Motorola has been denied permission to appeal against the UK competition regulator’s ruling that it was making excessive profits from its contract to provide communications for Britain’s emergency services. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the company’s application, upholding the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) decision to impose a price cap on Motorola’s Airwave network.
The CMA introduced the cap in July 2023, reducing the cost of the Airwave service to reflect a competitive market, cutting an estimated £200 million in annual charges. Motorola had previously challenged the regulator’s findings at a tribunal but was unsuccessful. CMA Executive Director George Lusty welcomed the court’s decision, stating it ensures fair pricing for emergency services and marks the end of the legal dispute.
A Motorola spokesperson defended the company’s role, emphasising that Airwave remains essential for UK public safety communications. Despite disagreeing with the CMA’s ruling, Motorola said it is focused on continuing to provide high-quality emergency communication services.
Ireland’s Data Protection Commission (DPC) has asked Chinese AI company DeepSeek to clarify how it processes the personal data of Irish users. The request comes as part of ongoing efforts to ensure compliance with European data protection laws.
Unlike major US tech firms that base their EU operations in Ireland, DeepSeek has not designated the country as its European headquarters. This means the company does not fall under the same oversight framework as other large technology firms, prompting the regulator to seek direct answers on its data handling practices.
The DPC’s inquiry highlights the increasing scrutiny of foreign tech companies operating in Europe, especially those dealing with sensitive user information. As concerns over privacy and data security continue to grow, regulators are expected to tighten enforcement to ensure adherence to strict EU data protection laws.
Apple has clarified that it has never sold data collected by its Siri voice assistant or used it to create marketing profiles. The statement, issued Wednesday, follows a $95 million settlement last week to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging that Siri had inadvertently recorded private conversations and shared them with third parties, including advertisers. Apple denied the claims and admitted no wrongdoing as part of the settlement, which could result in payouts of up to $20 per Siri-enabled device for millions of affected customers.
The controversy stemmed from claims that Siri sometimes activated unintentionally, recording sensitive interactions. Apple emphasised in its statement that Siri data is used minimally and only for real-time server input when necessary, with no retention of audio recordings unless users explicitly opt-in. Even in such cases, the recordings are solely used to improve Siri’s functionality. Apple reaffirmed its commitment to privacy, stating, ‘Apple has never used Siri data to build marketing profiles, never made it available for advertising, and never sold it to anyone.’
This case has drawn attention alongside a similar lawsuit targeting Google’s Voice Assistant, currently pending in federal court in San Jose, California. Both lawsuits are spearheaded by the same legal teams, highlighting growing scrutiny over how tech companies handle voice assistant data.
AI is revolutionising the legal field, offering solutions to improve fairness and reduce costs in the justice system. Tools powered by AI are being used to streamline tasks like analysing evidence, drafting contracts, and preparing cases. Organisations like the Westway Trust in London are adopting AI to assist clients with complex disputes, such as benefits appeals and housing issues. These tools save hours of work, enabling paralegals to focus on providing better support.
The technology has sparked excitement and debate among legal professionals. AI models are being developed to help barristers identify inconsistencies in real-time court transcripts and assist judges with evidence analysis. Advocates argue that AI could make justice more accessible, while reducing the burden on legal practitioners and cutting costs for clients. However, concerns about accuracy and bias persist, with experts emphasising the importance of human oversight.
Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, underscores the need for AI to complement, not replace, human judges. Guidelines stress transparency in AI use and the responsibility of lawyers to verify outputs. While tools like ChatGPT can provide general advice, professionals caution against relying on non-specialised AI for legal matters. Experts believe that AI will play a crucial role in addressing the fairness gap in the justice system without compromising the rule of law.
Google has proposed a legal alternative to a United States Department of Justice recommendation to dismantle its Chrome browser. Instead, the company suggests barring itself from using app licensing agreements to secure default software positions.
The proposal follows a landmark ruling declaring Google a monopoly. The government seeks stronger measures, including a ban on exclusive deals ensuring Google’s dominance on smartphones and other devices.
Judge Amit Mehta’s decision on antitrust remedies is expected to influence the tech industry. Google plans to appeal any adverse ruling.
The European Union is addressing a trade dispute with India over tariffs on ICT goods, which India has effectively blocked under the World Trade Organization (WTO) by appealing a favourable report for the EU to the non-functional WTO Appellate Body, stalling the resolution process. India has also rejected alternative dispute resolution methods, such as ad hoc appeal arbitration or a mutually agreed solution.
In response, the EU uses its Enforcement Regulation to enforce international trade obligations when disputes are blocked, ensuring that WTO rules are respected. The EU has launched a consultation for concerned entities, with responses due by 10 February 2025, to guide decisions on potential commercial policy measures should a mutually satisfactory solution not be reached.
At the same time, the EU continues to seek a resolution through alternative means, inviting India to join the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arrangement (MPIA) or agree to ad hoc appeal arbitration. The dispute began in 2014 when India imposed customs duties of up to 20% on various ICT products, which the EU argues violates India’s WTO commitments to apply a zero-duty rate.
