Strategic commerical contracts

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/suzanne/profile

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

AI infrastructure demand is absorbing a growing share of memory supply (e.g., semiconductors, crucial components within the technology stack that underpin computer memory). This is particularly true of high‑bandwidth memory (HBM), a specialist form of memory commonly used to support AI applications. Such allocation is tightening availability and increasing price volatility for manufacturers outside the traditional tech ecosystem.

Published: 9 April 2026
Authors: Michelle Craven-Faulkner

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/kerry-finch/profile

false

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/michelle-craven-faulkner/profile

false

style

single-column-text

Mobility manufacturers (automotive, rail and industrial transport) are exposed because memory sits inside safety‑critical and compute‑heavy systems, and design lifecycles make rapid substitution difficult.

The risk is two‑track: operational disruption (line stoppages, redesign, qualification delays, quality and counterfeit risk) and contractual exposure (missed milestones, LDs, substitution disputes, forecasting and allocation conflicts).

The most resilient response combines procurement discipline and engineering optionality with contracts that anticipate structural scarcity: clearer relief mechanisms, faster substitution approvals, binding forecast tools and robust provenance controls.

1. Why this shortage is different: allocation, not just capacity

The current pressure point is not simply ‘chip shortage’ in the abstract. Known as a new "RAMmageddon," this shortage differs from previous supply chain crises, and is driven by specialised AI application demand, as opposed to pandemic-related disruption. It is a structural reallocation of manufacturing focus toward AI‑optimised memory, particularly high‑bandwidth memory (HBM) used alongside AI accelerators. When capacity and engineering effort tilt toward HBM, conventional DRAM availability tightens for other industries, and price volatility follows.

With shortages predicated to last through until the end of 2027, for manufacturers, the practical consequence is that memory behaves less like a commodity component and more like an allocated strategic input. Allocation of these critical components tends to favour counterparties such as hyperscalers, who can commit to volume, time and commercial terms — which can leave traditional industrial buyers exposed if their purchasing model assumes availability at point of need.

2. The operational risk: How memory scarcity becomes a production‑stop event

In mobility manufacturing, memory is embedded in compute‑heavy systems across vehicle platforms and supporting production equipment. This scarcity creates immediate operational fragility, even where the rest of the bill of materials remains available.

(a) Line stoppages and schedule disruption: a missing memory component can halt builds and derail sequencing, because many systems cannot ship partially assembled.

(b) Forced redesign and requalification: substitution is rarely ‘drop‑in’. Board revisions, firmware changes, EMC retesting and — in regulated environments — safety/cyber assurance can extend lead times as well as cost materially.

(c) Quality and counterfeit risk: scarcity invites brokered sourcing. Without disciplined provenance controls, manufacturers face elevated risk of latent defects, warranty exposure and recalls.

(d) Margin shock: price increases land quickly in fixed‑price programmes and long‑term supply frameworks, compressing margins and creating tension around variation and indexation mechanisms.

(e) Profiteering: as a consequence of the above, suppliers can be seen to be profiteering with inflated costs and driving panic buying and stock piling with limited price validity.

3. The contractual risk: ‘You promised delivery’ meets ‘we can’t buy memory’

Contractual exposure typically concentrates in four areas.

(1) Delivery obligations and LDs: programmes often impose hard milestones and liquidated damages for failures to meet those timescales. If shortages cause slippage, manufacturers face LDs and termination risk unless relief is clearly available.

(2) Force majeure and relief events: many clauses do not treat market shortage or price increase as a qualifying event. Even where relief is available, mitigation obligations are often extensive (From COVID to conflict: The evolving face of force majeure in 2026).

(3) Change control and substitution: approved‑parts regimes can trap suppliers — unable to build without substitution, but unable to substitute without approval which can take time to achieve. Disputes then arise around whether approvals are unreasonably withheld and whether time/cost relief follows.

(4) Forecasting and allocation: where allocation depends on commitment, vague forecast language leaves buyers unprotected. Conversely, overly rigid commitments can create liability if demand shifts.

4. Mobility‑specific pinch points

Mobility manufacturers are hit harder than consumer sectors because design lives are long, regulation constrains redesign speed, and tiered supply chains reduce visibility of upstream allocation until late. Many mobility platforms also rely on legacy memory generations, which may be deprioritised as producers chase higher‑margin products.

5. What manufacturers should do now (operational playbook)

A resilient response blends commercial, engineering and governance actions.

map exposure: identify at‑risk memory types and single points of failure across platforms and suppliers
visibility: where manufacture is linked to a deliverable to a contractual customer, flag potential delays sooner rather than later. Shared visibility may lend itself to shared mitigation or easier approval of substitutes
design for substitutability: build optionality into future designs (dual‑sourcing, broader qualification ranges) and agree minimum revalidation requirements for substitutions
secure supply with structured commitments: where critical, consider reservation agreements, volume bands, controlled prepayments and sensible buffer stock, where possible in the current climate
strengthen supplier governance: impose early‑warning obligations, escalation triggers and tier‑down reporting on lead times, allocations and end‑of‑life notices.

6. What to do from a contractual standpoint in relation to existing contracts

In addition to the above operation points it is suggested that those in the supply chain:

identification: identify those contracts with customers and/or suppliers that are impacted or likely to be in the future as a result of any shortages
supply chain: contact suppliers to determine whether this position will hinder their ability to supply to you
substitution: consider whether your contracts permit substitution and if they don’t whether a variation would be suitable
pricing: what is the contractual pricing position? Is it fixed pricing? For how long? What role does indexation play? Anything specified related to changes in market?
force majeure: what does your force majeure clause cover relating to material shortages or delays?

7. What to do from a contractual standpoint for new contracts

The objective is practical: enable continuity of build and defendability of outcomes:

relief drafting for structural scarcity: refresh force majeure/relief definitions to address allocation constraints and end‑of‑life events, paired with clear mitigation standards and evidence requirements.
approvals that cannot silently stall: create objective approval criteria, response times and staged approvals for substitutions, with narrow deemed‑approval mechanisms where appropriate.
forecasting that drives allocation fairly: define what is binding, set tolerance bands and allocate liability for forecast error; link forecasting to allocation consequences.
pricing tools that match volatility: for long‑term programmes, consider indexation, reopeners or risk‑sharing for memory‑linked components or any other components which are impacted by similar circumstances of unavailability or material price increases.
provenance controls: tighten audit, traceability and anti‑counterfeit provisions; ensure warranties and remedies are aligned to safety‑critical risk.

Conclusion

The manufacturing world is used to managing volatility, but the current dynamic is different: AI demand is reshaping memory supply through allocation and margin incentives. For mobility manufacturers, treating memory as a strategic input — and building contractual flexibility and engineering optionality around that reality — is now essential.

The strongest outcomes come from combining procurement discipline and governance with contracts that anticipate scarcity. Waiting to address the issue until the point of line‑stop is, in most cases, too late.

Practical takeaways

treat memory as an allocated input: establish a cross‑functional ‘scarcity’ playbook spanning legal, procurement and engineering
refresh contracts now: relief, substitution approvals, forecasting and price mechanisms should match a constrained supply reality
strengthen provenance controls: counterfeits and poor storage conditions are predictable risks in a brokered market
escalate early: governance triggers should bring legal/engineering decisions forward — before build windows close.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-sectors/ddcc-mobility-logistics-and-manufacturing-perspectives

]]>

Late payment: From voluntary codes to real consequences

Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:af291c67-c26c-4ae9-9bf1-cae53fc5f9e0/as/ART-mila-vasileva-ae4g9FeuRPw-unsplash.avif?assetname=ART-mila-vasileva-ae4g9FeuRPw-unsplash.jpg

Article | 4 min read

Late payment: From voluntary codes to real consequences

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/michelle-craven-faulkner/profile

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The government’s announcement of expanded powers for the Small Business Commissioner marks a decisive shift in the UK’s approach to late payment. For the first time, persistent late payers face the prospect of meaningful financial penalties, alongside enhanced dispute resolution powers and tighter statutory controls on payment terms.

Published: 24 March 2026
Authors: Michelle Craven-Faulkner

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/jennifer-clarke/profile

false

style

single-column-text

This is a significant moment. Late payment has long been recognised as a structural drag on the UK economy, disproportionately affecting SMEs that lack the leverage to challenge poor payment practices. Government research suggests late payments cost the UK economy almost £11 billion each year, with businesses spending significant time and resource simply trying to recover money they are already owed.

Real accountability, not voluntary codes

While voluntary initiatives such as the Fair Payment Code and payment practice transparency reporting have helped improve awareness and behaviour in some quarters, they have not been sufficient to change conduct among the worst offenders. The same is also true when considering the impact of the Procurement Act 2023 , which, despite mandating clear 30 payment terms throughout the supply chain, is in our experience often overlooked or poorly embedded in day to day commercial practice.

The new regime is materially different. Under the proposals announced by government, the Small Business Commissioner will be given the power to issue financial penalties against large businesses that are persistent late payers, with those penalties potentially calculated as a percentage of turnover. For some organisations, that could equate to penalties running into millions of pounds, elevating late payment from an operational issue to a genuine financial and governance risk.

A strategic moment for all businesses

In addition, the Commissioner’s role will be expanded to include a new adjudication function, enabling late payment disputes to be resolved out of court. This is intended to provide SMEs with a more accessible route to redress, reducing reliance on litigation and addressing the commercial reality that many suppliers are reluctant to pursue customers through the courts.

These powers sit alongside other measures announced as part of the wider package, including a mandatory 60 day cap on payment terms for large businesses paying smaller suppliers and mandatory statutory interest on late payments, with contracts required to include interest at 8% above the Bank of England base rate. Taken together, these reforms are designed to give the UK what the Government has described as the strongest late payment framework in the G7, combining cultural change with enforceable sanctions.

These developments build directly on themes that we have explored in our earlier thought leadership on late payment reform, including:

One thing our articles have consistently highlighted is a core issue we continue to see in practice: contractual rights mean little if SMEs are reluctant or unable to enforce them. Strengthening the Commissioner’s enforcement and adjudication role is expressly intended to address that imbalance and rebalance negotiating power across supply chains. In addition to the Commissioner’s role, public authorities awarding contracts under the Procurement Act will assess past payment compliance, meaning a poor record in paying suppliers will adversely impact businesses’ opportunities to win public contracts.

For businesses up and down the supply chain, the message is clear. Now is the time to review payment terms, invoicing practices and dispute processes, and to ensure internal practices align with the direction of travel. For those that get this right, prompt payment is not just compliance — it is a competitive advantage. For those that do not, the cost of paying late is about to rise sharply.

What businesses should be doing now

Large organisations should:

audit payment practices across all suppliers, not just SMEs, to identify systemic delays or long payment terms.
review standard contract terms to ensure payment periods do not exceed the proposed 60 day cap and that statutory interest provisions are properly included.
strengthen internal governance,, ensuring boards, audit committees and finance teams understand the potential financial and reputational consequences of persistent late payment.
prepare for greater scrutiny, including the possibility of Commissioner led investigations, adjudication and turnover linked penalties.

SMEs and suppliers should:

understand their rights to statutory interest and enforcement under the new regime.
tighten invoicing and dispute processes to ensure invoices are clear, accurate and promptly issued.
consider early engagement with the Small Business Commissioner, particularly where late payment is persistent and informal escalation has failed.
factor payment behaviour into commercial decision making, including supplier and customer selection.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-transactional-and-advisory/ddcc-strategic-commercial-contracts

]]>

Are we running out of time to decarbonise heavy commercial vehicles?

Mon, 23 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:0d626862-e910-44b1-b44b-b2aa79a75d44/as/ART-u2114277519_create_high_end_photography_showing_macro_detail__bb059a9c-c5b0-496b-9596-099238a908d0_2.avif?assetname=ART-u2114277519_create_high_end_photography_showing_macro_detail__bb059a9c-c5b0-496b-9596-099238a908d0_2.jpg

Article | 7 min read

Are we running out of time to decarbonise heavy commercial vehicles?

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/chris-pritchett/profile

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

Nearly four years after the UK Government set out its plan to end the sale of non zero emission heavy commercial vehicles (HCVs) by 2035 and 2040, depending on weight, a stark reality remains: heavy vehicles are lagging far behind passenger cars in the transition to zero emission. While cars have benefited from clear policy signals, rapidly improving technology and expanding infrastructure, trucks and buses face a more complex challenge.

Published: 23 March 2026
Authors: Chris Pritchett

false

style

single-column-text

At a recent panel discussion at SMMT Electrified, bringing together vehicle manufacturers, fleet operators, infrastructure providers and legal experts, one question framed the debate: are we fast running out of time to decarbonise heavy commercial vehicles?

The answer, perhaps unsurprisingly, was nuanced. Moderator of the panel, Shoosmiths Partner and E&I sector co-lead, Chris Prtichett, explores the key themes emerging from the discussion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzkK2Gx8xFY&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.shoosmiths.com%2F&source_ve_path=Mjg2NjY

Buses: A rare UK success story

In contrast to much of the heavy vehicle market, zero emission buses represent a bright spot. According to Chris Gall, Engineering Director at Alexander Dennis, the UK is now the largest electric bus market in Europe, with more than 27 percent of buses expected to be zero emission in 2025.

This progress has been driven by a combination of targeted government funding, most notably the Zero Emission Bus Regional Areas (ZEBRA) schemes, and improving commercial fundamentals. Crucially, bus operators are now finding that battery electric buses make sense on a total cost of ownership basis over their typical 20 year asset life.

Buses also benefit from operational characteristics that simplify electrification: fixed routes, predictable daily mileage and overnight depot parking. These factors reduce range anxiety and make charging infrastructure easier to deploy, particularly for large operators and local authorities under new franchising models.

However, challenges remain for smaller operators, for whom access to charging infrastructure and capital remains a barrier. For them, the transition increasingly depends on innovative funding models and service based procurement approaches.

Trucks: Technology ready, system not yet

In the truck sector, the picture is far more mixed. Amy Stokes, Decarbonisation Director at Volvo Trucks UK and Ireland, was clear that from a manufacturing perspective, the technology is already here. Volvo and other OEMs have offered full electric truck ranges for several years, and real world deployments show the vehicles can perform.

What is holding the market back is not vehicle availability, but system readiness.

Infrastructure, particularly access to affordable, reliable power, is the dominant constraint. While a single electric truck charging overnight may be manageable, scaling electrification across a fleet fundamentally changes the economics. Grid connection costs, long lead times and uncertainty over future power availability make strategic planning difficult.

Stokes also highlighted a less obvious but critical issue: securing power not just for today, but for the future. Without confidence that depots can access sufficient electricity in five or ten years’ time, fleet operators struggle to commit to long term electrification strategies.

As a result, electric trucks still account for less than one percent of annual registrations, far behind the trajectory required to meet 2035 targets.

Fleet reality: Productivity and contracts matter

From the operator perspective, Ian Macaulay, Decarbonisation Programme Lead at DHL Supply Chain, underscored the importance of productivity and customer alignment. DHL operates around 4,500 heavy goods vehicles in the UK and has already decarbonised 34 percent of its fuel use through alternatives such as HVO, biomethane and bio LNG.

These fuels have enabled rapid emissions reductions at scale without compromising operations, a key consideration in a sector with tight margins and demanding customers.

While DHL is trialling electric rigid and articulated trucks, Macaulay acknowledged the difficulty of making heavy battery electric vehicles stack up economically today. In some cases, electricity costs at depots exceed diesel equivalents, even before accounting for higher vehicle capital costs.

A further structural challenge is contract length. With typical logistics contracts lasting around three years, it is hard for operators to justify long term investment in vehicles, charging infrastructure and grid upgrades. Longer customer commitments, Macaulay argued, would unlock investment and accelerate decarbonisation.

Infrastructure: Building ahead of demand

Infrastructure provider Voltempo, represented by Corporate Development Director Michael Boxwell, is attempting to break this chicken and egg cycle. As part of the government funded Zero Emission Heavy Goods Vehicles and Infrastructure Demonstrator programme, Voltempo and its consortium partners have deployed both vehicles and high power charging infrastructure at shared depot locations.

A key strategic choice has been to build ahead of demand: installing more charging capacity than initially required and deploying megawatt scale chargers before vehicles fully arrive. This approach reduces future disruption and gives fleet operators confidence that infrastructure will not become a bottleneck as they scale.

Early results are encouraging. Operators running electric trucks for a year or more are gaining confidence and beginning to expand fleets. Long distance trials, including routes from the UK into Germany and France, have demonstrated that cross border electric freight is technically feasible, even if operational challenges remain.

The biggest obstacle, once again, is grid access. Delays of several years are common, forcing some operators to deploy temporary microgrids and battery buffering to keep projects moving.

Are we running out of time?

Despite the challenges, the panel stopped short of declaring the transition at risk. Stokes emphasised that 2035 is an end of sale date, not a ban on existing vehicles, giving operators time to integrate zero emission technologies into fleet renewal cycles.

However, there was broad agreement that time has been wasted, and that delays now will compress pressure later. Grid availability, vehicle weight and dimension regulations, and energy pricing will all determine whether the transition can scale fast enough.

What needs to change: A policy wish list

When asked what policymakers must prioritise, several themes emerged:

faster and more predictable grid connections, with better coordination between transport and energy policy
reform of vehicle weights and dimensions so electric trucks are not penalised with reduced payload
stronger financial signals, whether incentives for zero emission vehicles or disincentives for high carbon options
support for multi technology pathways, including transitional fuels such as biomethane and bio LNG
investment in resilient UK and European supply chains to reduce geopolitical risk
greater energy price stability to give operators confidence in long term operating costs

On hydrogen, the panel was pragmatic. While most agreed it may have a role in the longer term for specific use cases, battery electric is the only solution ready to scale now. Without affordable green hydrogen and widespread infrastructure, hydrogen trucks remain a future option rather than a present solution.

The verdict

The consensus was clear: we are not out of time, but we are out of slack. Heavy commercial vehicles can decarbonise at pace, but only if infrastructure, policy and commercial structures align quickly. The technology exists and the learning is happening. What is needed now is decisive, joined up action to turn pilots into mass adoption.

As one panellist put it, the industry must avoid letting perfect get in the way of much better. The road to zero may not be straight, but it needs to be travelled faster and together.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-sectors/ddcc-mobility-logistics-and-manufacturing-perspectives

]]>

The EU Industrial Accelerator Act: Key implications for UK manufacturers

Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:1f19f088-d74c-413a-bab8-e72efb931007/as/ART-GE00007.avif?assetname=ART-GE00007.jpg

Article | 3 min read

The EU Industrial Accelerator Act:

Key implications for UK manufacturers

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/ben-gardner/profile

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The EU’s proposed Industrial Accelerator Act marks a decisive shift towards economic security, low‑carbon manufacturing and tighter control of strategic industries. For UK manufacturers, the ripple effects will be immediate and structural, reshaping access to EU incentives, public procurement and investment routes. Businesses with EU‑facing supply chains must act now to understand their exposure and stay competitive.

