equitable hiring practices across industries.
Implications for Law Firms and Legal Professionals
Litigation and Representation
The most obvious point – law firms represent plaintiffs in class action lawsuits, helping to gather evidence and build strong cases against companies utilizing AI-powered hiring systems.
Contrarily, law firms also represent companies accused of using these systems, challenging the allegations, questioning the evidence and arguing for the legality and fairness of the AI technologies in use.
Compliance and Advisory Services
Law firms will often be involved in guiding and advising companies on how to comply with emerging AI regulations, understand the legal landscape, and ensure their technologies are designed and implemented ethically and most importantly, within legal bounds.
Policy Advocacy and Education
Legal professionals, such as government lawyers, might engage in policy advocacy, working with legislators to shape regulations that govern AI hiring.
Meanwhile, law firms may also take part in educating employers and (future) employees about their rights and responsibilities. Many of these firms may host seminars, publish guidelines and provide training to help different stakeholders navigate the evolving legal environment.
Going forward
The ongoing lawsuit against Workday represents a crucial moment in the discourse surrounding AI in recruitment. It underscores the need for greater transparency and accountability in how these technologies are used.
As the legal battle progresses, it may prompt stricter regulations and encourage companies to re-evaluate their hiring practices. This case not only has the potential to reshape how AI tools are implemented but also to enhance protections for job seekers, ensuring a fairer process in employment decisions.
The role of law firms will be vital in navigating these changes, advocating for equitable practices, and guiding both companies and individuals through the evolving legal landscape. Ultimately, this legal scrutiny highlights the urgent need to address biases and ensure that AI serves as a fair and impartial tool in job searching.
Article by Cindy Le
Legal Implications of the Global IT Outage
On the 18th of July 2024, a significant global IT outage disrupted services across various sectors. The outage impacted major tech firms, financial institutions, healthcare providers, and government systems. This incident has raised serious concerns about the resilience of our digital infrastructure and its ability to handle unexpected disruptions.
Wide ranging disruptions
There were significant technical failures, causing an infrastructure breakdown where there were hardware failures, airplane and train signal failures, and bugs in critical centres which led to the widespread service disruptions. These included many coffee and food shops having to sell their products either for free or cash only as their systems were not working.
However, what is of more concern is the medical system struggling wherein, doctors had to resort to making paper patient records, as they were unable to access the relevant and important files and documents they needed. Ultimately, this impacted patient care and medical operations.
Many banks and financial institutions experienced transaction halts, causing significant economic disruptions. The disruptions may have led to exploitable system vulnerabilities, exacerbating the outage; wherein Russian hackers stole key NHS records of over 1000 patients.
Compliance and liability
There were many other compliance and liabilities risks. There were service level agreements which were breached, prompting potential legal claims for compensation from affected businesses and consumers.
The breaches led to many individuals asking for compensation and businesses being impacted. Additionally, compliance with GDPR, HIPAA, and other data protection regulations were at risk, with potential fines for non-compliance and data breaches, causing litigation risks.
Broader implications
In the wake of the global IT outage, governments are likely to expedite reviews of cybersecurity and infrastructure policies to enhance resilience against similar incidents in the future. This revaluation aims to ensure that critical systems are better protected and more robust.
Moreover, we can expect new regulations and stricter compliance requirements for digital infrastructure and cybersecurity. These measures will aim to hold organisations accountable for maintaining high security standards and ensuring continuity of services.
Additionally, the outage severely impacted public trust in digital services, highlighting the need for more robust and reliable IT solutions. Essential services faced interruptions, increasing public concern over the reliability of digital infrastructures.
The erosion of trust underscores the importance of ensuring that digital services are resilient and can withstand disruptions to maintain public confidence. The outage revealed critical vulnerabilities in IT infrastructure, prompting calls for urgent upgrades and cybersecurity enhancements.
There is a growing push for innovation in creating resilient and secure technology solutions to prevent future outages. This drive for technological improvement aims to address the weaknesses exposed by the outage and to develop more reliable IT systems.
Law firms
Law firms play a pivotal role in managing litigation and claims, particularly through class actions and dispute resolution related to breached service level agreements and contractual obligations. They are instrumental in ensuring regulatory compliance, conducting compliance audits, and advising on policy development to bolster resilience against emerging regulations.
In the realm of cybersecurity and data protection, law firms offer crucial support during incident responses, assisting with regulatory reporting and mitigation strategies, while also managing the legal intricacies of data breach notifications and liaising with regulatory authorities. Law firms are also pivotal in risk management, advising on strategies to mitigate future risks and handling insurance claims to recover financial losses from cyber incidents.
The global IT outage on 18th July 2024 has underscored the urgent need for robust digital infrastructure and comprehensive cybersecurity measures. As industries and governments work to restore services and mitigate the impacts, the role of law firms will be crucial in navigating the legal complexities, ensuring compliance, and advocating for affected parties.
Moving forward, there will be a heightened focus on innovation, regulatory reforms, and resilience building to safeguard against future disruptions.
Article by Akarsshaa Bhargavaa
Deepfakes Under the Law
The law has always evolved to meet the demands of the times. With the advancement of technology, legislative rectifications have justly been put in place to protect the rights of 21st century technophiles and alike.
However, with the exponential development of artificial intelligence, a new problem arises: deepfakes. The only question is, can the greys of the law learn to tango with the binary of ChatGPT & co? And quickly?
The Issues with Deepfakes
Deepfakes are pieces of synthetic media generated by artificial intelligence. They can be used to take on the likeness of certain people or situations. Now this is all peachy if you want to pull a prank on your mates, but not so lovely when you’re Taylor Swift and you’re suddenly getting cancelled over an explicit deepfake of you being circulated over the world wide web.
Unfortunately, Taylor Swift is not the only celebrity who has been affected by deepfakes. To name a few, Piers Morgan and Oprah Winfrey have also been affected by the new technology. In their cases, they were deepfaked to give the impression of endorsement for self-help courses.
Legal implications
As one can imagine, deepfakes have serious implications in the legal industry. Picture a legal case. On the one hand, a deepfake could be presented as real evidence and thus invalidate the whole legitimacy of the case, holding the entire legal system to question.
Or, even worse, real evidence could be ignored under the interpretation of it being a deepfake. This could result in the penalisation of innocent people and corporations or courts leaving offenders to go scot free.
One must restrain from imagining that particularly selfish people could falsely accuse defendants with evidence based solely on deepfakes they generated. Nevertheless, all these issues lead to a greater injustice and lead one to question if the legal system is really fair at all.
Otherwise, the psychological and social impacts of deepfakes do not go unnoticed. They have the potential to bring disrepute upon innocent people. In this way, deepfakes published online can be interpreted as a form of defamation and should be seriously punishable under the law,
How has the government responded?
Thankfully, governments around the world have acknowledged these problems and taken active steps to deal with them. In the UK, making sexually explicit deepfakes will become illegal under a law announced in April 2024.
Deepfakes of this kind have been deemed ‘absolutely inappropriate’ regardless of the intention to share them or not. This builds on last year’s reforms on the Online Safety Act, whereby the sharing of intimate deepfakes online was criminalised. British celebrities must sleep better at night!
Going forward….
Whilst these changes mean that British celebrities have much more restful nights, law firms still face the potential future problem of distinguishing non-intimate deepfake evidence from true evidence.
Will this become a big problem in the years to come? Only time will tell.
Regardless, it’s nice to know that the law has our backs and will continue to change in order to do so!
Article by Caprice Gimoh