In 2019, the EU initiated the WTO dispute settlement process, and in April 2023, the panel ruled in favour of the EU, confirming that India’s tariffs were inconsistent with WTO rules. India appealed the decision in December 2023, prolonging the dispute.
Global digital governance was the main topic in a key discussion led by moderator Timea Suto, gathering experts to tackle challenges in AI, data management, and internet governance. At the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, speakers emphasised balancing innovation with regulatory consistency while highlighting the need for inclusive frameworks that address societal biases and underrepresented voices.
Thomas Schneider of Ofcom Switzerland underscored the Council of Europe‘s AI convention as a promising standard for global interoperability. Meta’s Flavia Alves advocated for open-source AI to drive global collaboration and safer products. Meanwhile, Yoichi Iida from Japan‘s Ministry of Communications outlined the G7 Hiroshima AI code as an international step forward, while concerns about dataset biases were raised from the audience.
Data governance discussions focused on privacy and trust in cross-border flows. Maarit Palovirta of Connect Europe called for harmonised regulations to protect privacy while fostering innovation. Yoichi Iida highlighted OECD initiatives on trusted data sharing, with Amr Hashem of the GSMA stressing the need to develop infrastructure alongside governance, particularly in underserved regions.
The future of internet governance also featured prominently, with Irina Soeffky from Germany‘s Digital Ministry reinforcing the multi-stakeholder model amid calls to update WSIS structures. Audience member Bertrand de La Chapelle proposed reforming the Internet Governance Forum to reflect current challenges. Jacques Beglinger of EuroDIG stressed the importance of grassroots inclusion, while Desiree Milosevic-Evans highlighted gender representation gaps in governance.
Canada‘s Larisa Galadza framed the coming year as critical for advancing the Global Digital Compact, with priorities on AI governance under Canada’s G7 presidency. Maria Fernanda Garza of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) called for alignment in governance while maintaining flexibility for local needs amid ongoing multilateral challenges.
Speakers concluded that collaboration, inclusivity, and clear mandates are key to shaping effective digital governance. As technological change accelerates, the dialogue reinforces the need for adaptable, action-oriented strategies to ensure equity and innovation globally.
Australia’s government has abandoned a proposal to fine social media platforms up to 5% of their global revenue for failing to curb online misinformation. The decision follows resistance from various political parties, making the legislation unlikely to pass the Senate.
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland stated the proposal aimed to enhance transparency and hold tech companies accountable for limiting harmful misinformation online. Despite broad public support for tackling misinformation, opposition from conservative and crossbench politicians stalled the plan.
The centre-left Labor government, currently lagging in polls, faces criticism for its approach. Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young described the proposed law as a ‘half-baked option,’ adding to calls for more robust measures against misinformation.
Industry group DIGI, including Meta, argued the proposal merely reinforced an existing code. Australia’s tech regulation efforts are part of broader concerns about foreign platforms undermining national sovereignty.
Ofcom has linked the violent unrest in England and Northern Ireland during the summer to the rapid spread of harmful content on social media platforms. The media regulator found that disinformation and illegal posts circulated widely online following the Southport stabbings in July, which sparked the disorder.
While some platforms acted swiftly to remove inflammatory content, others were criticised for uneven responses. Experts highlighted the significant influence of social media in driving divisive narratives during the crisis, with some calling for platforms to be held accountable for unchecked dangerous content.
Ofcom, which has faced criticism for its handling of the situation, argued that its enhanced powers under the forthcoming Online Safety Act were not yet in force at the time. The new legislation will introduce stricter responsibilities for tech firms in tackling harmful content and disinformation.
The unrest, the worst seen in the United Kingdom in a decade, resulted in arrests and public scrutiny of tech platforms. A high-profile row erupted between the Prime Minister and Elon Musk, after the billionaire suggested that civil war was inevitable following the disorder, a claim strongly rebuked by Sir Keir Starmer.
A new AI tool created by Google DeepMind, called the ‘Habermas Machine,’ could help reduce culture war divides by mediating between different viewpoints. The system takes individual opinions and generates group statements that reflect both majority and minority perspectives, aiming to foster greater agreement.
Developed by researchers, including Professor Chris Summerfield from the University of Oxford, the AI system has been tested in the United Kingdom with more than 5,000 participants. It was found that the statements created by AI were often rated higher in clarity and quality than those written by human mediators, increasing group consensus by eight percentage points on average.
The Habermas Machine was also used in a virtual citizens’ assembly on topics such as Brexit and universal childcare. It was able to produce group statements that acknowledged minority views without marginalising them, but the AI approach does have its critics.
Some researchers argue that AI-mediated discussions don’t always promote empathy or give smaller minorities enough influence in shaping the final statements. Despite these concerns, the potential for AI to assist in resolving social disagreements remains a promising development.