Published: 17 March 2026
Authors: Ben Gardner

false

style

single-column-text

On 4 March 2026, the European Commission published its proposal for the Industrial Accelerator Act (IAA), a flagship initiative under the EU’s Clean Industrial Deal.

The IAA is designed to address structural vulnerabilities in EU industrial supply chains, including high energy costs and increased geopolitical risk. Its stated objective is to increase manufacturing’s share of EU GDP to 20 percent by 2035, up from 14.3 percent in 2024.

The proposal signals a significant shift in EU industrial policy, with a stronger focus on competitiveness, decarbonisation and economic security. While the UK sits outside the EU legislative framework, the IAA is likely to have material implications for UK manufacturers with EU‑facing operations, customers or supply chains.

Key measures

The draft legislation introduces several measures of potential relevance to UK businesses, including the following:

EU‑origin and low‑carbon requirements

The IAA proposes EU‑origin and low‑carbon content requirements for certain public procurement processes. Under the draft rules, contracting authorities and Member States would be required to purchase or financially support only products that meet minimum EU‑origin thresholds. The precise thresholds remain subject to negotiation.

These “made in Europe” requirements would also apply to the public procurement of electric vehicles. Once the IAA enters into force, public authorities offering consumer incentives for EVs would need to ensure that supported vehicles are substantially manufactured in Europe. In practice, this would require:

final assembly of EVs within the EU
at least 70 percent of non‑battery EV components, by value, to originate in the EU
a significant proportion of the EV battery to be manufactured in the EU.

Tighter rules on foreign investment

The IAA proposes enhanced scrutiny of foreign direct investment exceeding €100 million where the investment is made into a designated emerging strategic industry and results in control of the target.

Designated sectors include battery technologies, pure electric vehicles, off‑vehicle charging, hybrid electric vehicles and fuel cell electric vehicles, solar photovoltaic technologies, and the extraction, processing and recycling of critical raw materials. Control is defined as ownership of at least 30 percent of share capital, voting rights or equivalent interests.

The regime captures prior investments into the same target and applies only to investors from countries that control more than 40 percent of global manufacturing capacity in the relevant strategic sector. Covered investments would be subject to additional review requirements aimed at ensuring tangible economic benefits within the EU, including local employment, technology transfer and strengthened supply chain resilience.

Non‑compliance could result in penalties of up to 5 percent of the investor group’s average daily aggregate revenues, in addition to any sanctions imposed by the relevant Member State. These rules would not apply to investors established in countries with which the EU has an economic partnership or free trade agreement.

Why this matters for UK businesses

The IAA is likely to have significant commercial implications for UK manufacturers and suppliers with EU customers, operations or supply chains. EU‑origin and low‑carbon requirements may restrict access to public procurement opportunities and public funding, while the proposed investment rules could increase regulatory scrutiny for UK‑based investors participating in EU industrial projects.

The automotive sector illustrates the potential impact. Under the proposals, many EU public support schemes, including fleet electrification initiatives and subsidies for smaller EVs, would apply only to vehicles assembled within the EU27. As a result, UK‑built vehicles and components could be excluded from EU incentives.

Corporate fleet support schemes account for approximately 50 to 60 percent of the EU new‑car market, while around 60 percent of UK‑manufactured cars are exported to the EU. Against that backdrop, the IAA risks placing UK‑manufactured vehicles at a systemic disadvantage relative to EU27‑origin vehicles, with potential consequences for competitiveness and sales volumes.

That said, uncertainty remains as to how these measures will apply to UK businesses in light of post‑Brexit trade arrangements, which were intended to reduce barriers to UK‑EU trade. In addition, UK‑EU discussions are ongoing regarding potential “trusted partner” status for UK businesses, which may influence how some of the requirements operate in practice.

What’s next?

The IAA remains at the proposal stage and has not yet been adopted. It will now proceed through the EU’s ordinary legislative procedure, requiring negotiation and approval by both the European Parliament and the Council of the EU. Further amendments should therefore be expected.

In the meantime, UK manufacturers should monitor legislative developments closely, assess their exposure to EU public procurement and funding regimes, and consider the potential impact on existing and future EU‑linked operations.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-sectors/ddcc-mobility-logistics-and-manufacturing-perspectives

]]>

From COVID to conflict: The evolving face of force majeure in 2026

Mon, 16 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:71893375-48b7-4947-baa7-41f751ce0af3/as/ART-u2114277519_Close-up_product_shoot_of_deep_grey_heavy_bolt_co_b5572e30-be3f-411b-be68-6daca87f275e_3.avif?assetname=ART-u2114277519_Close-up_product_shoot_of_deep_grey_heavy_bolt_co_b5572e30-be3f-411b-be68-6daca87f275e_3.jpg

Article | 5 min read

From COVID to conflict

The evolving face of force majeure in 2026

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/michelle-craven-faulkner/profile

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

Disruption in the Middle East is exposing how well (or poorly) force majeure clauses have been drafted. Modern supply chains demand precision: clear thresholds, workable alternatives, and evidence backed mitigation. Businesses that act now, refreshing clauses and tightening operational playbooks, will stay resilient while others stall. In this article we outline what businesses should do next.

Published: 16 March 2026
Authors: Michelle Craven-Faulkner

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/ben-gardner/profile

false

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/jonathan-smart/profile

false

style

single-column-text

Changing pressures, unchanged principles

Force majeure (FM) is not a one‑size‑fits‑all safety valve. Whether disruption from the current conflict in the Middle East (including spill‑over effects such as shipping diversions, port closures, sanctions/export controls, insurance limitations and energy price spikes) excuses non‑performance turns on the exact drafting, causation, mitigation, notice, and the relief the clause actually grants. These are the same fundamentals we highlighted during and after COVID, as well as the Ukraine conflict, in our podcast series and subsequent commentary. However, it should be noted that:

drafting has moved on since COVID. Parties now expect clearer event lists, calibrated thresholds (‘prevent’, ‘hinder’ or ‘delay’), explicit mitigation duties, suspension vs. termination mechanics, and carve‑outs (e.g., price changes). Our ‘Journey Through a Contract’ and 2024 supply‑chain series track this shift and show why FM must sit within a wider disruption and resilience toolkit, not act as a stand‑alone remedy; and
case law has evolved. In 2024, the Supreme Court in RTI v MUR Shipping clarified how FM interacts with reasonable work‑arounds, reinforcing the need to draft obligations to ‘overcome’ impediments (or expressly disclaim that).

1) What the present conflict changes—and what it doesn’t

What it changes:

risk profile and frequency of disruptions: route closures/diversions, inability to call at certain ports, crew safety constraints, cargo insurance restrictions, and delay costs are more common and less predictable than in steady‑state trading. Our 2022 FM specials anticipated this multi‑factor volatility when we discussed COVID/Brexit/Ukraine as overlapping shocks
regulatory overlay: sanctions/export controls and reputational restrictions may intervene even where physical performance remains technically possible; contracts now more often include sanctions and export‑compliance FM‑style triggers and termination rights – but we have to recognise, in the current situation at least, that sanctions can be relaxed and or amended with very little notice.
What it doesn’t change:
FM remains a contractual (not statutory) tool under English law; relief lives or dies by the clause. Drafting is therefore key
after RTI v MUR, any ‘we can’t perform’ argument must be tested against reasonable alternatives and the exact drafting on mitigation/overcoming impediments.

2) Immediate actions for live contracts which have the potential to be impacted by the current Middle East situation (next 7–14 days)

Locate and map all FM (and related) provisions across your critical supplier and customer contracts: FM clause; change in law; hardship/price review; logistics and routing flexibility; sanctions/export clauses; step‑in; termination; business continuity. Create a tracker capturing triggering events, identifying threshold verbs (‘prevent’/‘hinder’/‘delay’), notice requirements, relief, termination long‑stop, and mitigation duty.

Gather contemporaneous evidence that links the conflict to the specific failure or delay (carrier advisories, port notices, insurer correspondence). In most clauses there will be a requirement to demonstrate that causal link.

Serve contract‑compliant notices (compliant in terms of form, recipient, timing, content). Late or informal notices are a common reason FM, and many other contractual claims, fail.

Document all reasonable work‑arounds (re‑routing, alternative ports, modal shifts, substitute suppliers) and who pays, conscious of the RTI v MUR approach to alternatives.

Engage counterparties as soon as possible to discuss: (a) temporary adjustments (lead times, INCOTERMS, split deliveries); (b) cost‑sharing mechanisms; (c) short‑term price review; (d) interim inventory buffers. Collaboration is key.

3) Drafting a playbook for new or renegotiated contracts (next 30–60 days)

A. Define events precisely—and tailor to the corridor

Include conflict‑specific triggers where appropriate: war/armed conflict in named regions, closure of designated sea lanes/ports, maritime security advisories at specified levels, sanctions/export‑control changes.

B. Choose the right threshold verb

‘Prevent’ (high threshold) vs ‘hinder’/‘delay’ (lower). Align with risk appetite and industry norms; ensure consistency with service levels and LDs.

C. Hard‑wire mitigation and alternatives

Define ‘reasonable endeavours’ in context (e.g., re‑route via specified ports if commercially reasonable). Clarify who bears incremental cost and how additional time is measured.

D. Sanctions and compliance co‑ordination

Add a sanctions FM limb (suspension/termination where performance would breach sanctions/export rules), with notification and co‑operation mechanics.

E. Relief mechanics and long‑stops

Provide clear suspension, time relief, and a termination long‑stop after a defined continuous FM period; consider partial FM for divisible obligations; keep price review/hardship separate from FM.

F. Post FM

Ensure drafting clearly specifies what should happen when the FM has ceased to impact the contract. Consider whether it is reasonable and or achievable to recommence operations immediately and in full. Is a lead in period required to kick start operations? If the FM ceases to apply to one party but not the other what should the position be?

G. Carve‑outs

Exclude payment obligations and pure cost increases from FM unless agreed; handle margin pressure via indexation, surcharges or hardship clauses. Suspension and waiver of performance regimes will also be key.

4) Commercial levers beyond FM (consider using these first)

Flexible scope and routing clauses (alternative ports, trans‑shipment rights) to avoid tripping FM prematurely.

Inventory and forecasting (safety stocks, vendor managed inventory, revised minimum order quantities) with shared cost protocols temporary price review/surcharges tied to observable indices (e.g., bunker adjustment factors), combined with time relief.

Step‑in/dual sourcing where regulation allows, particularly in regulated sectors and critical infrastructure supply chains.

5) Typical scenarios and how the clause responds

Carrier avoids conflict zone → extended transit via alternative route: If FM requires ‘prevention’, a mere delay may not qualify; rely on routing flexibility or time‑relief mechanics unless the clause captures ‘delay’ or ‘hinder’.

Destination port closed / war‑risk not covered by insurer: FM more likely to bite if ‘war’, ‘blockade’, ‘port closure’, or ‘unavailability of insurance’ appear in the event list; check mitigation (alternate port delivery) and risk/cost split.

Sanctions tighten mid‑contract (supplier or end‑market): Treat under the sanctions clause first (suspension/termination); FM as back‑up. Notice and evidence remain critical.

Energy shock / rolling blackouts at supplier plant: May support FM if framed as government action/utility failure; otherwise, lean on BCP commitments and service credits/time relief.

6) Dispute posture and negotiation strategy

Identify issues as they arise: assemble factual chronologies, notices, logs of attempted alternatives, and decision notes

Collaboration frameworks: short‑term time relief + shared incremental logistics + re‑routing to avoid termination

Leverage RTI v MUR carefully: if seeking FM, show why suggested alternatives are not ‘reasonable’ under the clause; if resisting FM, evidence workable alternatives.

7) Shoosmiths references since COVID (authored or hosted)

Podcast – Journey Through a Contract (Special): Force majeure (24 Mar 2022)
Podcast – Force Majeure: What to do if the lights go out? (27 Oct 2022)
Podcast series – Supply chain & manufacturing (May 2024): Supply chain issues & disruption’
Podcast series – Supply chain & manufacturing (May 2024): Ep.3 ‘New tech solutions and digitalisation’
Article – Supreme Court sheds light on force majeure: What you need to know (June 2024)
Rail Talk with Shoosmiths – Episode 10: Support for UK Rail’s supply chain (17 Aug 2023)

8) What we recommend you do now

run a 10‑day FM & disruption audit across your top 20 supplier and customer contracts using the tracker headings in section 2.
pre‑agree routing and port flexibility (including cost‑sharing rules) for vulnerable lanes connected to the Middle East and adjacent corridors.
refresh your template suite: conflict‑specific event lists; calibrated threshold verbs; sanctions limb; explicit mitigation and cost allocation; suspension/time relief; termination long‑stops; hardship/price review separate from FM.
stand up a rapid FM notice protocol and internal playbook (legal + logistics + procurement) so notices are timely and compliant.
capture the story as you go: contemporaneous evidence of why an alternative was/was not reasonable under the contract—critical post‑RTI v MUR.

Closing

FM remains a useful tool, but in the current environment the winning strategy is contractual flexibility plus evidence‑backed mitigation, with FM as the back‑stop. If helpful, we can deliver a rapid contract audit, refresh your template clauses, and facilitate a supplier workshop to agree practical routing/price‑review protocols consistent with your risk appetite—approaches we have road‑tested with clients since COVID and shared in our podcast series above.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-sectors/ddcc-mobility-logistics-and-manufacturing-perspectives

]]>

FCA signals further change to proposed motor finance redress scheme

Thu, 5 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:7eee73ba-0960-4b28-add0-0306172dd1dd/as/ART-lucas-van-oort-gYPSX8zHVNA-unsplash.avif?assetname=ART-lucas-van-oort-gYPSX8zHVNA-unsplash.jpg

Article | 2 min read

FCA signals further change to proposed motor finance redress scheme

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/mahesh-vara/profile

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has issued a further update on its proposed motor finance redress scheme.

Published: 5 March 2026
Authors: Mahesh Vara

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/wayne-gibbard/profile

false

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/peter-richards-gaskin/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/suzanne-taylor/profile

false

style

single-column-text

The wait for the final rules continues. However, the FCA has now indicated that the final rules are expected in late March, providing some short-term clarity and welcome relief for anyone with plans over this weekend!

Notably, the FCA has acknowledged that there are likely to be changes to any proposed Scheme. This follows an exceptionally high level of engagement with the consultation process, with more than 1,000 responses submitted. Such a volume of feedback, together with significant industry concern, has clearly prompted the FCA to reconsider certain aspects of the Scheme’s design and implementation.

Among the most significant anticipated changes is the introduction of a more structured implementation timetable. The FCA has indicated that firms may be given an implementation window of approximately three months, with an extended period of up to five months for older agreements. This adjustment appears aimed at recognising the operational complexity involved and providing firms with a more realistic timeframe in which to build compliant processes and systems.

Pragmatism enters the process

There are also signs of greater pragmatism in some of the proposed operational requirements. In particular, the FCA has suggested it may remove the obligation to write to customers by recorded delivery, a requirement that attracted criticism for being costly, impractical, and disproportionate. In addition, consumers who receive a redress offer may be permitted to accept it immediately, rather than being required to wait for a final determination. This change would streamline the customer journey and could reduce administrative burden for firms.

Despite these developments, the position for lenders remains challenging. The need for detailed scenario planning, investment in operational resilience, and preparation for multiple possible outcomes continues unabated. Firms must balance the demands of readiness against the risk of committing resources to processes that may yet be amended.

Legal risks on the horizon

Concerns about the structure and legal basis of the proposed scheme also continue to exist. As a result, absent those concerns being addressed in the final rules, the prospect of judicial challenge remains a realistic possibility. While the FCA has not addressed this explicitly, it would be prudent for firms to incorporate this possible eventuality into their preparations – particularly if they wish to challenge the Scheme.

We continue to work with our clients as they continue to prepare for any Scheme. Should you wish to discuss any aspect of the proposed redress scheme further, then please contact our team.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-sectors/ddcc-mobility-logistics-and-manufacturing-perspectives

]]>

A year of the Procurement Act: Key insights for the rail sector

Mon, 2 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:5a422f06-f13a-4104-80dd-bbda54188a40/as/ART-US00092-(18).avif?assetname=ART-US00092+%2818%29.jpg

Article | 5 min read

A year of the Procurement Act

Key insights for the rail sector

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/jennifer-clarke/profile

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The Procurement Act 2023 (the Act), which went live on 24 February 2025, reforms UK public procurement. For the rail sector, where long‑term programmes, regulated utilities and complex supply chains intersect – understanding impact of the Act is key to enabling suppliers to position themselves in the best way possible for future opportunities.

Published: 2 March 2026

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/michelle-craven-faulkner/profile

false

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/stefanie-hughes/profile

false

style

single-column-text

At the heart of the new regime is a consolidated, modernised and transparent framework that replaces four sets of EU derived regulations with a single statutory structure, covering: public contracts; utilities; concessions; and defence/security procurement. The result is a procurement system that seeks to be more consistent, more accessible and more accountable.

A stronger, more structured transparency regime

One of the most immediate changes suppliers will notice is the scale and sequencing of notices which are now required to be published throughout the procurement lifecycle. These take the form of various mandatory and optional notices — covering everything from long range pipelines to contract termination.

The availability of this information purports to deliver significantly earlier visibility of commercial pipelines, clearer justification for direct awards, and enhanced transparency around contract performance and delivery. For suppliers working across multiple rail programmes, this visibility can be used to facilitate more informed bidding strategies and support better allocation of resources.

Simplified procedures with greater flexibility

The Act reduces procedural choice to three core routes: direct award; the open procedure; or the competitive flexible procedure (CFP). The CFP is expected to be most widely used, giving authorities greater scope to design a process proportionate to the complexity of the contract. This flexibility is expected to be particularly helpful in the context of complex rail projects.

A more formalised approach to performance and contract management

For contracts valued above £5 million, authorities must now publish at least three KPIs (unless they consider KPIs inappropriate), monitor performance annually, and publish assessments. Combined with publication of (redacted) contract copies, contract modification and contract termination notices, the intention is to provide greater insights into the contract lifecycle.

For the rail sector, where long delivery periods and multi party dependencies are the norm - this is likely to influence future competitions. Strong historic performance, evidenced by published assessments, may become increasingly important.

Statutory scrutiny of payment practices

The Act implies a mandatory 30 day payment term into all public contracts, supported by payment compliance notices (which must be published by contracting authorities on the central digital platform every 6 months). Crucially, this 30-day payment term is also implied into every sub-contract so applies throughout the supply chain.

Notices: what rail buyers must now publish

Key notices now include:

Pipeline Notices (UK1): Mandatory for contracting authorities with over £100m annual spend, providing visibility of contracts expected to exceed £2m
Preliminary Market Engagement Notices (UK2): Mandatory where a contracting authority intends to carry out market engagement before launching a competition
Planned Procurement Notices (UK3): Optional notice which enables contracting authorities to shorten the minimum tender period later in the process, provided certain requirements are met
Tender Notices (UK4): The central notice for launching a competition, which is mandatory for any above threshold procurement that uses either the open procedure or the competitive flexible procedure
Transparency Notices (UK5): Mandatory and must be published before any planned or unplanned direct awards, replacing the former ‘voluntary ex ante transparency’ notice system
Contract Award (CA) and Contract Details (CD) Notices: The CA notice must be published once the contract is awarded but before it is entered into, triggering an eight working-day standstill period (replacing the former ten calendar-day period). The CD notice must then be published after signature, and if the contract is valued above £5 million, a redacted copy of the contract itself must be published within 90 days of signature
In life notices: must now be published to provide insight into most contract amendments, contract termination or natural expiration, KPI assessments, and payment compliance

Taken collectively, these notices should, if correctly used, provide a comprehensive suite of information, intended to make public procurement more visible than before. For the rail sector in particular, suppliers should expect significantly greater early visibility of upcoming opportunities, much clearer explanations for direct awards, and a more complete picture of contract performance and delivery across major programmes.

Frameworks, open frameworks & dynamic markets

The Act retains traditional closed frameworks but introduces open frameworks lasting up to eight years, which (among other criteria) must be reopened at least once to admit new suppliers.

Network Rail’s implementation approach

Network Rail has confirmed that all procurement activity starting on or after 24 February 2025 uses the new regime. Given Network Rail’s sector prominence, its approach is likely to heavily influence wider rail procurement practice.

Direct awards

Direct awards remain possible but are now more tightly defined, with a transparency notice required to be published before a direct award is made.

Exclusion grounds and the debarment list

The Act refines the exclusion grounds and moves away from “mandatory” and “discretionary” grounds in favour of introducing the concept of “excluded” and “excludable” suppliers.

An “excluded supplier” is a supplier which meets a mandatory exclusion ground and the contracting authority considers that the circumstances giving rise to the exclusion ground are likely to occur again. This is a change to the previous regime, where the contracting authority was obliged to exclude where any of the mandatory grounds apply.

The Act introduces a debarment list to which suppliers can be added in certain circumstances, including where a contracting authority has disregarded a tender from an excluded or excludable supplier or has excluded such suppliers from participating in a competitive tendering procedure. A minister carries out an investigation and can then add suppliers to the list, the consequences of which mean that the supplier cannot be allowed to bid for or be awarded any public contracts which it remains on the list. There is ample opportunity for suppliers to apply for interim relief and raise appeals against decisions to be added to the list.

Shift in focus from price as award criteria

The transition from the use of Most Economically Advantageous Tender to Most Advantageous Tender (MAT) award criteria removes the requirement for contracting authorities to prioritise price in every tender evaluation. Instead contracting authorities have some flexibility to place greater emphasis on award criteria such as quality, social value and sustainability, provided the criteria used relate to the subject matter of the contract and are a proportionate means of assessing tenders having regard to the nature, complexity and cost of the contract.

For rail suppliers, MAT offers real opportunities to differentiate beyond price, particularly where environmental or community focused benefits can be demonstrated.

Feedback from contracting authorities

Contracting authorities must issue assessment summaries to each assessed supplier, replacing the previous debrief and standstill letters. These summaries should set out the contracting authority’s assessment of the supplier’s tender and, if different, the assessment of the most advantageous tender.

Conclusion

The new regime purports to introduce a more transparent, flexible and continuously monitored procurement environment. For the rail sector, these changes are likely to influence the way buyers structure procurements and the way suppliers engage with opportunities.

The Act’s focus on transparency, early engagement, performance reporting and payment discipline is intended to encourage stronger, more resilient supply chains and deliver better value across the rail industry. The next 12 months will likely see further embedding of these processes as both suppliers and contracting authorities adapt to the new Act.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-sectors/ddcc-mobility-logistics-and-manufacturing-perspectives

]]>

New tech, old law? UKJT considers liability for AI harm

Fri, 20 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:7ab40224-69f5-4efd-aa64-40370c729484/as/u2114277519_Macro_photography_of_a_tech_device_photo_product_ph_2dd8a26b-5b15-49ab-8eec-1b96481517c6.avif?assetname=u2114277519_Macro_photography_of_a_tech_device_photo_product_ph_2dd8a26b-5b15-49ab-8eec-1b96481517c6.png

Article | 6 min read

New tech, old law?

UKJT considers liability for AI harm

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/alex-bishop/profile

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

AI adoption continues to accelerate across sectors, with a significant majority¹ of businesses reporting major performance gains as a result. At the same time, the internal governance around AI adoption isn’t always keeping pace², and AI-related litigation is a key concern for many in-house legal teams³. Add to this an absence of any overarching legal framework for liability in relation to AI in the UK,⁴ and the net result is a somewhat heady mix of short-term gains with (at least perceived) longer term uncertainty and risk.

Published: 20 February 2026
Authors: Alex Bishop, Peter Richards-Gaskin, Alex Kirkhope, Sarah Reynolds, Claire Kershaw, Stefanie Hughes

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/peter-richards-gaskin/profile

false

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/alex-kirkhope/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/sarah-reynolds/profile

false

style

single-column-text

Against this background, the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT) has recently published, and is consulting on, a draft legal statement on liability for non-deliberate AI harms under the private law of England and Wales (the Statement). The core issue the Statement is concerned with is “in what circumstances, and on what legal bases, English common law will impose liability for loss that results from the use of AI”.

The UKJT’s approach to this is founded on the premise that AI (defined in the Statement as “a technology that is autonomous”⁵) does not have legal personality in English law so liability for any harms caused by the use of it must therefore be attributed to other ‘legal persons’. Despite the novel context, the UKJT suggests such liability can be attributed using ordinary existing legal principles within the ‘inherently flexible’ English common law system.

From that starting point, the Statement addresses the following questions:

does the principle of vicarious liability apply to loss caused by AI?
in what circumstances can a professional be liable for using or failing to use AI in the provision of their services? If AI used in the provision of professional services produces erroneous output, is the professional liable for loss resulting from the error?
can a person ever be liable for harms caused by use of AI where there is no fault on their part?
does liability attach to false statements made by an AI chatbot?

Key takeaways / comment

Overall, the Statement serves as a helpful reminder of both (i) the extent to which existing legal principles can be applied to the relatively novel scenarios and risks of AI use and (ii) the ability of the English common law system to adapt further where necessary to address these.

In most commercial contexts the contractual arrangements between the various parties to an AI supply chain will be the most important legal framework governing liability for any non-deliberate harm arising. The need for application/analysis of tortious or other legal principles is likely to be relatively rare in practice, and parties within the AI supply chain should therefore prioritise clear and robust contractual allocations of risk, and view any potential claim in negligence as amongst themselves as a fallback Claims brought by end users against professional services firms are likely, however, to be brought in professional negligence, whether under the terms of their contract or under tort.

Meticulous drafting of contracts has always been important, and highly complex supply chains are also nothing new. Nonetheless in the context of AI supply chains (the structure of which, the Statement notes, is likely to change as the technology advances), contracting parties and their advisers will benefit from renewed emphasis and particular attention to detail around the ‘basics’ of warranties, indemnities, limitations and exclusions. A thorough understanding of the technology, roles and responsibilities of all parties within the supply chain will be key in apportioning liability and managing risk appropriately.

It’s worth noting in this context that, to date, AI vendors have been reluctant to offer detailed liability cover in respect of ‘downstream’ use of their products and platforms, though basic protection such as IPR indemnities for AI outputs is becoming more common with larger vendors. Over time our expectation is that, in the same way as for data protection, under increased customer demand - more detailed template clauses will begin to take hold, requiring vendors to verify not only legal compliance, but also the broader legal, security and ethical processes and governance they have in place in respect of their AI systems. Given the dynamic nature of AI systems, their performance, ongoing development and outputs, such governance would cover the full lifecycle of the system, spanning its historic development and training, current performance as well as ongoing oversight (human or otherwise) to provide customers with adequate assurance as to the product’s accuracy and integrity over the term of its deployment.

In the rarer cases where liability cannot be determined under contractual arrangements (and with reference to the four questions noted above):

the principle of vicarious liability is unlikely to apply to harm caused by AI. Since an AI system has no legal personality itself, it cannot have the primary liability upon which the vicarious liability of another (legally recognised) person could be based. That said, an employer may be vicariously liable for loss resulting from the negligent use of AI by an employee (subject to the usual analysis).
the question of whether a professional has been negligent in their use of AI – or for failing to use AI – is likely to be determined in much the same way as the question of whether they have been negligent in using – or not using – any other tool available to them, applying well-established legal principles⁶. It will be highly fact specific; for example:
- evidence as to the standard of care exercised by reasonably competent members of the relevant profession⁷ will be crucial. While this may be informed by any applicable guidance from regulators/professional bodies (to which professionals must of course pay close attention), as the UKJT notes this “tends to be somewhat high level”, and evidence as to consistent market practice may be hard to pin down for a variety of reasons.
- particular uncertainties may arise in relation to causation where it is necessary to understand why AI produced the output it did (not only that it was incorrect). Maintaining clear and comprehensive audit trails (for example of prompts to the AI tool and steps taken to check/refine output, amongst other things) may help to fill evidential gaps.
whether in the context of AI use or generally, a person will not normally be liable for harm caused through no fault of their own, save for a failure to meet an agreed standard or result. In light of which, if the professional advice produced falls below the standard expected of a reasonably competent professional in that field, then it is likely that a professional services firm will be found liable in negligence to an end user/client, even if it was AI that caused or made the error. In addition, where an AI system is incorporated into a tangible product, such as a CD-ROM for example, the Consumer Protection Act 1987 will apply and carries strict liability for defective products causing certain physical harms. The Law Commission has stated it intends to review this area of the law including to address the status of “pure software”⁸.
non-contractual liability may in principle arise for statements made by an AI chatbot, in negligent misstatement or misrepresentation, deceit, libel, slander and/or malicious falsehood. As ever much will depend on particular facts, for example whether the chatbot’s response was autonomous or pre-determined, whether it is clear the AI chatbot is just that (as opposed to appearing as a chat function with a human), or whether the chatbot was well known to hallucinate.

Next steps

While the Statement goes some way to dispelling perceived legal uncertainties around liability for AI-related harm, needless to say real uncertainties remain. Robust governance frameworks and contractual arrangements are essential to mitigating the most significant risks/uncertainties, ensuring management time and resource can remain focussed on driving business forward. Flowing that governance and contractual assurance right through an organisation’s AI supply chain will increasingly become essential rather than a ‘nice to have’.

The consultation closed on 13 February 2026 and the UKJT states it intends, once responses have been considered, to publish a final version of the Statement as soon as possible.

More information

If you’re navigating the governance or contractual issues raised in this article – and need to protect your organisation’s risk and liability when procuring AI systems – our AI and dispute resolution and litigation teams are ready to help you move forward with confidence.

¹ 64% of respondents to Shoosmiths’ AI Governance Report: Uncharted territory: Navigating AI governance for better business performance.
² 32% of respondents to the above survey reported having advanced accountability frameworks in place.
³ 55% of respondents to Shoosmiths’ Litigation Risk Report 2026 expect AI-related litigation to increase.
⁴ Other jurisdictions, including the EU with its stalled AI Liability Directive, have also struggled to codify clear liability principles in relation to AI.
⁵ Note that there is currently no universally accepted definition of AI, though the definition adopted by the UKJT within its Statement deliberately shares lineage with definitions used by UK Government, the EU and the OECD.
⁶ See in particular South Australia Asset Management Corporation v York Montague Ltd [1996] UKHL 10 and Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2021] UKSC 20
⁷ In accordance with the ‘Bolam test’ from Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582
⁸ This is a nuanced area given the state of the art in relation to software delivery methods and the current precedent that software-as-a-service does not amount to “goods” under UK legislation.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-dispute-resolution-and-litigation

]]>

Shoosmiths advises French Connection on landmark North American licensing partnership

Tue, 10 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:46e57d5e-0b26-42a0-bdf7-848c0318eb2e/as/NEWS-US00044.avif?assetname=NEWS-US00044.jpg

Press release | 2 MIN READ

French Connection licensing partnership

Shoosmiths advises French Connection on landmark North American licensing partnership

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/richard-millington/profile

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

Shoosmiths has advised fashion brand French Connection on its major long term licensing agreement supporting its renewed global growth strategy, as reported in The Guardian.

Published: 10 February 2026

false

style

single-column-text

The agreement represents a significant strategic step for French Connection as it transitions key elements of its North American business to G‑III, enabling the brand to accelerate its presence across the U.S. and Canada through a strengthened licensing and distribution platform.

Under the partnership, G‑III will develop and distribute men’s and women’s apparel and accessories across North America, leveraging deep market expertise and robust retail infrastructure to scale French Connection’s reach and reinforce its contemporary positioning. This forms a core part of French Connection’s broader global relaunch strategy and brand revitalisation efforts.

Shoosmiths’ advice on the deal reflects the firm’s top‑tier retail and consumer sector expertise, with the transaction drawing on its strength in brand licensing, commercial structuring, and complex cross‑border work. The Shoosmiths team includes Richard Millington, Luke Stubbs, Rosie Byrne, Rob Sandercombe and Kendra McCullough.

Richard Millington, Partner at Shoosmiths, commented:

“French Connection is an iconic name in UK retail, and this licensing partnership represents a pivotal next step in its global growth journey. We’re proud to have supported the business on a transaction that strengthens its North American footprint and aligns with its ambition to reinvigorate the brand for today’s consumer.”

Cross‑border expertise: support from Thompson Hine in New York

Given the scale of the transition and the U.S. footprint involved, Shoosmiths worked closely with Thompson Hine LLP in New York, whose specialist U.S. counsel supported the team on complex U.S. legal matters integral to the licensing structure and business transfer.

style

single-column-text

Quote

This partnership represents a major step forward in French Connection’s continued resurgence and global growth. Working closely with Shoosmiths and our U.S. counsel at Thompson Hine ensured we were able to navigate the complexities of this cross border licensing structure with confidence and pace. We are excited for the opportunities this long term North American partnership creates for the brand and look forward to building on this momentum in the months ahead.

Apinder Ghura, Director at French Connection

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-sectors/ddcc-consumer-and-retail-perspectives

]]>

Nutrient profiling model: Changes to HFSS / LHF are coming

Thu, 5 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:715ddbf7-db56-4260-bac4-362703c7f866/as/ART-u2114277519_Create_images_that_reflect_a_global_outlook._They_4a1434da-908a-45f7-954b-e52da5bc7320_2.avif?assetname=ART-u2114277519_Create_images_that_reflect_a_global_outlook._They_4a1434da-908a-45f7-954b-e52da5bc7320_2.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

ARTICLE | 2 min read

Nutrient profiling model

Changes to HFSS / LHF are coming

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/stephen-johnstone/profile

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The UK Government plans to update the underlying nutrient profiling model (NPM) that underpins high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) and less healthy food (LHF) advertising. In this article we outline what you need to know.

Published: 5 February 2026
Author: Stephen Johnstone

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/adam-flynn/profile

false

style

single-column-text

What is the NPM?

The Nutrient Profiling Model (or NPM) is a scoring system developed by the Food Standards Agency used to assess the nutritional content of food and drink products. It balances the contribution made by beneficial nutrients of food and drink products alongside the negative contributions from nutrients where intakes are higher than recommended, to provide an overall nutrient profiling score.

Currently, it is the NPM 2004/2005 (with the 2011 technical guidance) that is widely used, including by Ofcom and the Advertising Standards Authority, in enforcing the rules on TV and online advertising restrictions. We discussed these in our previous article Brand or banned? The new rules reshaping food ads.

Why is change needed?

The Department of Health commissioned a review of the NPM 2004/2005 in 2016 to ensure that it met the latest scientific dietary recommendations. Public Health England then developed a proposed update to the NPM in 2018 to better reflect modern nutrition science (NPM 2018).

In July 2025, the Government reiterated its intention to update the NPM in its “Fit for the Future 10 Year Health Plan for England” by stating that the 2004 model was ‘plainly out of date’ and estimated that a ‘simple modernisation’ could reduce childhood obesity cases by nearly 170,000.

The Government has recently published the consultation outcome from 2018. While the Department of Health accepted the nutrient profiling model expert group recommendations that followed the 2018 consultation, and the NPM 2018 was published (along with technical guidance), the NPM 2018 is not yet applied to policy.

What does this mean?

The adoption of an updated model will impact which food and drink products are categorised as HFSS and/or LHF and are caught by the advertising and promotion restrictions. Many products currently compliant with HFSS and/or LHF regulations will therefore become non-compliant under the updated model.

What’s next?

The Government has stated that there will be a public consultation on applying the NPM 2018 to advertising and promotions restrictions which will take place in 2026.

Food businesses may want to consider their product ranges and assess any possible changes to the classification and scores of those products if the NPM 2018 were to be adopted, and, in due course, feed into the consultation, which will be key in determining if the new model is applied to the HFSS and LHF restrictions.

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/perspectives-disclaimer

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-sectors/ddcc-consumer-and-retail-perspectives

]]>

Powering the future: The industry view on data centre infrastructure

Mon, 2 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:4d21f503-b26f-47fa-88a2-1635c0d83d34/as/ART-US00078.avif?assetname=ART-US00078.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

ARTICLE | 5 min read

Powering the future

The industry view on data centre infrastructure

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/chris-pritchett/profile

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

As demand for AI and high-density computing accelerates, the UK faces a pivotal moment: can its energy system keep pace with the data centre economy?

Published: 2 February 2026
Author: Chris Pritchett

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/liam-phillips/profile

false

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/grace-kendrick/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/max-finney/profile

false

style

single-column-text

At our recent Clean Currents: Energising Tomorrow’s Data Centres event, leaders from energy, data, policy and investment explored how grid reform, storage innovation and bold planning decisions will shape the next decade. Their message was clear: resilience will rely on faster connections, cleaner power and smarter collaboration.

Panel 1: Today’s market pulse – trends and realities

Panellists:

Chris Pritchett, E&I Sector Co-Lead & Partner, Shoosmiths (Moderator)
Liam Phillips, Data Centre Lead & Partner, Shoosmiths
Katie Davies, Head of Energy and Infrastructure Policy, techUK
Mikey Clark, CEO, Relode
Giles Hanglin, CEO, Apatura Energy

Grid connection challenges and AI growth zones

Mounting pressure on the UK grid is slowing progress. Connection requests are piling up, driven by decentralisation and a surge of applications linked to new AI growth zones. While these zones aim to accelerate nationally important projects, panellists warned they risk creating a two‑tier system where some developments jump the queue.

Questions also surfaced around whether current incentives are strong enough to attract large‑scale AI training environments – especially against global competition. Panellists cautioned that fast‑tracking specific technologies could unintentionally distort the market.

Yet there was clear optimism for Scotland. Its strong wind generation and expanding storage capacity position it as a genuine contender for the next phase of data centre growth, offering the mix of renewables and grid flexibility the UK now needs.

Energy costs, levy reform and the role of corporate PPAs

Rising price pressures faced by UK operators was raised as a key issue facing the sector, among the highest in the IEA, driven by policy levies and network charges. Key considerations include:

call for levy reform: TechUK is actively lobbying for structural change, advocating for a shift of policy costs from energy bills to general taxation to improve affordability for industry and households alike.
corporate PPAs: value but limitations: While power purchase agreements (PPAs) help secure renewable supply and price certainty, they do not always guarantee cheaper power, particularly where market rules or contracts for difference (CfD) arrangements influence outcomes. Smaller operators may find the market especially challenging to access.

Unlocking the next era of grid flexibility

The panel showcased how a new wave of smarter, faster connection models is reshaping the energy system. Battery‑integrated connections are already cutting through traditional bottlenecks by ramping in seconds, smoothing demand spikes, and soaking up excess wind generation that would otherwise go to waste. The result? A steadier, more resilient grid that’s built to handle volatility.

At the same time, private wire and grid‑park models are evolving fast. Backed by updated legislation, they’re enabling clusters of high‑demand users to share local access to renewable power and storage. This is shortening connection timelines and reducing costs for organisations that can’t afford to wait years to electrify.

But the real step‑change is what comes next. The sector is shifting decisively towards long‑duration storage, with 6-8‑hour batteries and next‑generation technologies beginning to scale. These solutions will boost reliability, unlock greater flexibility, and drive down long‑term energy costs.

Together, these innovations point to an energy system that’s more flexible, more resilient and genuinely future‑ready.

Panel 2: Future focus – building resilient and green infrastructure

Panellists:

Grace Kendrick, Associate, Shoosmiths (Moderator)
Max Finney, Senior Sustainability Manager, Shoosmiths
Philipp Lukas, CEO, Future Biogas
Alex Doobay, Group Director (Investment), Global Switch
Clare Horgan, Development Director, Relode

Shaping smarter infrastructure policy

Bringing data centres into the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects regime could speed decisions, but only if industry voices help shape the framework.

There is also rising pressure on sustainability disclosures. With tighter Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) requirements, the cost of getting reporting wrong – both financial and reputational – is now significant.

Looking ahead, the panel called for more coordinated policy, stressing the need for early, active industry engagement, especially as major storage and interconnection projects may depend on direct Government support.

The next leap in data centres: Cleaner, smarter, more resilient

Emerging technologies are accelerating data‑centre decarbonisation. Liquid and immersion cooling, combined with AI‑driven optimisation, are already cutting power and water use. Nuclear options, including small modular reactors, offer long‑term stability, though cost and planning hurdles remain. Biomethane provides an immediate, practical route to lower emissions through the existing gas grid.

Alongside this, transparent water management and meaningful community engagement are essential to maintaining a strong social licence to operate. Together, these developments show a sector moving towards a more resilient, low‑carbon future.

Why the future of energy needs faster, smarter partnerships

Early, cross‑sector collaboration is proving essential to faster, more resilient infrastructure delivery. Bringing operators into the design and planning process earlier helps avoid grid constraints and supports smarter site selection. Financing models are also shifting, with hyperscalers increasingly taking direct stakes in energy assets — from nuclear to long‑duration storage — rather than relying solely on long‑term PPAs.

But market gaps remain. Areas like tidal energy and bulk storage may need targeted Government investment to unlock progress. The direction is clear: early engagement, innovative capital, and focused public support will drive the next wave of energy infrastructure.

What the sector must prioritise next

Clear calls to action are emerging across the sector. System‑level reform of electricity pricing and levy structures is urgent, along with practical, evidence‑led feedback on planning and grid reform to ensure proposals work in real‑world deployment. There’s also a growing push for operators and developers to work earlier and more strategically to identify the right regions for data‑centre growth and accelerate delivery.

Market gaps persist. Tidal, hydro storage, bulk renewables and nuclear will need targeted Government investment to move at pace. And sustainability must shift from an add‑on to a baseline, driving innovation in storage, grid design, cooling and alternative fuels to build long‑term resilience.

Closing reflection

As the UK faces accelerating digital demand and unprecedented pressure on its energy networks, the intersection of these sectors is becoming one of the most strategically important areas for national competitiveness. The discussions at our event offered a rare blend of real time market intelligence and forward-looking vision, equipping organisations across the ecosystem with ideas, warnings and opportunities to shape the next decade of energy enabled data centres.

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/perspectives-disclaimer

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-sectors/ddcc-energy-and-infrastructure-perspectives

]]>

Beyond the green light: Setting standards for automated vehicle operations

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:f0182b5d-ae91-4544-957a-3f9ed1ef593b/as/Detailed-perspective-(121).avif?assetname=Detailed+perspective+%28121%29.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

ARTICLE | 6 min read

Beyond the green light

Setting standards for automated vehicle operations

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/ben-gardner/profile

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The UK’s Automated Vehicles Act 2024 sets the stage for a new era in mobility, but the real test lies in how automated vehicles (AVs) should be regulated once they are in use on UK roads.

Published: 21 January 2026
Author: Ben Gardner

false

style

single-column-text

The UK’s Automated Vehicles Act 2024 sets the stage for a new era in mobility, but the real test lies in how automated vehicles (AVs) should be regulated once they are in use on UK roads.

With the Department for Transport’s (DfT) latest call for evidence now open, stakeholders have the chance to help design the frameworks that will keep AVs safe, fair and accountable for years to come.

Why does this matter?

As AVs move from trials to everyday reality, the focus shifts from getting them on the road to making sure they stay safe, legal and trustworthy. Chapter two of the DfT’s call for evidence is all about the rules, oversight and safeguards that will apply once AVs are in service – covering everything from ongoing compliance and incident investigation to cyber security, accessibility and environmental impact.

What is the Government asking for?

The DfT wants practical feedback from anyone with an interest in AVs – including manufacturers, operators, insurers, tech providers, accessibility advocates and more. Your experience can help shape:

how AVs are monitored and regulated in real time
what happens when things go wrong – accidents, infractions or cyber-attacks
how to ensure AVs are accessible and environmentally responsible.

Key areas for input

In-use regulatory scheme

Once AVs are authorised and licensed, they will be subject to ongoing oversight. The Government is designing an “in-use regulatory scheme” to monitor whether AVs and their operators continue to meet safety and legal standards. This includes:

regular checks that vehicles and operators comply with authorisation and licensing requirements
systems for reporting and investigating incidents or traffic infractions
powers for regulators to collect data, issue compliance notices and take enforcement action if standards slip.

The Government wants to know what information should be collected, how incidents should be reported and what practical challenges you foresee in keeping AVs compliant over their lifetime.

Sanctions

If an AV or its operator fails to meet regulatory standards, a range of sanctions may apply. These include compliance notices, redress orders, fines and even suspension or withdrawal of authorisation or licences. The Government is seeking views on:

when and how different sanctions should be used
how to ensure sanctions are fair, proportionate and effective
lessons from other industries on flexible, non-criminal enforcement.

Incident investigation

A new independent incident investigation function is being proposed, modelled on the UK’s air, rail and marine accident branches. These statutory inspectors will investigate AV incidents to learn lessons and improve safety – not to assign blame. The Government is asking:

what skills and resources inspectors will need
how to ensure investigations are thorough, transparent and lead to real improvements
how to balance openness with protection of sensitive data and commercial interests.

AV cyber security

With AVs relying on complex software and connectivity, cyber security is a top priority. The Government is looking for evidence on:

how cyber security risks should be managed for vehicles, operators and remote operations centre
what capabilities operators need to detect and respond to cyber incidents
how and when cyber incidents should be reported and what information should be included.

Accessibility

AVs have the potential to transform mobility for disabled and elderly people, but only if accessibility is built in from the start. The Government wants feedback on:

how AV services can be made safe and inclusive for all users
what reporting and advisory mechanisms should be in place to monitor accessibility.

Environmental impacts of automated vehicles

The environmental footprint of AVs will depend on factors like energy use, emissions, resource consumption and end-of-life disposal. The Government is seeking views on:

which environmental impacts matter most for AV
·how production, operation and disposal of AVs can be managed to minimise harm
what evidence exists on the likely effects of AVs in the UK context.

Why your input matters

This call for evidence is a genuine opportunity to shape the UK’s AV landscape. The Government is seeking practical insights on everything from in-use monitoring and accident investigation to ensuring AVs are accessible and sustainable. Your perspective can help ensure the regulatory framework is both robust and workable.

The call for evidence is lengthy and therefore respondents are encouraged to provide meaningful views on questions that fall within their expertise. There is no requirement to respond to all questions. Clear, practical examples and suggestions are especially valuable.

By responding to the questions (accessible here) in a targeted way, you can directly influence how self-driving vehicles are authorised, monitored and managed – helping to build a system that reflects the needs and ambitions of your organisation and the sector more broadly.

The call for evidence is open until 5 March 2026.

Conclusion

The rules set now will shape how AVs are monitored, investigated and held accountable for years to come. By sharing your insights, you can help build a regulatory system that is robust, fair and future-proof – protecting public safety while supporting innovation.

If you’d like guidance on preparing your response or want to discuss how these proposals could affect your organisation, please contact Shoosmiths’ mobility team.

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/perspectives-disclaimer

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-sectors/ddcc-mobility-logistics-and-manufacturing-perspectives

]]>

Shifting gears: The UK’s roadmap for getting automated vehicles on the road

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:c80ef394-0d40-407d-bf9d-8fff132222cb/as/Brand_Images_Places-(9).avif?assetname=Brand_Images_Places+%289%29.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

ARTICLE | 5 min read

Shifting gears

The UK’s roadmap for getting automated vehicles on the road

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/ben-gardner/profile

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The UK’s Automated Vehicles Act 2024 sets the stage for a new era in mobility, but the real test lies in how automated vehicles (AVs) will be approved and authorised for public roads.

Published: 21 January 2026
Author: Ben Gardner

false

style

single-column-text

The UK’s Automated Vehicles Act 2024 sets the stage for a new era in mobility, but the real test lies in how automated vehicles (AVs) will be approved and authorised for public roads.

With the Department for Transport’s (DfT) latest call for evidence now open, stakeholders have a unique opportunity to shape the rules that will govern the deployment of AVs from day one.

Introduction

The Automated Vehicles Act 2024 is more than a legislative milestone – it is the foundation for a regulatory framework that will determine how self-driving technology moves from concept to reality on UK roads. Chapter one of the DfT’s call for evidence focuses on the critical first steps: type approval, authorisation, operator licensing and the responsibilities of those bringing AVs to market.

Why does this matter?

The evidence and opinions submitted now will help shape decisions on:

who should be able to get AVs on the road
what evidence should be required to prove safety and compliance
an appropriate operator licensing regime for vehicles that operate with no human in charge
regulating transition demands and developing insurance products for AVs.

Engaging with the call for evidence at this stage means you can help shape a framework that works for your business and the wider sector, rather than being caught out by requirements that do not fit your needs.

This article focuses exclusively on chapter one of the call for evidence, exploring the practical questions and policy choices that will decide how AVs are launched and regulated from the outset. A follow-up article will examine chapter two, which addresses the regulatory landscape once AVs are in use – including ongoing oversight, incident investigation and cyber security.

The building blocks: Type approval and authorisation

At the heart of the new regulatory framework are two distinct but interconnected processes: type approval and authorisation.

Type approval is the gateway for any vehicle, automated or otherwise, to enter the UK market. It involves a rigorous assessment of whether a vehicle meets all relevant safety, security and environmental standards.

For automated vehicles, the Government recognises that existing schemes, largely inherited from EU law and international standards, may not be fully equipped to address the unique challenges posed by self-driving technology. The DfT is therefore seeking views on whether amendments are needed to current approval routes, including those for vehicles produced in limited volumes or for specific, novel use-cases. There is a clear emphasis on harmonising with international standards, particularly those developed by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, to ensure that UK vehicles remain competitive and compliant on the global stage.

Beyond type approval, an AV must also be specifically authorised to operate autonomously on UK roads. The Government is seeking views on how the “self-driving test” should be defined and what evidence should be required to show a vehicle can safely and legally drive itself in real-world conditions. They are also asking what ongoing responsibilities should fall to the Authorised Self-Driving Entity (ASDE), including how to ensure vehicles remain compliant over time. The call for evidence invites feedback on a range of areas such as whether evidence from type approval should support authorisation, the possible role of geofencing or environmental mapping and the content and usage of information captured on the register of authorisations.

User-in-charge (UIC) and transition demands

For automated vehicles that require a user-in-charge (UIC) – a qualified person present and able to take control – the Government is seeking views on several issues. These include what legal responsibilities and immunities the UIC should have, what activities they should be allowed to do while the vehicle is driving itself and how they should be trained or tested for this role.

The call for evidence also asks for evidence on how safely and quickly a UIC can resume control after disengagement and what protocols should govern the handover process (“transition demands”). If you have experience with human factors, driver training or the practicalities of handover between vehicle and human, this is your chance to contribute.

No-user-in-charge (NUIC) operator licensing

For vehicles that operate with no human in charge, such as fully driverless shuttles, delivery vehicles or goods vehicles, the Government is proposing a licensing regime for operators. They are seeking feedback on what should be required to demonstrate that an operator is reputable, financially stable and capable of safely managing AV fleets.

This includes not only background and financial checks, but also the operational capabilities needed to monitor vehicles, respond to incidents and ensure passenger and cargo safety. The call for evidence also covers how remote assistance and remote driving should be regulated, what training and safeguards are needed for remote operators and how third-party suppliers should be managed. If you have experience in fleet operations, remote monitoring or operator licensing, your insights will help shape a practical and robust framework.

Insurance

The Government is also examining how insurance should work for automated vehicles. They are seeking views on what types of data and evidence should be collected and shared to support insurance claims and investigations, how liability should be determined when a vehicle is driving itself and what new insurance products or adaptations may be needed for AV operators and fleet managers.

The call for evidence also explores the role of insurance in demonstrating financial stability for regulated bodies, the challenges of data sharing and privacy and what lessons can be learned from other countries. If you are an insurer, operator or manufacturer, your practical experience with claims, data, liability and insurance products will help shape a workable and future-proof system.

Why your input matters

This call for evidence is a genuine opportunity to shape the UK’s AV landscape. The Government is seeking practical insights on everything from technical standards and operational requirements to the roles of self-driving entities and the future of insurance. Your perspective can help ensure the regulatory framework is both robust and workable.

The call for evidence is open until 5 March 2026.

Conclusion

The call for evidence is more than a regulatory formality; it is an invitation to help define the next chapter of UK transport. The framework for getting automated vehicles on the road will be shaped by those who engage now – bringing real-world experience and ambition to the table.

If you’d like guidance on preparing your response or want to discuss how these proposals could affect your organisation, please contact Shoosmiths’ mobility team.

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/perspectives-disclaimer

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-sectors/ddcc-mobility-logistics-and-manufacturing-perspectives

]]>

Steering the future: Have your say on the UK’s automated vehicle rules

Mon, 15 Dec 2025 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:8e298926-80a2-42e4-aa51-42e73cf35e07/as/ART-u2114277519_Create_images_that_reflect_a_global_outlook._They_3cd7fb9d-58da-4058-ae6c-e0fd65fb3c52_3.avif?assetname=ART-u2114277519_Create_images_that_reflect_a_global_outlook._They_3cd7fb9d-58da-4058-ae6c-e0fd65fb3c52_3.jpg

Article | 5 min read

Steering the future: Have your say on the UK’s Automated Vehicle rules

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/ben-gardner/profile

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The Automated Vehicles (AV) Act 2024 marked a significant milestone in the UK’s journey towards the safe and legal deployment of self-driving vehicles when it entered into force last year. However, the AV Act represented a framework piece of legislation that required multiple regulations to be enacted to bring it to life.

Published 15 December 2025

style

single-column-text

Following several consultations on issues such as misleading marketing, safety principles, and Automated Passenger Services (APS), the Government has now published its most comprehensive call for evidence yet.

This latest consultation is designed to lay the groundwork for how AVs will be authorised and regulated on UK roads, shaping the much-needed regulations and guidance that will follow.

What is in the call for evidence?

The Department for Transport’s call for evidence is split into two main chapters and poses numerous questions designed to inform how the scaled deployment of AVs on public roads in the UK can be realised.

It focuses on some of the key areas identified in the AV Act as requiring detailed regulations to be developed by government working in conjunction with industry and other affected stakeholders. These key areas include:

Chapter 1: Getting AVs on the road

Type approval: Certifying AVs meet safety and technical standards.
Authorisation: Deciding if a vehicle can legally drive itself on UK roads.
Operator licensing: Setting requirements for companies running AVs with no driver on board.
User-in-charge: Defining the role and training for people who may need to take control.
Insurance: Exploring how AVs should be insured and how claims will work.

Chapter 2: Once AVs are on the road

In-use regulation: Ongoing checks to ensure AVs remain safe and compliant.
Sanctions: Penalties for non-compliance, such as fines or suspensions.
Incident investigation: Independent reviews of AV-related incidents to improve safety.
Cyber security: Safeguarding AVs and their systems from cyber threats.
Accessibility: Making sure AVs are inclusive for all users.
Environmental impacts: Managing and minimising AVs’ effects on the environment.

Key areas under consultation

The Government is seeking input on a range of targeted issues, including:

How vehicles and operators will be authorised and monitored.
The responsibilities and training required for users-in-charge and remote operators.
Data sharing, insurance and privacy requirements.
Ongoing safety, compliance and enforcement mechanisms.
Ensuring accessibility and minimising environmental impacts.

A full list of consultation questions is provided in the annex to the call for evidence which can be accessed here.

What this means for businesses

For businesses operating in the mobility, automotive, insurance, technology, or logistics sectors, this consultation is a pivotal moment. The Government’s proposals will shape the regulatory landscape for years to come, affecting:

Market access: The type approval and authorisation processes will determine how quickly and efficiently new AV products and services can be brought to market.
Operational responsibilities: New roles such as Authorised Self-Driving Entities (ASDEs) and No-User-in-Charge Operators (NUICOs) will carry ongoing legal and financial obligations.
Compliance and risk: Businesses will need to adapt to new standards for safety, data management, cyber security and insurance, with potential sanctions for non-compliance.
Opportunities to influence: By engaging with the consultation, businesses can help shape practical, proportionate rules that support innovation while ensuring public trust and safety.

Why engage?

The Government’s approach is collaborative. By structuring the regulatory framework around targeted questions, it is inviting stakeholders to help build a system that is safe, fair and fit for the future. Responding to these questions is an opportunity to influence how self-driving vehicles (and products and services you may wish to bring to market in the future) are authorised and deployed in the UK. If you’re unsure how the proposals might affect your business, or how best to contribute, now is the ideal time to seek advice – your input could make a real difference.

Conclusion

The Government’s call for evidence is more than a set of rules – it’s a blueprint for the future of transport, shaped by evidence and expertise. Whether you’re a manufacturer, operator, service provider, insurer, or simply interested in the future of mobility, your input can help ensure the UK’s authorisation gateway is rigorous, transparent and ready for the challenges ahead.

If you’d like advice on responding to the consultation or want to discuss how these changes may affect your business, please contact Shoosmiths’ mobility sector team.

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-sectors/ddcc-mobility-logistics-and-manufacturing-perspectives

false

style

single-column-text

]]>

Why simplify? The benefits to consumers

Thu, 11 Dec 2025 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:5860dd5b-0bff-4ca8-9665-9a5d32038cb0/as/ART-US00064.avif?assetname=ART-US00064.jpg

Article | 3 min read

Why simplify? The benefits to consumers

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/louisa-hunter/profile

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

Complexity costs trust. In financial services, clarity isn’t optional – it’s essential. Simplified documentation empowers consumers, reduces risk and drives better decisions. As regulation tightens and technology accelerates, firms that prioritise plain language and transparency will lead the market.

Published 11 December 2025

style

single-column-text

Let’s be honest: financial services documents can be a real headache. Even the most educated among us have found ourselves rereading the same paragraph, still unsure what it means. Sometimes, we never quite get there at all.

So, why does this happen? Sometimes, it’s because legislation or regulation say we must use certain formats or phrases. Other times, regulations like the 2023 Consumer Duty require us to make sure every communication is genuinely understandable. How do we balance these sometimes-conflicting demands?

This series explores the big question: Why Simplify? We’ll look at the challenges of delivering legally required information in a way that’s clear and accessible for everyone. We’ll cover the regulatory landscape, the commercial upsides, and—most importantly—the benefits for consumers. It’s time to rethink how we talk to customers in financial services.

Making financial documents easier to understand isn’t just a nice-to-have. It’s essential for building trust, boosting engagement, and helping people make informed decisions.

The benefits to consumers of simplifying language

In the world of financial services, clear and simple documentation isn’t just a regulatory box-tick—it’s a game-changer for consumers. When financial information is easy to understand, everyone wins: consumers feel empowered, make better decisions, and are more likely to trust the firms they deal with.

Greater understanding and confidence

When documents are written in plain English and displayed in a certain manner, consumers can quickly grasp the key features, risks, and costs of financial products. This reduces confusion and anxiety, especially for those who may not have a background in finance. Research shows that when people understand what they’re signing up for, they’re more confident in their choices and less likely to feel like they have made a mistake. Reducing the risk of complaints or disputes.

Improved engagement and decision-making

Simplified communications encourage consumers to engage more deeply with their financial options. Instead of skimming over dense legal jargon, people are more likely to read, ask questions, and compare products. This leads to better decision-making and helps consumers find products that truly meet their needs.

Enhanced protection and reduced risk

Clear documentation helps consumers spot potential pitfalls before they commit. This transparency protects consumers from harm and reduces the risk of disputes or complaints down the line. Regulators like the FCA have made consumer protection a central objective, with the Consumer Duty requiring firms to deliver good outcomes and ensure customers genuinely understand their products.

Inclusion and accessibility

Not everyone has the same reading ability or financial literacy. By simplifying documents, firms make financial services more accessible to a wider audience—including those with lower literacy levels, non-native English speakers, or people with disabilities. This supports financial inclusion and ensures that no one is left out.

Empowerment through technology

The rise of fintech and digital banking has made it even more important for information to be clear and accessible. Digital tools can help consumers track spending, compare products, and manage their finances—but only if the information provided is easy to understand. Simplification enables consumers to take full advantage of these innovations, promoting financial wellbeing and resilience.

Simplifying financial services documentation delivers real, measurable benefits to consumers. It builds trust, supports better choices, protects against harm, and opens the door to financial inclusion and innovation. As the regulatory landscape continues to evolve, putting consumers first by making information clear and accessible is not just good practice, it’s essential.

On 15 October 2025, we launched our new Financial Services Simplification report, developed in partnership with YouGov. The report explores how consumers respond to financial services communications and highlights the growing importance of clear, effective messaging – especially as regulatory expectations rise.

For more information about the report or to find out how we can help you please get in touch with the key contacts featured on this page.

This is article 3 in our Why simplify? three-part series.

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-transactional-and-advisory/ddcc-strategic-commercial-contracts

false

style

single-column-text

]]>

UK Carbon border adjustment mechanism

Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:67ecfab6-5a88-4eba-a3bc-a84e75c45460/as/ART-US00048.avif?assetname=ART-US00048.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

Article | 3 min read

UK carbon border adjustment mechanism

Strategic implications for logistics, manufacturing & mobility

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/michelle-craven-faulkner/profile

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

Last week, the UK’s new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) introduced in Finance Bill 2025‑26 is set to become effective from 1 January 2027 and will have a significant ripple effect across logistics, manufacturing, and mobility sectors. In this article we outline how each sector will be impacted.

Published 10 December 2025

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/laura-board/profile

style

single-column-text

Manufacturing

1. Levelling the field for domestic producers

CBAM imposes a carbon-based tax on imports of aluminium, cement, fertiliser, hydrogen, and iron and steel – sectors with high carbon emissions. This ensures imported goods bear a carbon price comparable to the UK’s Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS), defending UK manufacturers from being undercut.

2. Incentivising supply chain decarbonisation

To minimise CBAM charges, manufacturers will increasingly seek low-carbon, traceable inputs. This shift fuels investment in cleaner technologies and tighter emission controls throughout supply chains.

3. Administrative complexity

Companies importing carbon-intensive materials must track and report embedded emissions, either using actual data or default values – adding reporting burdens and compliance costs.

Logistics

1. Cost pass-through and freight optimisation

Logistics providers will face elevated costs on carbon-intensive goods. Clients will likely demand transparency on embedded carbon, forcing logistics firms to optimise transport routes and improve efficiency to stay competitive.

2. Increased demand for data infrastructure

To comply with CBAM, importers must demonstrate carbon content. Logistics companies that implement emissions-tracking systems stand to benefit, creating a strategic opportunity to expand service offerings.

3. Reconfiguring global trade routes

Importers may favour lower-carbon suppliers or invest in partnerships across new geographies. Logistics networks will realign accordingly, affecting shipping patterns and potentially reshaping warehousing footprints.

Mobility

1. Fuel and freight emissions under scrutiny

Indirect emissions such as transport energy won’t be captured until 2029. However, mobility providers will be under pressure to improve efficiency ahead of this expansion and protect client relations.

2. Rise in low-carbon logistics services

CBAM underscores the value of low-carbon transport solutions, like electrification and modal shifts (e.g., rail, inland shipping). Providers offering carbon-efficient services will attract business from manufacturers keen to reduce overall CBAM liability.

3. Competitive advantage through sustainability

Early movers in emissions transparency and decarbonising vehicle fleets can position themselves as strategic partners to heavy industries seeking compliant, carbon-aware mobility solutions.

Holistic sector impacts and strategic implications

CBAM seeks to protect UK industrial competitiveness by preventing carbon leakage while driving decarbonisation across supply chains. It will phase in gradually, starting with direct emissions and adding indirect emissions after 2029, giving industries time to adapt. Levies will be tailored to sectoral UK ETS averages, adjusted quarterly, and offset by any carbon pricing at origin.

For businesses, this means manufacturers must enhance carbon transparency and invest in cleaner production, logistics firms should advance carbon-tracking and sustainable freight, and mobility providers can gain by accelerating low-carbon innovation and partnering with decarbonising supply chains.

Final thoughts

CBAM reshapes the commercial landscape by embedding carbon pricing into international trade. For manufacturing, it reinforces the case for local, low-carbon competitiveness. In logistics, visibility into carbon flows becomes central to value propositions. For mobility, the shift towards sustainable transport is not just environmental - it’s commercial.

Companies across these sectors should start preparing by upgrading data systems, decarbonising operations, and rethinking supply chains, to turn regulation into strategic advantage by 2027.

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/simon-fennell

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/sarah-owbridge

false

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-sectors/ddcc-mobility-logistics-and-manufacturing-perspectives

]]>

Why simplify? The commercial upsides

Thu, 27 Nov 2025 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:e5452db8-13fc-4c40-b7fb-4d1bb19e8f43/as/ART-fer-troulik-vMrIAXq2u98-unsplash.avif?assetname=ART-fer-troulik-vMrIAXq2u98-unsplash.jpg

Article | 3 min read

Why simplify? The commercial upsides

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/louisa-hunter/profile

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

Clear communication isn’t just compliance – it’s a competitive edge. In financial services, firms that simplify their documents win trust, cut costs and unlock growth. Here’s why clarity is now a strategic imperative.

Published 27 November 2025

style

single-column-text

This series explores the big question: Why simplify? We’ll look at the challenges of delivering legally required information in a way that’s clear and accessible for everyone.

We’ll cover the regulatory landscape, the commercial upsides, and—most importantly—the benefits for consumers. It’s time to rethink how we talk to customers in financial services.

The commercial upsides of simplifying

In today’s fast-moving financial services landscape, clarity isn’t just a regulatory requirement, it’s a powerful commercial advantage. Firms that invest in simplifying their documentation are seeing tangible business benefits, from improved customer loyalty to operational savings and a stronger brand reputation.

Enhanced customer experience drives growth

When customers can easily understand your products and services, they’re more likely to trust your brand, engage with your offerings, and remain loyal. Research shows that clear, accessible documentation reduces confusion, increases satisfaction, and boosts retention rates.

In a competitive market, happy customers are not only more likely to stay—they’re also more likely to recommend your services to others, fuelling organic growth.

Operational efficiency and cost savings

Complex, jargon-heavy documents slow down processes, increase the risk of errors, and often require additional support from customer service teams.

By simplifying documentation, firms can:

streamline onboarding
reduce the volume of customer queries
minimise costly mistakes

Automation and clear templates further accelerate document production, freeing up valuable staff time for higher-value work.

Competitive differentiation

In a sector where many providers still rely on dense, legalistic language, those who communicate simply stand out. Simplified documentation signals a customer-first mindset and positions your firm as progressive and innovative.

This differentiation can be a deciding factor for clients choosing between providers.

Improved compliance and reduced risk

Clear, well-structured documents make it easier to meet regulatory requirements and demonstrate compliance. They also reduce the risk of disputes and complaints, as customers are less likely to misunderstand terms or feel misled.

This not only protects your firm from costly litigation but also strengthens relationships with regulators.

Unlocking digital transformation

Simplification is a key enabler of digital transformation. Automated document processing, AI-driven compliance checks, and seamless customer journeys all depend on clear, structured content.

Firms that embrace simplification are better positioned to leverage new technologies and adapt to changing market demands.

Simplifying financial services documentation isn’t just about ticking regulatory boxes—it’s a strategic move that delivers measurable commercial benefits. By making information accessible, firms can drive growth, reduce costs, manage risk, and build a brand that customers genuinely trust.

On the 15 October 2025, we launched our new Financial Services Simplification report, developed in partnership with YouGov. The report explores how consumers respond to financial services communications and highlights the growing importance of clear, effective messaging – especially as regulatory expectations rise.

For more information about the report or to find out how we can help please get in touch with the key contacts featured on this page.

This is article 2 in our Why simplify? three-part series. Article 3 will be published shortly.

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-transactional-and-advisory/ddcc-strategic-commercial-contracts

false

style

single-column-text

]]>

Driving change: The UK’s £120m EV funding initiative

Thu, 13 Nov 2025 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:1da851c2-c2c4-4954-b965-da5d8fd15f54/as/ART-US00090.avif?assetname=ART-US00090.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

Article | 3 min read

Driving change: The UK’s £120m EV funding initiative

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/grace-kendrick/profile

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

In February 2025, the UK government unveiled a £120 million funding package aimed at accelerating the transition to electric vehicles (EVs) across key sectors—drivers, businesses, fleets, and taxi operators.

Published 13 November 2025

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/chris-pritchett/profile

style

single-column-text

This initiative, part of a broader £2.3 billion investment strategy, is designed to make the switch to zero-emission transport easier, faster, and more affordable.

Key features of the initiative include:

plug-in van grant: extended support offering up to £5,000 for electric vans

zero-emission black cabs: grants of up to £4,000 to encourage greener taxi fleets

increased support for accessible vehicles: higher caps are now available for wheelchair-accessible EVs

simplified training and towing rules: Removal of extra training requirements for larger electric vans, now permitted to tow with less red tape.

Complementing these measures, the government has earmarked £200 million for expanding the UK’s public EV charging network. With over 85,000 charging points currently installed, ongoing investments aim to make charging even more convenient, helping to drive widespread EV adoption and foster a national ecosystem for connected mobility—particularly for commercial fleets. Alongside this expansion, in July 2025, the UK government announced a £63 million investment in electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure as part of its "Plan for Change", which aims to boost the charging network by funding home charging for those without driveways to ensure equitable access to charging, decarbonizing NHS fleets, and installing thousands of charging points at business depots, with a specific £30 million dedicated to the Depot Charging Scheme for van and HGV fleet operators. The UK Government also launched a £2.5 billion DRIVE35 programme, to support UK EV manufacturing and R&D in July 2025.

Legal considerations

While the funding boost is widely welcomed, it brings fresh legal complexities for stakeholders:

regulatory alignment: as investment accelerates, projects must remain aligned with UK laws and regulations. Rapid deployment, if mishandled, could trigger issues with state aid rules or competition law—especially regarding procurement and exclusivity agreements. It is important for stakeholders to continue ongoing compliance monitoring as regulations evolve.

eligibility and compliance: businesses seeking grants must navigate detailed eligibility criteria, maintain thorough documentation, and comply with environmental standards. Failure to do so could result in disputes or withdrawal of funding, with ongoing obligations for accurate recordkeeping and audit-readiness.

policy shifts: the renewed focus on a 2030 phase-out of petrol and diesel vehicles may prompt resistance from legacy automakers and fuel providers, raising the possibility of industry lobbying or legal challenges.

planning: stakeholders should also be aware of potential delays or disputes arising from planning permissions for new EV charging sites.

Industry impact

As government investment reshapes the electric vehicle landscape, its ripple effects are being felt across the entire industry, including:

expanding charging infrastructure: as EV uptake grows, the demand for reliable, widespread charging points intensifies. This will drive rapid development in urban, commercial, and rural areas, promote technological innovation, and attract new market entrants.

planning and zoning pressures: Local authorities face the challenge of updating planning laws to accommodate new charging infrastructure—balancing streamlined approvals, public space usage, and accessibility standards.

taxation changes: With the decline of petrol and diesel vehicle use—and associated fuel taxes—government is exploring alternative road usage charges or levies on EVs. These changes must preserve incentives for EV adoption while ensuring sustainable revenue for infrastructure and environmental costs. As of November 2025, the UK Government is exploring the possibility of a new levy on EVs

Conclusion

The automotive sector stands at a crossroads—this funding package is more than just a monetary boost. It signals a decisive regulatory direction and serves as a catalyst for industry-wide transformation. Stakeholders must be agile, proactive, and fully prepared to navigate both the opportunities and the evolving legal landscape as the UK accelerates toward a zero-emission future.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-sectors/ddcc-mobility-logistics-and-manufacturing-perspectives

]]>

Data is the new fuel: Vehicle forensics in the EV industry

Wed, 12 Nov 2025 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:05f45fd9-ae3e-4329-b1bd-bf25a0cd3ad8/as/ART-GE00025.avif?assetname=ART-GE00025.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

Article | 3 min read

Data is the new fuel: Vehicle forensics in the EV industry

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/chris-pritchett/profile

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

As the electric vehicle (EV) become more connected and intelligent, the industry is witnessing a surge in interest around vehicle forensics.

Published 12 November 2025

false

style

single-column-text

As the electric vehicle (EV) become more connected and intelligent, the industry is witnessing a surge in interest around vehicle forensics. Once reserved for accident investigators and law enforcement, vehicle forensics now offers insurers and manufacturers unprecedented access to behavioural data, performance metrics, and predictive analytics. This surge in data generation opens vast opportunities for monetisation, yet it also introduces complex legal considerations.

The rise of automotive data monetisation

Modern EVs are data powerhouses. Their advanced software systems and seamless cloud connectivity generate highly detailed forensic data, such as:

battery diagnostics and charging patterns;

GPS and location history;

infotainment usage and communications; and

crash event logs and driver interaction data.

This data is integral to compliance and safety. However, insurers and fleet operators are increasingly leveraging these datasets to create proprietary databases, enabling usage-based insurance (UBI), sophisticated fraud detection, and dynamic pricing. Over time, these data assets may be licensed or sold, driving new analytics and revenue models.

Legal & ethical dimensions

The rapid advancement of vehicle forensics within the EV sector offers enormous promise, but it also demands careful navigation of complex legal questions surrounding data ownership, consent, transparency, and compliance.

Data ownership and control
A central question emerges: Who owns the data generated by electric vehicles—the driver, the manufacturer, or the insurer? Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) like Tesla typically claim ownership via their terms of service, while insurers may assert rights through policyholder agreements. Legal certainty is crucial to define rights over raw and processed data, as well as conditions for sharing or resale, and to set clear obligations for disclosure to consumers.

Consent and transparency
Under UK GDPR, much of this vehicle data qualifies as personal information when linked to an individual. Companies must obtain informed consent prior to collecting or monetising such data, clearly communicate their practices, provide opt-in mechanisms for sharing, and respect users’ rights to access, update, or delete their information. Non-compliance risks significant penalties and reputational damage.

AI, blockchain, and the Future of data management
Cutting-edge technologies are reshaping automotive data governance. Artificial intelligence enables rapid analysis of massive datasets, supporting predictive maintenance, automated claims, and personalised insurance. Blockchain, meanwhile, can enhance trust by storing data on decentralised, tamper-evident ledgers and automating data sharing through smart contracts.
These technologies also invite additional regulatory scrutiny. The UK’s evolving AI framework and data protection regulations require that automated processes remain transparent, fair, and respectful of individual rights. Proactive compliance is essential for building trust and unlocking the full potential of connected vehicle data.

Data integrity and cybersecurity
The forensic analysis of EVs introduces technical challenges. Cybersecurity is paramount, and risks such as car hacking or data tampering increase liability for all parties handling vehicle data. Strong technical and organisational safeguards are critical to maintaining data integrity and confidentiality.

Strategic legal considerations

At Shoosmiths, our legal team partners with clients across the automotive and insuretech sectors to structure robust data-sharing and governance frameworks, anticipate regulatory changes, and build commercially resilient business models. Our expertise spans:

product liability;

insurance regulation; and

digital infrastructure for connected vehicles.

We ensure our clients stay compliant while remaining agile and competitive.

Conclusion: Legal readiness in a data-driven EV ecosystem

As the automotive sector embraces a future defined by data-driven innovation and substantial public investment, the intersection of vehicle forensics, data monetisation, and regulatory oversight becomes ever more complex. Businesses must be prepared to adapt swiftly to new legal frameworks, ensuring that transparency, compliance, and commercial resilience remain at the forefront of their strategy. 

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-sectors/ddcc-mobility-logistics-and-manufacturing-perspectives

]]>

Why simplify? – It’s better for everyone!

Mon, 10 Nov 2025 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:6051dfa9-64d0-4016-9f1c-8b8c331fb84f/as/ART-US00065.avif?assetname=ART-US00065.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

Article | 3 min read

Why simplify? It’s better for everyone

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/louisa-hunter/profile

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

Why Simplify? This series explores how to make legally required information clear and accessible, covering regulations, commercial benefits, and consumer impact. It’s time to rethink communication in financial services.

Published 10 November 2025

style

single-column-text

Making financial documents easier to understand isn’t just a nice-to-have. It’s essential for building trust, boosting engagement, and helping people make informed decisions.

Article 1: The Regulatory Imperative

If you’ve worked in financial services over the past decade, you’ll be very familiar with these terms:

transparency

plain and intelligible language

accessibility

clear communications

good outcomes

UK regulators have championed these principles for years. Accessibility rules for public sector bodies arrived in 2018. The Home Office’s 2020 Accessibility Standard recommends writing for a reading age of just nine. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 says written terms must be “plain and intelligible.” In 2019, the Treasury Select Committee suggested all financial communications should have a reading age of 11- to 12-years.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) raised the bar again with the 2023 Consumer Duty. Now, firms must deliver “good outcomes” for consumers, which means clear, understandable communications that allow customers to make informed decisions.

But what does this mean in practice? Understandable to who? Not just understandable for bankers or lawyers—but for the real people signing up for these services. Regulators expect more than just disclosure; they want proof that customers truly understand what they’re agreeing to.

as of May 2024, about 48% of UK adults had some form of credit or loan

in 2011, 14.9% of adults in England had a reading age of 9–11

To comply with Consumer Duty, documentation must be clear for every one of those 48%. If a significant portion of adults read at a 9–11-year-old level, much of today’s documentation simply isn’t compliant.

But reading age isn’t the only factor. Engagement, accessibility, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) matter too. We’ll dive into those in future articles.

The Challenge of Mandatory Wording

Sometimes, the law requires us to include specific phrases. This can lead to information overload, which may negatively impact customer understanding. For example, some consumer credit documents are required to detail APR or representative APR. How useful is this information to the consumer? The inclusion doesn’t answer the most important question: “What will this cost me?” This is a clear signal that the government and the FCA need to resolve these conflicts in upcoming reforms. Being compliant with the consumer credit rules isn’t enough to ensure compliance with the more recent requirement of customer understanding.

The Path Forward

We’ve made progress towards clearer, more accessible financial documents—but there’s still a long way to go. As regulations evolve, firms must commit to simplifying language and cutting unnecessary complexity. Only by prioritising real understanding over legal box-ticking can our industry deliver the good outcomes consumers deserve.

On the 15th October 2025, we launched our new Financial Services Simplification report, developed in partnership with YouGov. The report explores how consumers respond to financial services communications and highlights the growing importance of clear, effective messaging – especially as regulatory expectations rise.

For more information about the report or to find out how we can help you please get in touch with the key contacts featured on this page.

Why Simplify? is a 3-part article series. Articles 2 and 3 will be published shortly.

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-transactional-and-advisory/ddcc-strategic-commercial-contracts

false

style

single-column-text

]]>

EU AI Act: Defining key roles in the value chain

Mon, 13 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0100

alternative text

alternative text secondary

Article | 5 min read

EU AI Act: Defining key roles in the value chain

The EU AI Act demands clarity. Here’s how to find yours.

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/sarah-reynolds/profile

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The EU AI Act is reshaping how organisations build, deploy and distribute AI. But compliance starts with knowing your role. Whether you’re a Provider, Deployer, Importer or Distributor, each carries distinct duties, especially when high-risk systems are involved. Misidentifying your place in the AI value chain isn’t just a technical error, it’s a regulatory risk.

Published 13 October 2025
Authors Sarah Reynolds, Alex Kirkhope, Stefanie Hughes

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/alex-kirkhope/profile

false

style

single-column-text

In the second instalment of our series on the EU AI Act (Act), we offer a brief overview of the different categories of stakeholder within the AI ecosystem (also known as the AI value chain) and the key compliance obligations that organisations in these roles should be aware of. The Act outlines a number of roles, including Providers, Deployers, Importers and Distributors (among others). Defining your role can be complex, so it is vital that organisations take appropriate advice to understand where it will fall within this value chain for any particular AI System – and the role (or roles) it may assume under the Act - in order to map its obligations and take steps to demonstrate effective compliance.

As many of the obligations under the Act are determined by the level of risk associated with the AI system or model in question (with the most stringent requirements reserved for technologies deemed to pose ‘high’ or ‘systemic risk’) this article gives an indication of what organisations may expect within the context of a high-risk AI System.

Which roles exist under the Act?

Providers

The Act defines a ‘Provider’ as follows:

‘a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body that develops an AI system or a general-purpose AI model or that has an AI system or a general-purpose AI model developed and places it on the market or puts the AI system into service under its own name or trademark, whether for payment or free of charge’.

In other words, these are the entities ultimately responsible for creating the AI system in question. Accordingly, they bear the largest compliance burdens under the Act. In the context of high-risk AI systems, Providers have a range of responsibilities and must be cognisant of the Act from initial stages of development of their product, as well as throughout its lifecycle. For example, at the outset of the development cycle, Providers need to build and implement an appropriate risk management system. They must also ensure that training data meets strict quality requirements, as well as prevent, or at the very least mitigate, any propagation of bias within their AI system. These are just a few examples of the prescriptive requirements Providers must adhere to when developing their technology.

Deployers

The Act defines a ‘Deployer’ as follows:

‘a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body using an AI system under its authority except where the AI system is used in the course of a personal non-professional activity’.

These are the entities who use AI systems ‘under their own authority’. For example, a company using a third-party AI system to screen and filter job applications as part of its recruitment processes would be a Deployer of the third-party AI system.

As Deployers are not themselves responsible for developing the AI system in question, they are subject to lesser compliance obligations. Nonetheless, Deployers play a critical role in operationalising AI responsibly and ethically.

For example, in relation to high-risk AI systems specifically, Deployers are charged with monitoring the system’s operation and reporting to the Provider in respect of any such use ‘presenting a risk’ (within the meaning of relevant EU legislation¹). Deployers must also ensure that any high-risk AI system they are using is subject to a level of human oversight. In practice, this means the Deployer will need to ensure its employees are sufficiently well-trained to be able to interpret and interrogate the output of any high-risk AI system.

Deployers should further be aware that there is a fine line between the role of Provider and Deployer, and accordingly, their role has the potential to morph into that of a Provider if certain thresholds are reached. One example of when an organisation may assume the additional, more onerous responsibilities of a Provider under the Act is if they make a substantial modification to the AI system. Organisations should be aware that the roles of Provider and Deployer are not mutually exclusive - meaning that if an organisation first modifies, and then uses the AI system, it will be considered both a Provider and a Deployer under the Act.

Other roles defined within the Act

Organisations should be aware of additional roles within the value chain, such as those of Importer, Distributor, and Authorized Representative. Each of these stakeholders play an important part in fulfilling the aims of the legislation. Importers are entities that bring AI systems from outside of the EU into the territory. Importers may act as an important compliance safeguard, ensuring technical documentation has been prepared, and EU declarations of conformity are present in the case of high-risk AI systems.

Distributors are a vehicle by which AI systems may be made available within the EU. These entities also perform a compliance function (by enduring that declarations of conformity are present before distributing, and cooperating with authorities to the extent required). Authorised Representatives act on behalf of Providers of high-risk systems based in a third country. They retain robust records in relation to the systems, and crucially, serve as a main point of contact for EU authorities.

Why does this matter?

Organisations who inadvertently misidentify their role within the AI value chain face increased regulatory risk due to gaps in accountability and unfulfilled obligations. Understanding these roles is therefore more than semantics - it is the foundation of an effective compliance strategy. As outlined in our previous article (GPAI Models: What you need to know), preparation, robust assessments, and record keeping are the cornerstones of effective AI governance. Ensure you are clear about which role you play within the AI value chain, and how you will meet the corresponding obligations under the Act.

Look out for further instalments in this series, where we’ll continue to delve into the Act, taking a closer look at concepts such as risk, compliance and governance.

¹According to the Act, AI systems ‘presenting a risk’ shall be understood to be ‘products presenting a risk’. See further Article 3, point 19 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020.

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/perspectives-disclaimer

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-transactional-and-advisory/ddcc-strategic-commercial-contracts

]]>

FCA’s redress scheme: A turning point for motor finance

Wed, 8 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0100

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:1d87d6d6-0fc3-46e3-8f98-3a0ced5d3a98/as/ART-karsten-winegeart-Hxu9Q0V-ohc-unsplash.avif?assetname=ART-karsten-winegeart-Hxu9Q0V-ohc-unsplash.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

Article | 2 min read

FCA’s redress scheme: A turning point for motor finance

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/wayne-gibbard

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The FCA’s proposed compensation scheme for mis-sold car finance is more than a regulatory milestone – it’s a chance to reshape trust in motor finance. With millions potentially eligible, firms must act fast to engage with the consultation, clarify expectations and embed fairness.

Published 8 October 2025

style

single-column-text

The FCA’s proposed compensation scheme for mis-sold car finance marks a significant moment for consumer protection and industry accountability. With up to 14 million customers potentially affected, this is more than redress – it’s a chance to reset. Lenders and brokers now face a critical consultation period, with transparency and fairness at the heart of what comes next.

Why now matters

The FCA’s proposed £8 billion scheme spans agreements from 2007 to 2024, addressing historic use of discretionary commission models, estimating an average payout of £700.

This isn’t a sudden intervention. The FCA has been working towards this since 2017, banning discretionary commissions in 2021. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling accelerated action. The message is clear: where disclosure rules weren’t met, redress must follow. The six-week consultation offers firms a real opportunity to shape the scheme and ensure it works in practice.

Scale, complexity and the need for clarity

With millions potentially eligible, the scheme’s scope is vast. While a thorough review of the detail is required, there appear to be some unintended consequences in the design and eligibility criteria, which will hopefully be identified and addressed through the consultation process. It’s clearly important that lenders and brokers deliver against the requirements, which is balanced against ensuring the customers are correctly compensated.

Managing expectations, protecting trust

The £700 figure has already shaped headlines – but it’s not a guarantee. The idea of an average “payout” per finance agreement risks misleading customers. Many won’t see that figure – and some may have a very different experience altogether. That gap between expectation and reality matters. It can fuel frustration, damage trust, and open the door to claims driven by misinformation.

Balancing the expectations of every stakeholder in the market isn’t easy. To deliver consistent redress, compromise is essential – from all sides. That’s the direction the FCA is clearly steering towards in its consultation.

What firms should do now

This is a moment for proactive engagement. Lenders and brokers should take part in the consultation, review historic practices, and prepare for implementation in 2026. Many firms are already focused on making sure their customers have the right information at the right time. For any that slightly behind on that should embed Consumer Duty principles – fairness, clarity, and accountability – across their operations.

Looking ahead

This scheme isn’t just about resolving the past. It sets a new benchmark for how motor finance will work. For lender and brokers it’s a chance to continue to rebuild trust, strengthen relationships, and ultimately show what good looks like in a changing market.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-transactional-and-advisory/ddcc-strategic-commercial-contracts

]]>

Repairable, reliable, affordable: The UK's EV playbook

Fri, 26 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0100

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:12dcc9bc-ea00-43a8-9560-f4dc6fb3fed3/as/ART-GettyImages-1828746435.avif?assetname=ART-GettyImages-1828746435.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

Article | 18 min read

Repairable, reliable, affordable: The UK's EV playbook

Investment, innovation and inclusion must now scale together

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/chris-pritchett

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The UK’s EV transition is no longer a question of “if” – it’s about “how fast”. At the 2025 EV Summit in Oxford, Shoosmiths’ energy & infrastructure Partner Chris Pritchett joined sector leaders to explore the investment models, regulatory shifts and real-world barriers shaping the next phase of electrification. From funding eHGV hubs to closing the skills gap, the summit made one thing clear: progress depends on joined-up thinking, bold investment, and practical solutions that work for everyone.

Published 26 September 2025

style

single-column-text

Now in its eighth year, the UK EV Summit focused on accelerating the shift from early adopters to the early mainstream by tackling critical challenges such as boosting EV sales, expanding safe and accessible charging infrastructure, and ensuring affordability for all. Over two days, delegates engaged in high-level panels, visionary discussions, and strategic networking to drive innovation and collaboration toward a sustainable, electrified future. Ade Thomas, founder of the summit, set the tone with a clear message: the ultimate goal is a world “where charging becomes a joy, not a chore.” Gill Nowell of Green.TV Media highlighted the sector’s rapid growth, noting that just 15 years ago there were only 200 EVs on UK roads but by 2030, projections suggest nine million, or one in four vehicles.

Lawyers from across our mobility and energy & infrastructure sectors attended the event and provided their key takeaways from the summit:

Location of summit not a coincidence

The first day of the summit opened with an address from Oxford’s Lord Mayor, Louise Upton, who reaffirmed the City Council’s commitment to EVs as the future. She highlighted the council’s decade-long sustainability efforts, including a 2040 net zero target, nine dedicated taxi charging stations, initiatives to improve air quality such as the zero-emission zone (ZEZ) which had a role in encouraging fleets like Royal Mail to go electric. Upton also showcased the Energy Superhub Oxford, which serves around 135 vehicles a day making it the UK’s most powerful EV charging hub with 42 bays and capacity to expand to 400, with 15 million EVs charged to date and a heat pump on site to power nearby council homes. All this, born from collaborations sparked at previous EV Summits, underscoring the importance of such partnerships in driving the EV transition. Chris also played a pivotal role in this project and so it was great to return to the scene.

Auto Trader highlights UK’s rapid EV transition

Auto Trader’s Chief Commercial Officer, Ian Plummer, unveiled the Road to 2030 mid-term report as the UK nears its Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate deadline to phase out new petrol and diesel cars by 2030. He highlighted significant progress: 1.6 million fully EVs now on UK roads-over seven times more than in 2020, with an average range of up to 290 miles. EVs now account for 22% of new car sales and public charge points have surged to 85,000 (four times more than in 2020). Auto Trader is driving adoption by making used EVs mainstream, with one in six used car enquiries now electric, up from two percent in 2020. Plummer also noted rapid innovation, with 150 EV models across nearly 50 brands and a new electric model launching roughly every 10 days, signalling major technological leaps. He also highlighted that 41% of new consumers will consider EVs as their next choice of car, which is up from 33% last year, and 90% of current EV owners would buy an EV again, although cost remains a key blocker for consumer adoption with roughly a 20% cost difference between an EV and Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicle.

Focussing on the EV charging infrastructure, Plummer highlighted that 76% of EV owners have a home charger and 33% have used a public charger in the past month, with 22% never having used a public charge point to date. To help progress this, Plummer recommended a focus on innovation behind the charging technology to boost consumer confidence.

The rapid adoption of EVs is creating a major fiscal challenge for governments because EVs do not pay fuel duty, which currently generates around £25 billion annually in the UK. As petrol and diesel use declines, this revenue is projected to fall to near zero by 2040, leaving a £28–35 billion shortfall. While EVs reduce emissions, they still contribute to road wear and congestion, so policymakers are exploring alternatives such as road pricing (pay-per-mile), higher Vehicle Excise Duty, and charging taxes. Businesses should anticipate new motoring tax frameworks that could impact fleet costs, consumer behaviour, and long-term mobility strategies.

Vauxhall leads panel on accelerating UK EV adoption

Steve Catlin, Managing Director of Vauxhall Motors opened the first panel discussion on how to boost EV sales in the UK. He remarked that the biggest challenge/transition with the market at present is the 15-week deadline ahead, referring to the ZEV Mandate, which sets strict sales targets for manufacturers. By 2025, at least 28% of all new car sales and 16% of new van sales must be zero-emission vehicles (mainly battery electric or hydrogen fuel cell). This is part of a phased approach leading to the ban on new petrol and diesel cars in 2030, with hybrids allowed until 2035. Manufacturers that fail to meet the 2025 target face fines of up to £15,000 per non-compliant car (or £9,000 for vans), though recent updates have introduced some flexibility, such as credit trading and phased penalties.

The panel session, which included Catlin was moderated by Ade Thomas of Green.TV Media and featured experts from Coventry City Council, Electrifying.com, and Connected Kerb.

As EV adoption accelerates under the ZEV Mandate, requiring 28% of new car sales to be zero-emission by 2025, government revenues from fuel duty (worth £25 billion annually) are set to collapse, creating a £28–35 billion shortfall by 2040. Meanwhile, VAT on public charging remains 20% versus 5% for home charging, penalising drivers without off-street parking and slowing equitable adoption. Vauxhall, offering fully electric versions of every model and supporting affordability through the £1,500 Electric Car Grant, stressed that with 40% car owners not actually having a driveway for personal EV chargers, government schemes for public charging are key for adoption growth. On the supply side, procurement is a major bottleneck: fleets and corporates face long lead times, high upfront costs, and uncertainty over residual values, while infrastructure planning and grid readiness add complexity. These combined fiscal, regulatory, and operational pressures mean businesses must anticipate new motoring taxes (e.g., road pricing), factor in evolving cost structures, and adapt procurement strategies to secure vehicles and charging solutions early.

The panel agreed uptake will vary regionally, favouring areas with strong infrastructure such as Coventry, which now boasts the highest level of public charging outside London and three times more than the whole of Cornwall combined. A skills shortage was highlighted to be a contributing factor to blocking the 2030 target, where extensive knowledge of implementation and regulation are missing in the market.

Business benefits of fleet decarbonisation

In a side session, Naomi Jane Nye, Head of Sales at Drax, demonstrated how the company supports businesses in transitioning to electric fleets, using SES Water as a case study. The switch delivered a 56% reduction in running costs and prevented 18 tonnes of CO₂ emissions, achieved through a phased conversion strategy that provided valuable insights. Additionally, implementing home-based charging for its electric van fleet removed barriers and improved operational efficiency.

Product pull, simple charging, and cross‑sector collaboration

Renault’s keynote showed how product‑led appeal can spark EV momentum, with the new Renault 5 lifting the brand’s UK electric mix from 8% to 30% reducing consumer fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD). Policy and infrastructure support is growing through the Electric Car Grant, £65 million for charging, and Mobilize initiatives including 650 rapid chargers across Europe and upcoming bidirectional charging in the UK. Mobilize Charge Pass removes friction by giving app‑based access to more than 800,000 charging points across 25 countries, over 1 million in the UK and Europe combined, with route planning, digital payments, Plug and Charge, and preferential rates on high‑speed networks such as Ionity. An OVO‑hosted panel which followed, reinforced that collaboration between energy, charging and automotive is essential as anxiety shifts from range to charging access; with 40% of UK residents lacking driveways and many unlikely to adopt without affordable near‑home options, the priorities are simple, interoperable user experiences and practical solutions such as cross‑pavement charging, delivered through joined‑up partnerships.

Charging industry’s path to scale

Ryan Fisher, Head of Charging Infrastructure at Bloomberg, delivered a compelling keynote offering a global perspective on the progress of EV charging. He highlighted that regions such as Norway, Germany, California, and China are on track for more than half of their vehicle fleets to be fully electric by the 2030s, creating unprecedented demand for charging solutions. To address this challenge, Fisher outlined three critical factors: pricing, power, and profitability. While public charging is already cheaper than petrol in some markets, costs remain higher in the US and Europe, making increased competition among charge point operators essential for driving prices down and building a sustainable ecosystem. He noted that negative power prices enhance the value of charging control, with flexibility varying by electricity market size, and that electricity is beginning to dominate carbon credit programmes. However, profitability remains a major hurdle, with many operators struggling and taking on more debt. “The future of EV charging will be rocky and influence many industries,” Fisher concluded.

Shoosmiths panel: unlocking investment for EV and eHGV infrastructure

Shoosmiths’ panel session, which included Chris Pritchett, Partner (energy & infrastructure), explored the evolving investment landscape and opportunities for EV and eHGV infrastructure. “There are so many opportunities and models,” he said. “The trick is to pick the right one and create a proposition you can sell to investment committees, shareholders, and businesses so we can all drive forward together.”

Joined by moderator Gill Nowell, Lauren Pamma (Aldermore Bank), Sara Sloman (Paythru), and Vicky Read (ChargeUK), the panel highlighted how legal and planning bottlenecks affecting standard EV projects are amplified for large eHGV charging hubs. They outlined what charge point operators (CPOs) must show to attract capital: a track record of delivery, clear utilisation data from existing sites, and the ability to build brand loyalty as drivers increasingly prefer or avoid specific networks.

Payment is set to get simpler with Plug & Charge - “my phone is already my wallet; soon, my car will be,” noted Sloman. To keep investment flowing, the group called for policy and legislative certainty-critical when large sums are at stake-and ongoing support for consumers and businesses to switch to EVs, directly strengthening the investment case for CPOs.

Boosting charger utilisation and reliability

Dr Esther Taylor, Head of Research at Thatcham Research, used the afternoon keynote to argue that the UK’s circular economy depends on EVs being designed to be both repairable and insurable. Drawing on data that feeds roughly eight million insurance quotes each week, she noted that insurability strongly influences total cost of ownership and because high‑voltage batteries account for a large share of vehicle value, even limited damage can tip a claim toward a write‑off. Taylor called for industry-wide action: design vehicles and batteries with repairability in mind, standardise battery diagnostics, and scale battery repair and refurbishment networks to lower costs.

Another panel, hosted by Petalite, examined how charge point operators can lift utilisation in 2025 while building loyalty and navigating grid constraints. CEO Steven Gardener stressed that utilisation rises with consumer confidence, yet around 37% of private car buyers still cite charging infrastructure concerns as a reason not to go electric. The panel framed success as a balance of availability, utilisation, pricing, and driver experience and underscored that reliability is multi‑layered: not just hardware uptime, but also software, payments, interoperability protocols, and the wider energy system. With support helplines now a legal requirement, operators that resolve issues quickly are best placed to earn lasting brand loyalty.

Closing the first day, ChargeUK CEO Vicky Read outlined how the sector intends to deliver widespread, affordable public charging. The UK already has more than 85,000 public charge points, but adoption and utilisation hinge increasingly on price; Read argued availability is not the primary barrier, pointing instead to a 38% rise in public charging prices since 2021. ChargeUK’s new white paper recommends three actions: cut energy‑related overheads (including standing charges) and extend policy reliefs; strengthen the business case by adding public charging to the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation; and reduce VAT on public charging from 20% to 5%, aligning it with home charging and shaving up to 9.5p/kWh from driver costs.

UK industrial strategy

The final day of the EV SUMMIT opened with a keynote from Paolo Enrico F., Deputy Head of the Automotive Unit at the UK’s Department for Business and Trade, who outlined how the government’s Modern Industrial Strategy will accelerate the EV transition. This 10-year plan is designed to strengthen the UK’s position as a global leader in advanced manufacturing, with a strong focus on the automotive sector. Key measures include reducing electricity costs by up to 25% and investing in clean energy infrastructure which are critical steps for both consumers and charge point operators. The strategy also introduces the Advanced Manufacturing Sector Plan, which aims to make the UK the best place in the world to start, grow, and invest in advanced manufacturing by 2035. Batteries and automotive are two of six priority sectors, with plans to develop EV manufacturing clusters in the North-East and West Midlands to boost supply chain resilience and economies of scale.

To support this vision, the government launched the £2.5 billion DRIVE35 programme, which will fund projects such as giga factories, alongside £452 million through the Battery Innovation Programme to advance next-generation battery technologies. These initiatives sit within a broader mission to deliver strong, sustainable economic growth, underpinned by £86 billion in R&D investment, expanded access to finance, and streamlined regulation. By fostering strategic certainty for investors, promoting international trade, and aligning skills with growth sectors, the Modern Industrial Strategy sets out a clear roadmap for making the UK a global hub for EV innovation and advanced manufacturing.

Scaling infrastructure and driving electric truck adoption

A CBRE‑led panel explored how charge point operators can secure, build and run EV sites at scale amid intensifying competition, highlighting end‑to‑end models, varied ownership approaches (from leasing and financing to full vertical integration), and the importance of data‑driven site selection, AI‑enabled reliability and customer trust. While partnerships between CPOs and real‑estate owners can enhance land value, they remain complex, shaped by site quality, deployment speed and safety standards with players like Sainsbury’s Smart Charge leveraging in‑house estates for ultra‑rapid charging, and others such as 50five and GRIDSERVE prioritising flexibility and scalability. Complementing this, Volvo Trucks showcased that electric HGVs are already operating on UK roads helping fleets overcome range anxiety (up to 600km), charging access and cost barriers yet adoption remains nascent (c.0.5% of 2024 UK registrations). Unlocking broader uptake will require rapid rollout of truck‑specific charging at depots and along key corridors, underpinned by grid upgrades, policy support and deeper cross‑industry partnerships, pursuing progress over perfection.

Stabilising residuals and closing the charging gap

Cox Automotive’s panel underscored that falling used‑EV residual values (with sub‑24‑month vehicles retaining ~44%) are a double‑edged sword, improving affordability while signalling weak consumer confidence that threatens the sustainability of both new and used markets. The remedy centres on confidence‑building: better dealer training, robust and transparent battery warranties and certification, and public education to counter myths on degradation, alongside OEM actions (for example, Nissan’s active resale ecosystem management in the context of the UK ZEV mandate), and supply‑chain development for battery reconditioning, given the pivotal role stable residuals play in future investment decisions.

Electric Vehicle Association (EVA) England’s research shows momentum but a long road to mass adoption: EVs are accounting for 27% of new sales with 1.6m EVs on UK roads, yet 95% of the fleet vehicles remains ICE. The biggest brakes are misinformation (68%), cost (6 in 10), and practical barriers for those without off‑street parking, compounded by high public charging costs that 75% believe government should address. Progress is tangible: 85,000+ public charge points (+25% YoY), growing affordability (33 models under £30k; two in five used under £20k), and typical running‑cost savings near £1,000 per year, supported by innovations like near‑home charging, charge‑sharing, V2G and dynamic pricing. Converting progress into mainstream uptake now requires:

narrowing the private‑public charging cost gap through electricity market reform, VAT changes and support for cross‑pavement and charge‑sharing solutions;
improving access and ease via faster rollout of PAS 1899 accessibility standards (with a pathway to mandating), stronger tenant and leaseholder rights, simpler payments and clearer signage; and
expanding lower‑cost and used‑EV options through social leasing and residual‑value support underpinned by battery standards and certification.

Accessibility for disabled drivers is essential, and it improves the experience for everyone, while a “progress over perfection” mindset will help align policy, finance, retail and infrastructure to reach mass adoption.

Closing the skills gap

In her keynote, Amy-Jane Marsden, Managing Director of Pro-Tech MOT & Automotive Academy, spotlighted a looming challenge for the UK’s automotive sector, previously discussed on day one: a critical shortage of skilled technicians to support the electric transition. By 2032, around 144,000 people are expected to retire from the motor industry, yet by 2030 the UK will need at least 20,000 additional qualified EV technicians. This gap is already being felt, with some garages turning away EV work, not due to lack of demand, but because they lack the expertise. Compounding the issue, the number of MOT testers is also declining, and current MOT standards fail to address EV-specific safety checks such as charging port integrity, battery condition, and high-voltage cabling.

Marsden emphasised the urgent need for reform and upskilling. She called for the integration of EV-specific checks into the MOT regime and highlighted the importance of IMI TechSafe accreditation as a benchmark for competence and safety. This certification ensures technicians have the skills to work on advanced technologies like EVs and Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) and is likely to become a key trust signal for EV owners. With the EV market accelerating, making TechSafe registration a standard and embedding EV safety into MOT testing are essential steps to future-proof the industry and maintain consumer confidence.

Next phase of fleet charging

The penultimate panel explored how fleets can turn charging from a cost centre into a strategic revenue asset. Moderated by Green.TV’s Ella Power, the discussion brought together Gustavo A. Prince (Wenea), Jonny Berry (Head of Decarbonisation, Innovation & Strategy, Novuna Vehicle Solutions), Michael Potter (CEO, CarbonFree Finance) and Niall Riddell (CEO & Co‑Founder, Paua) to unpack the practicalities: medium‑sized businesses face steep upfront capital costs; a staged strategy of electrifying depots/HQs first and supplementing with public charging is proving effective; and while public charging is pricier due to infrastructure investment, better visibility of power‑use patterns by Distribution Network Operators (DNOs) and clear government funding signals can unlock deployment at scale. On‑street charging remains challenging where driveways are scarce, and depot sharing will require formal commercial agreements. Riddell stressed that seamless access to public networks is essential for vehicles without depot options or travelling longer distances, while megawatt chargers will be crucial for confidence and smart siting. Looking ahead, vehicle‑to‑grid (V2G) can monetise downtime, and reforms in payments, access, and partnerships can help fleets capture new revenue while accelerating electrification.

Women and the EV transition

The Summit’s closing panel, delivered in partnership with The Charge Scheme and Top Women in EV, tackled a critical question: how do we engage the “forgotten audience” of women, who hold 49% of UK driving licences yet remain underrepresented in EV adoption? After an introduction from Thom Groot, Co‑Founder and CEO of The Electric Car Scheme, Gill Nowell moderated a discussion featuring Mas Morton (Chief of Staff, The Charge Scheme), Michelle Breffitt (Co‑Founder, Women Drive Electric) and Erin Baker (Editorial Director, Autotrader). Safety emerged as the top priority for women when using public charging, where panellists called for well‑lit, non‑secluded locations and weather‑protected bays to build confidence. Affordability was another key theme, with salary sacrifice schemes like those offered by The Electric Car Scheme helping to make EVs more accessible.

The conversation also highlighted the need for cultural and marketing shifts. Erin Baker noted that it took years to persuade women’s magazines to feature automotive content, underscoring the importance of experiential marketing and meeting women in spaces they already occupy. Retailers and OEMs were urged to improve usability such as better cable management and clearer signage and to embrace gender‑inclusive advertising, user‑generated content, and feedback loops before purchase. With women often acting as primary caregivers, convenience and reassurance around charging are essential. Closing the gender gap in EV adoption will require a blend of infrastructure design, affordability measures, and targeted engagement strategies that reflect women’s real-world needs.

From pioneering the leaf to powering homes

Closing the summit, James Taylor, Managing Director of Nissan GB, spotlighted the transformative potential of vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology. The upcoming new Leaf model will feature both V2L and V2G capabilities, enabling drivers to feed energy back into the grid or power their homes directly. This innovation could turn EVs into energy assets, with the possibility of home charging becoming virtually cost-free for some users, which is an enticing prospect that underscores Nissan’s vision of EVs as integral to a smarter, more sustainable energy ecosystem.

The UK’s blueprint for an electrified mobility revolution

The Summit underscored that mass EV adoption will hinge on affordability, reliable and accessible charging, and cross‑sector collaboration, even as momentum builds with rising sales, expanding networks, and rapid tech advances. The government’s Modern Industrial Strategy adds the execution plan: £86 billion in R&D, £2.5 billion for giga factories, targeted battery innovation funding, lower energy costs, and regional manufacturing clusters to secure supply chains and investor confidence while aligning skills with growth sectors. Converting ambition into mainstream uptake now depends on coordinated action - designing repairable, insurable vehicles; ensuring equitable access to charging; securing capital for large‑scale infrastructure; and implementing supportive policies (including tax reform and VAT alignment) - alongside tackling residual‑value volatility, charging accessibility gaps, skills shortages, and gender inclusion. If these pieces come together, the UK can shift decisively from strategy to delivery, making EV ownership practical, reliable, and financially viable for all, while unlocking opportunities in fleet electrification, V2G, and collaborative business models.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-transactional-and-advisory/ddcc-strategic-commercial-contracts

]]>

Late payments: Time’s up for bad practice

Wed, 17 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0100

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:c7b73950-a641-496c-8a3b-291c942d5f62/as/ART-u2114277519_photographic_silhouette_of_a_person_wearing_high-_c1c7cfd6-4770-433c-a69b-6d37f409eb15_1.avif?assetname=ART-u2114277519_photographic_silhouette_of_a_person_wearing_high-_c1c7cfd6-4770-433c-a69b-6d37f409eb15_1.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

Article | 2 min read

Late payments: Time’s up for bad practice

New rules could finally shift the balance for SMEs

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/michelle-craven-faulkner

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The UK government’s proposed reforms to late payment rules mark a decisive shift in how large businesses are expected to treat their suppliers. With financial penalties, tighter reporting, and board-level scrutiny on the table, this is more than a policy tweak—it’s a cultural reset. For ambitious clients, it’s time to get ahead of the curve.

Published 17 September 2025

style

single-column-text

The UK government has pledged to tackle the issue of late payments to suppliers as part of a broader plan to stimulate growth within the SME sector (Backing your business: our plan for small and medium sized businesses).

According to government estimates, late payments cost the UK economy nearly £11 billion annually. SMEs are disproportionately affected, as typically lower cash reserves make it harder to absorb the negative impact that late payments can have on cash flow. To combat this, the government has launched a consultation on reforms to the current late payment regime, with proposals aimed at strengthening and modernising existing measures.

Large organisations are already subject to payment performance reporting obligations under the Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance Regulations 2017 (the ‘Regulations’). The Regulations promote transparency and encourage timely payments. Businesses can further demonstrate their commitment to timely payment practices by subscribing to the Fair Payment Code (the ‘Code’). The Code, which replaced the ‘Prompt Payment Code’ in December 2024, recognises businesses with gold, silver, or bronze awards for consistently paying suppliers promptly.

The Small Business Commissioner (the ‘Commissioner’), whose remit includes addressing late payments and unfavourable business practices, oversees the Code and is empowered to investigate and assist SMEs in the recovery of late payments. Under the proposed reforms, the Commissioner would gain enhanced powers, including the ability to issue financial penalties to businesses that repeatedly fail to pay suppliers on time. The Regulations would also be amended to increase existing reporting obligations by requiring large organisations to report on their statutory interest liabilities as well.

Additional measures proposed under the consultation include:

amendments to The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998, introducing capped payment terms of 60 days, a 30-day deadline for disputing invoices, and mandatory statutory interest on all late payments
legislation compelling enhanced scrutiny of payment practices within audit committees and at board level
reforms to retention clauses within construction contracts.

The government has described the measures as the most “significant legislation to tackle late payments in over 25 years” – position the UK as having the “strongest legal framework on late payments in the G7”.

The consultation is open until 23 October 2025, and you can have your say here. You can also read more about the Fair Payment Code and what it means for businesses in our earlier article, New Fair Payment Code for businesses announced.

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/jennifer-clarke

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-transactional-and-advisory/ddcc-strategic-commercial-contracts

]]>

Prompt payment push: UK Government to support SMEs by getting tough on late payments

Wed, 17 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0100

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:3871dee9-88d2-4ea6-8ffb-4195ea2d2f4b/as/Brand_Images_Places-(39).avif?assetname=Brand_Images_Places+%2839%29.jpg

Article | 2 min read

Prompt payment push

UK Government to support SMEs by getting tough on late payments

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/stefanie-merci/profile

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The UK Government has pledged to tackle the issue of late payments to suppliers as part of a broader plan to stimulate growth within the SME sector (Backing your business: our plan for small and medium sized businesses).

Published: 17 September 2025
Author: Stefanie Merci, Michelle Craven-Faulkner

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/michelle-craven-faulkner/profile

false

style

single-column-text

According to Government estimates, late payments cost the UK economy nearly £11 billion annually. SMEs are disproportionately affected, as typically lower cash reserves make it harder to absorb the negative impact that late payments can have on cash flow. To combat this, the Government has launched a consultation on reforms to the current late payment regime, with proposals aimed at strengthening and modernising existing measures.

Large organisations are already subject to payment performance reporting obligations under the Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance Regulations 2017 (the ‘Regulations’). The Regulations promote transparency and encourage timely payments. Businesses can further demonstrate their commitment to timely payment practices by subscribing to the Fair Payment Code (the ‘Code’). The Code, which replaced the ‘Prompt Payment Code’ in December 2024, recognises businesses with gold, silver, or bronze awards for consistently paying suppliers promptly.

The Small Business Commissioner (the ‘Commissioner’), whose remit includes addressing late payments and unfavourable business practices, oversees the Code and is empowered to investigate and assist SMEs in the recovery of late payments. Under the proposed reforms, the Commissioner would gain enhanced powers, including the ability to issue financial penalties to businesses that repeatedly fail to pay suppliers on time. The Regulations would also be amended to increase existing reporting obligations by requiring large organisations to report on their statutory interest liabilities as well.

Additional measures proposed under the consultation include:

amendments to The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998, introducing capped payment terms of 60 days, a 30-day deadline for disputing invoices, and mandatory statutory interest on all late payments.
legislation compelling enhanced scrutiny of payment practices within audit committees and at board level.
reforms to retention clauses within construction contracts.

The Government has described the measures as the most “significant legislation to tackle late payments in over 25 years” – position the UK as having the “strongest legal framework on late payments in the G7”.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-sectors/ddcc-mobility-logistics-and-manufacturing-perspectives

]]>

Fitting rooms in the cloud: Privacy implications of VTO in retail

Wed, 17 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0100

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:ed09cd0b-a590-489a-ba12-db41841351fc/as/ART-u2114277519_create_high_end_photography_showing_detail_of_dat_fc415f0c-9e3b-431c-95ef-41455743e4e9_2.avif?assetname=ART-u2114277519_create_high_end_photography_showing_detail_of_dat_fc415f0c-9e3b-431c-95ef-41455743e4e9_2.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

Article | 6 min read

Fitting Rooms in the cloud

Privacy implications of VTO in retail

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/sherif-malak/profile

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

As retailers embrace AI to improve digital shopping, virtual try-on tech blends convenience with personalisation. Yet, in the race for seamless experiences, critical data protection concerns are often overlooked.

Published 17 September 2025

style

single-column-text

As retailers increasingly adopt artificial intelligence (“AI”) to enhance digital shopping journeys, virtual try-on (“VTO”) technology offers a compelling combination of convenience, personalisation, and engagement. Whether helping customers see how a lipstick shade suits their complexion or visualising furniture in their living room, VTO aims to reduce product returns and increase buyer confidence.

However, this innovation also raises complex data protection questions that are too often overlooked in the pursuit of frictionless consumer experiences. VTO solutions rely on processing a wide range of personal data, often including biometric data raising complex compliance issues under the UK GDPR and related data protection laws.

How VTO technology works

Retailers are integrating VTO tools across a variety of product categories, including:

makeup
Apps like ModiFace (acquired by L’Oréal) allow users to digitally apply makeup such as lipstick or foundation in real time. These platforms capture facial features using augmented reality (“AR”) and facial mapping technology to simulate product application.

skincare
ModiFace and similar platforms can analyse uploaded selfies to assess skin conditions and recommend products. Some tools go further, offering personalised skincare routines and even supplement or lifestyle advice, based on “inferred” health data.

clothing
VTO platforms for clothing use mobile device cameras and AR to generate 3D body scans. These scans are then processed using machine learning to match users with appropriate sizing across different brands based on body shape and preferences.

These technologies enable rich, personalised consumer experiences, while also generating valuable data for retailers’ marketing, analytics, and product development teams.

What personal data is collected?

VTO solutions may collect and process the following categories of personal data:

biometric data: facial geometry, skin tone, and body dimensions from makeup, skincare, and clothing applications—potentially qualifying as special category data under Article 9 of the UK GDPR. This is of particular significance as Article 9 of the UK GDPR imposes a restriction on the collection and processing of special category data unless the explicit consent of the data subject has been obtained in advance, due to the increased risk to the data subject of processing such data.

photographic and video data: user images may inadvertently capture sensitive information, such as religious attire, disability markers, or background elements disclosing political views or health status.

device and location data: IP address, GPS data, device model, and operating system details.

user-provided data: email, age, gender, preferences—particularly where account creation is required in order to receive personalised recommendations.

behavioural and interaction data: logs of user interactions, products tried, time spent on each item, and inferred purchase intent.

“inferred data”: AI-generated insights about a particular individual, on matters such as skin tone category, body size, or product fit suitability.

Key compliance risks

transparency and privacy notices
Many retailers fail to clearly communicate how VTO technologies work or what data they collect. Generic website privacy notices are often insufficient. Guidance of the UK data protection regulator, the ICO, stresses the need for clear, just-in-time notices and meaningful transparency for AI-enabled technologies, particularly when ‘special category’ data, or ‘inferred data’, is involved. It is therefore imperative that retailers have tailored privacy notices in place, which are provided to users at their first interaction with their VTO app or platform.

legal basis and consent
Where biometric data is processed, explicit consent is typically required. Retailers must ensure consent is granular, freely given, and clearly distinguishable from broader terms of service. Bundled or implied consent will not satisfy UK GDPR standards. The French data protection regulator, the CNIL’s guidance on facial recognition, confirms that biometric processing for commercial services generally requires explicit consent and must remain proportionate and necessary to the stated purpose.

scope and sensitivity of data
VTO tools may process sensitive personal data, which requires enhanced protection. If such data is compromised, e.g., through a cyberattack it could be used for identity theft or impersonation via facial recognition technologies. In May 2024 an Australian company, Outabox that implemented facial recognition technology in bars and clubs suffered a substantial data breach which compromised large amounts of biometric data.

third-party access and data sharing
VTO platforms often rely on third-party providers, who may use customer data for analytics, algorithm training, or advertising. This creates challenges around transparency, accountability, and data subject rights.

data Retention and Secondary Use
Retailers may retain user photos or scans for training AI models or marketing purposes. Without obtaining proper consents, disclosures and retention limits, this practice poses legal and ethical risks; specifically where users have withdrawn consent and or closed their accounts. Retailers’ systems must also be set up to remove such data automatically.

authentication and social logins
Platforms that allow login via social media accounts may access a broader range of personal data than users realise, increasing privacy risk and complicating data governance.

algorithmic bias and fairness
AI models trained on non-diverse datasets may produce inaccurate or discriminatory results; e.g. recommending unsuitable products for individuals with darker skin tones or non-standard body types. The ICO’s guidance “Explaining decisions made with AI” (with the Alan Turing Institute) urges businesses to mitigate bias and ensure fairness in AI outcomes.

Best practice recommendations

To align VTO deployments with data protection compliance obligations, retailers should adopt the following best practices:

Privacy by design and default

conduct DPIAs (Data Protection Impact Assessments) before implementation.
embed privacy safeguards into the technology stack, rather than bolting them on afterwards.
The ICO’s AI and Data Protection Risk Toolkit offers useful risk-assessment resources.

Informed, granular consent

avoid implied consent or pre-ticked boxes.
provide clear opt-in choices before activating cameras or scanning features.
offer opt-out functionality without degrading the user experience.

Tailored and just-in-time privacy notices

Use contextual notices at the point of data capture, explaining:

what data is collected (e.g., facial scans)
Why it is collected (e.g., product recommendations)
lawful basis (e.g., explicit consent)
retention period
third-party involvement
how users can exercise their rights

Data security and retention controls

use encryption, anonymisation, and real-time rendering; where rendered data is encrypted in transit, only available temporarily (rather than permanently stored) and automatically times out or is masked after viewing.
limit retention of biometric data to the duration of the session or user account lifespan.
implement easy-to-use "delete my data" features in apps or accounts.

Conclusion

VTO technology presents significant commercial opportunities but also heightened data protection responsibilities. With the processing of biometric and other sensitive personal data, compliance with the UK GDPR is not optional. Retailers must ensure that VTO platforms are designed with privacy in mind, informed by data protection principles such as purpose limitation, data minimisation, and accountability.

The retailers that proactively implement strong data governance, user transparency, and ethical AI practices will not only mitigate regulatory and reputational risk—they will also build deeper consumer trust in an increasingly privacy-conscious marketplace.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-sectors/ddcc-consumer-and-retail-perspectives

]]>

Transport, transformed: Why access is the new ownership

Tue, 16 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0100

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:ebe7f919-f20e-49fd-9d68-6ac3b25f6d6e/as/ART-ant-rozetsky-ghfC4sTW6u0-unsplash.avif?assetname=ART-ant-rozetsky-ghfC4sTW6u0-unsplash.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

Article | 3 min read

Transport, transformed: Why access is the new ownership

Why subscription models and smart data are reshaping ownership

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/jonathan-smart

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

Mobility as a Service (MaaS) is reshaping how we move – offering flexibility, sustainability, and smarter urban living. For clients navigating infrastructure, automotive, or technology sectors, MaaS isn’t just a trend – it’s a strategic shift. From subscription models to data integration, the legal landscape must evolve to support new ways of thinking about transport, ownership and value.

Published 16 September 2025

style

single-column-text

The recent Transforming UK Transport The Power of Public and Private Partnerships report from the Urban Mobility Partnership, launched at Shoosmiths’ Birmingham office on the 12th September, underscores the transformative potential of MaaS when local authorities and private operators work in tandem. It can unlock investment, enhance public transport uptake, and drive the shift towards net zero.

One thing is clear: MaaS is more than just a buzzword – it’s a transformative shift in how we think about transport, infrastructure, and ownership. The opportunities it presents are both exciting and necessary.

One of the most compelling advantages is its potential to ease pressure on infrastructure. By reducing the need for individual car ownership, we can make transport systems more cost-effective and environmentally friendly. Society is already embracing subscription models – think Netflix or Spotify – and the move away from traditional car ownership is following suit. Over two-thirds of car purchases now involve some form of finance, and the leap from lease hire to true subscription isn’t as vast as it once seemed. Manufacturers like Volvo and Jaguar Land Rover are already piloting subscription schemes.

As battery technology improves and rare minerals become scarcer, OEMs may be less able or less inclined to focus solely on new vehicle sales. While in the most part OEMs have not aggressively pursued MaaS to date, most have some version of it in development. The real disruption will come from new market entrants – perhaps the “Netflix of mobility” – who can offer flexible, cost-effective solutions.

Urbanisation is another driver. In cities like London, owning a car full-time is often unnecessary. A pay-as-you-go model makes more sense, especially when considering personal needs. If you have a young family small hatchback isn’t practical for family outings, but it’s perfect for solo commutes. Subscription models allow for this kind of flexibility – upgrading or downgrading as needed.

The challenges of MaaS

However, the road to fully integrated, multimodal transport is riddled with challenges. The idea of a single app that lets you book a car, train, taxi or Uber is appealing, but it requires massive integration across public and private sectors. OEMs are increasingly reluctant to share data, and cybersecurity concerns loom large. Even if UK bodies found a way to collaborate, the likelihood of OEMs creating UK-specific data-sharing systems is slim.

As for the future of car ownership, it will decline. Younger generations value financial flexibility, and urban living supports that shift. But the pace of change depends heavily on battery technology. If costs drop, OEMs may resist MaaS by offering affordable electric vehicles. If shortages persist, MaaS could accelerate rapidly. Either way, the transition is inevitable – it’s just a matter of when.

The government’s pushback of the petrol vehicle ban to 2035 won’t change much. Manufacturers like BMW have already invested heavily in electric production and won’t reverse course.

The shift to electric is happening, and MaaS will play a key role in shaping that future.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-transactional-and-advisory/ddcc-strategic-commercial-contracts

]]>

New scheme to fast-track AV trials in 2026

Fri, 12 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0100

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:3b222693-88ac-4a2e-8a7d-c5a66c9fca6b/as/ART-u2114277519_create_high_end_photography_showing_small_detail__6b888246-17fc-4447-be3d-5bbf23b4e5d9_1.avif?assetname=ART-u2114277519_create_high_end_photography_showing_small_detail__6b888246-17fc-4447-be3d-5bbf23b4e5d9_1.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

Article | 5 min read

New scheme to fast-track AV trials in 2026

APS permits signal a bold shift in UK transport

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/ben-gardner

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The UK’s APS permitting scheme marks a pivotal moment for autonomous passenger services. It offers operators a clear route to market, bypassing legacy licensing and enabling advanced trials from 2026. With full rollout expected by 2027, the scheme could unlock £42bn in economic value and 38,000 new jobs. Shoosmiths explores what this means for ambitious operators, and why now is the time to shape the rules.

Published 12 September 2025

style

single-column-text

The UK Government has launched a consultation on a proposed Automated Passenger Services (“APS”) permitting scheme which is designed to establish a legal framework for the deployment of self-driving passenger services.

The APS permitting scheme – which will be implemented at law by regulations that will be informed by this consultation - marks a significant step towards enabling commercial autonomous transport across the UK.

It is anticipated that the creation of the APS permitting scheme will facilitate advanced trial services from spring 2026 with full implementation anticipated by late 2027. This is projected to create 38,000 jobs and contribute £42 billion to the UK economy by 2035.

This is the third of a series of consultations related to the regulations underpinning the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 (“Act”). In particular the consultation gives operators of automated vehicles the chance to help inform what the future regulatory environment for APS will look like.

What is the APS permitting scheme?

The APS permitting scheme will apply to passenger services which operate without a human driver (such as autonomous buses and taxis).

It offers an early route to market for operators by providing regulatory certainty and disapplying traditional licensing regimes for taxis, private hire vehicles, and public service vehicles (like buses) where an APS permit is granted.

In the short term it is expected that the scheme will facilitate advanced trials of automated vehicles in the UK without a safety driver and inform what a more detailed APS framework might look like ahead of full implementation in 2027.

The APS application process

Permit application process

The Secretary of State for Transport is the primary authority responsible for granting APS permits. However, where required, they must ensure that there is consent from the relevant local licensing authority.

Operators should therefore obtain consent from the local licensing authority before applying for an APS permit. The appropriate authority depends on the location and type of service being deployed - whether taxi/PHV-style or bus-style/PSV services.

taxi-style services: Permits may only be issued by the licensing authority for each area of operation. These are typically unitary or lower-tier local authorities (e.g. borough or district councils), or Transport for London in the capital.
bus-style services: The Secretary of State will determine licensing. Where services operate in franchised areas, consent must be obtained from the relevant franchising authority (e.g. Transport for London or Transport for Greater Manchester).

Pre-application & application information requirements

Applicants are expected to engage with the relevant licensing authorities before submitting their application to ensure alignment and completeness. They are also encouraged to consult with relevant traffic authorities and emergency services to ensure their APS can respond appropriately to incidents and emergencies.

Licensing authorities will use the following information to assess whether to grant or refuse consent:

scope of service: Deployment area, vehicle details, and operating hours
service assessment:

design and operational plans
passenger safety and safeguarding policies and procedures
data management protocols
insurance and financial stability
evidence of stakeholder engagement
accessibility considerations

Accessibility considerations:

Under the Act the Secretary of State must consider whether granting an APS permit will improve understanding of how automated services can best serve older and disabled persons. Applicants must therefore demonstrate how their services will be accessible to all users, including those with protected characteristics.

Applicants should also note that future obligations may include reporting on accessibility outcomes.

Safeguarding and Customer Service

Applicants must also outline safeguarding procedures to protect passengers - particularly vulnerable individuals - and provide clear customer service protocols for handling complaints and service disruptions.

Fees

Details of fees payable for permit applications are expected to be decided later.

Permit management: Renewals, variation, suspensions, & withdrawal

The Secretary of State is responsible for varying, suspending, or withdrawing APS permits in response to infringements. These powers and procedures include:

renewal: Permits may be renewed within a defined window - six months before expiry and closing two months prior. Permits are valid for up to five years, though shorter durations are expected during pilot phases or for new entrants. If a renewal is pending, the permit remains valid until a decision is made (subject to the five-year limit).
variation: Permit holders may apply to amend the scope or conditions of their permit. The Secretary of State may also vary permits without the holder’s consent.
suspension/withdrawal: Permits may be suspended or withdrawn for breaches of permit conditions, serious or repeated traffic infractions, false statements during the application process, safety concerns, or disruption to traffic and/or the emergency services.
appeals: Operators may appeal decisions regarding permit refusal, variation, or suspension.

Disclosure of information

Permit conditions will require certain information to be published and may mandate confidential sharing with public authorities or private entities. To provide some comfort to operators, the Act makes it an offence for the recipient authority or entity to disclose such information unless authorised by legislation or another enactment.

Operators may also be required to share data on routes, timetables, fares, live updates, accidents and complaints. This data may be used by authorities such as the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency or police, particularly in relation to safety or accessibility. Operators should implement robust systems for logging and reporting, as this may affect permit renewals or enforcement.

Your chance to influence the future regime now

The APS permitting scheme should pave the way for operators of automated vehicles to move towards advanced trials (without a safety driver) in the UK as early as Spring 2026. The proposed rules and processes for obtaining and maintaining a permit to offer APS are set out in the consultation.

The UK Government is requesting feedback on those rules and processes from interested stakeholders, so this provides the perfect opportunity to help inform what the future regulatory environment for APS looks like.

The consultation is open until 11:59pm on 29 September 2025 and, if anything currently in the consultation and draft statutory instrument could negatively impact on your business operations, now is the time to raise any concerns.

Respond to the consultation: here.

If you would like advice on how this scheme may affect your organisation, please contact us.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-transactional-and-advisory/ddcc-strategic-commercial-contracts

]]>

US data transfers: No more Groundhog Day

Fri, 5 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0100

alternative text

alternative text secondary

Article | 5 min read

US data transfers: No more Groundhog Day

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary