Regulatory, compliance & risk

Railways Bill: ORR’s new enforcement and appeals regime

Wed, 22 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0100

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:2d69c44f-d6a5-4728-8c6b-85832b1e32b2/as/ART-US00132.avif?assetname=ART-US00132.jpg

Article | 5 min read

Railways Bill

ORR’s new enforcement and appeals regime

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

This article examines the Railways Bill’s reforms to the ORR’s regulatory, monitoring and enforcement powers, including a new appeals regime and a re-balanced enforcement model.

Published: 22 April 2026
Authors: Rubina Zaidi

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/rubina-zaidi/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/charles-arrand/profile

false

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/hayley-saunders/profile

false

style

single-column-text

The Railways Bill proposes the most significant shift in the Office of Rail and Road’s (ORR) regulatory, monitoring and enforcement powers in a generation. This article examines how the reforms will reshape the ORR’s role, including a new appeals jurisdiction and a re‑balanced enforcement model.

What matters

In addition to helping create a new, publicly owned company, Great British Railways (GBR) (to replace Network Rail), the Railways Bill (the Bill) (currently at the Report stage in the House of Commons)will substantially reshape the regulatory remit of the ORR. The ORR will gain a broader monitoring function over GBR’s statutory activities, enforce a new GBR licence, and operate a judicial‑review‑style appeals body for GBR’s decisions on access, capacity, charging and timetabling.

What matters next

Rail operators, freight companies, retailers and other network users should prepare for a regulatory landscape in which regulatory scrutiny increases, and enforcement tools become more targeted. Stakeholders should also anticipate forthcoming ORR and Department for Transport consultations on GBR’s draft licence, the retail code of practice and the new statutory appeals framework.

The ORR’s expanded monitoring remit

The Bill places the ORR at the centre of the reformed rail system. The ORR will assume a broader monitoring and reporting role covering the full scope of GBR’s activities including over its managing, operating and renewing the network; running most passenger services in England; setting fares, selling tickets and providing systems and services relating to the operation of passenger services.

Unlike today’s model, the ORR’s monitoring, which should be targeted, proportionate and outcomes focused, will focus on GBR’s performance of its statutory functions, assessed against GBR’s business plan and informed by Secretary of State guidance. The ORR may investigate issues and raise them with GBR and escalate concerns to the Secretary of State, who makes decisions on action. Importantly, the ORR will not hold enforcement powers in relation to its statutory monitoring role, but its monitoring will play a key role in triggering enforcement action and will support accountability to the Secretary of State where concerns arise.

This separation between monitoring and enforcement places the ORR as an “independent assessor” andexpert advisor to the Secretary of State.

A new, streamlined GBR licence with targeted enforcement powers

A new single GBR licence will be issued by the Secretary of State, with the ORR responsible for monitoring and enforcement. The licence is expected to be narrower and more outcomes‑focused than Network Rail’s current licence.

Key licence changes include:

a move away from routine use of financial penalties for GBR licence breaches. Enforcement will instead revolve around investigations, early resolution and taking enforcement actionwhere appropriate
some areas where ORR previously exercised enforcement powers, such as train service performance, will fall outside GBR’s licence and into the monitoring sphere instead
the Government may include a focused licence condition covering long‑term infrastructure asset stewardship, so the ORR can address the long-term risk of asset deterioration through effective, proportionate enforcement action.

With GBR assuming responsibility for central retail systems and absorbing the ticket‑retailing functions of multiple operators, the new licence will require GBR to:

support an open and competitive retail market
treat independent ticket retailers fairly
comply with a new code of practice which will govern how GBR manages retail systems.

The ORR will enforce the code of practice, with non‑GBR retailers able to raise GBR decisions or actions directly with the ORR. Where the ORR finds non‑compliance, it will have powers to issue binding orders requiring corrective action.

Other key changes introduced by the Bill

A new passenger watchdog (evolving from Transport Focus) will take on the ORR’s current roles relating to passenger information, accessible travel, complaints, delay compensation and sponsorship of the Rail Ombudsman.

The watchdog will:

set industry standards through guidance and codes
monitor compliance
refer concerns to the ORR for enforcement action.

The ORR will continue to enforce licence conditions in these areas and retain its consumer law powers, currently used, for example, to improve ticket fee transparency.

Reforms to access contracts is a further key reform, with the reduction of the ORR’s role in approving or directing access contracts for the network representing one of the most profound shifts for the industry. Under the new model:

GBR will determine access to the network
GBR will set access charges and performance schemes
GBR will issue key policy documents including the Access and Use Policy (AUP) and the infrastructure capacity plan.

Instead, ORR becomes the appeals body for third parties challenging GBR’s decisions on capacity allocation, access and charging.

Under the proposed judicial‑review‑style appeals regime, it appears thatappeals will be assessed according to principles similar to those applied by the High Court of England and Wales on judicial review or the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session in Scotland. Grounds include:

illegality
procedural unfairness
irrationality
legitimate expectation.

This marks a significant change. The ORR is not re‑making decisions on the merits but assessing the legality and fairness of GBR’s decisions.

If an appeal is upheld, the ORR may:

quash GBR’s decision
order GBR to reconsider the matter with directions on how it should be reconsidered
substitute its own decision if there has been an error of law and only one lawful decision was possible.

The ORR’s developing appeals policy envisages:

defined appeal windows (some may be as short as five working days)
a standardised, fast‑paced process
publication of appeals and decisions (subject to redaction).

Stakeholders will need to adapt internal governance and evidence‑gathering accordingly but it should be noted that, at present, the precise scope, procedure and statutory wording of the appeals regime are subject to policy development and regulations.

ORR’s continuing areas of enforcement

Several areas of the ORR’s remit remain unchanged, including:

Health and Safety regulation across the mainline network, London Underground, trams, light rail and heritage rail
Consumer and Competition law powers (concurrent with the CMA)
production of rail statistics
regulation of roads, non‑GBR networks, including HS1, Core Valley Lines and the Channel Tunnel
train driver licensing
station, network and service closure ratifications
regulatory functions in Northern Ireland.

This continuity ensures that ORR retains core regulatory authority in safety, competition, consumer protection and non‑GBR infrastructure oversight.

What the changes mean for industry

Dutyholders should recognise that the reforms do not reduce regulatory scrutiny but re‑allocate and enhance it:

monitoring becomes more expansive and more structured
enforcement becomes more targeted and licence‑driven
appeals become a key mechanism for challenging GBR decisions
retail oversight and data transparency will intensify
passenger standards will be shaped by the new watchdog but enforced by the ORR.

Stakeholders should plan early for this shift, given the complexity of the transition and the number of interdependent regulatory instruments still to be published.

And finally...

We will publish further articles and post information on LinkedIn as the Bill and its reforms progress.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

Automated vehicles: Government launches self-driving pilot scheme

Thu, 9 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0100

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:8596c622-7cd1-4d64-bf11-29cf4996852b/as/ART-US00060.avif?assetname=ART-US00060.jpg

Article | 3 min read

Automated vehicles

Government launches self-driving pilot scheme

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The UK Government has launched a self-driving vehicle pilot scheme allowing self‑driving vehicles to operate on public roads without a safety driver for the first time. This represents a significant step towards commercial deployment of automated vehicles ahead of the full regulatory framework under the Automated Vehicles Act 2024, which is expected to take effect in late 2027.

Published: 9 April 2026
Authors: Ben Gardner

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

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

false

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

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/abbie-gray/profile

false

style

single-column-text

The scheme is intended to bridge the gap between existing trials (which still require a safety driver) and full commercial rollout, enabling controlled real‑world deployment while regulators gather further evidence to shape a permanent regime.

Key features

Operation without a safety driver

The defining feature of the scheme is that it permits operation of a self-driving vehicle without a human safety driver in the vehicle. It applies only where the automated driving system (ADS) performs the entire dynamic driving task while engaged and requires no human oversight. Vehicles that require human monitoring or intervention remain outside scope and must continue to operate under the existing trialling regime.

Vehicle approval & listing

Participation in the pilot scheme is subject to a layered approval and permitting process, reflecting the Government’s focus on safety and regulatory control during early deployment. Participating vehicles must meet strict defined regulatory requirements including:

vehicle approval: All vehicles deployed under the pilot must be formally assessed and listed as self‑driving. This requires demonstrating that the ADS can safely and lawfully perform the entire dynamic driving task within defined operational design parameters. The ADS will be assessed by reference to the latest draft of the UN ADS Regulation which sets out various minimum technical standards and requirements
Vehicle Special Orders (VSOs): Where a self‑driving vehicle cannot comply with existing construction and use requirements (for example, provisions assuming the presence of a driver), operators will need to obtain a Vehicle Special Order (VSO) granting targeted regulatory exemptions. Securing a VSO is likely to be a critical early step for many applicants with heavy reliance again placed on the vehicle’s conformance to the UN ADS Regulation
vehicle registration: Vehicles must be registered under section 1 of the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018, enabling them to be recognised as self‑driving for the purposes of the pilot scheme and linking responsibility to a defined legal entity.

Automated Passenger Service (APS) permits

Where a pilot deployment involves carrying passengers, an additional APS permit will be required under Part 5 of the Automated Vehicles Act 2024. The APS regime is intended to regulate taxi, private hire and bus‑like self‑driving services and is expected to come into force in spring 2026, subject to final approval. While the detailed framework is still being finalised, the guidance makes clear that pilot passenger services will be expected to comply with APS requirements as they are introduced.

Safety, incident & cybersecurity management

Applicants must demonstrate robust operational and safety arrangements to support the deployment of self‑driving vehicles under the pilot scheme. This includes evidence of:

effective incident detection, escalation and emergency response procedures
clear cooperation and information‑sharing protocols with emergency services and first responders
a defined investigation framework and post‑incident management processes.

Participants are also required to maintain documented safety reports, underpinned by an appropriate safety management system, together with ongoing reporting obligations and immediate notification of safety‑related incidents.

Temporary & iterative framework

The pilot scheme is non‑permanent and will remain under active review. Lessons learned from deployments will be used to shape the final regulatory regime under the Automated Vehicles Act, expected to be fully in force from late 2027.

Who can apply?

From spring 2026, applications may be made by organisations involved in the operation, supply or deployment of self‑driving vehicle services in England, Wales and Scotland, including:

vehicle manufacturers or technology developers
fleet operators or mobility service providers (for example, taxi‑ or bus‑style services)
multi‑party consortium arrangements, where responsibility for the vehicle, the automated driving system and the service operation is split between different entities

Applicants must be able to assume responsibility for the safety, operation and regulatory compliance of the pilot deployment.

The scheme is distinct from traditional automated vehicle trials, which continue to require an in‑vehicle safety driver and remain governed by the existing trial code of practice.

What's next?

The pilot scheme signals a growing level of regulatory confidence in automated vehicle technologies and offers an early opportunity for operators to deploy, test and refine self‑driving services in live operating conditions.

Organisations considering participation should begin preparations now, including early engagement with relevant authorities and a thorough assessment of the regulatory, safety and operational requirements that will apply to their vehicles and service model.

Further details of the Self-Driving Vehicle pilot scheme are available here.

style

single-column-text

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

]]>

RIDDOR: Essential guidance for reporting workplace incidents

Fri, 27 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:f01155a1-eae7-4300-91b9-15d5e3a1e4ca/as/Brand_Images_Places-(68).avif?assetname=Brand_Images_Places+%2868%29.jpg

Article | 3 min read

RIDDOR: Essential guidance for reporting workplace incidents

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

This article provides practical guidance on when incidents must be reported under RIDDOR, including practical examples and useful links. The aim is to help duty holders understand their obligations, avoid common pitfalls, and ensure compliance.

Published: 27 March 2026
Authors: Rubina Zaidi

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/hayley-saunders/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/charles-arrand/profile

false

style

single-column-text

What matters

The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) is an essential part of UK workplace safety law. Employers, the self-employed, and the person in control of work premises must report certain incidents to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). RIDDOR reporting is not just a legal requirement but is vital for monitoring workplace risks, preventing recurrence, and shaping future safety standards.

Duty holders must know which incidents are reportable, how to identify them, who should report under RIDDOR and the correct process for reporting. Failure to comply can result in enforcement action and reputational damage.

What matters next

To ensure compliance you should:

familiarise yourself with the types of reportable incidents
understand who is responsible for reporting under RIDDOR
use the HSE’s updated guidance and online forms for clarity
review practical examples to distinguish reportable from non-reportable events.

Who should report under RIDDOR?

The following persons (responsible person) are responsible for reporting reportable incidents:

the employer, where an employee is involved in the incident
a self-employed person if that person was in control of the premises where and when the reportable incident happened or when the self-employed person receives a reportable diagnosis
the person in control of work premises where and when the reportable incident happened, in cases of incidents involving a non-employee.

When must incidents be reported under RIDDOR?

Reportable incidents

Incidents must be reported under RIDDOR if they are:

work-related (arising out of or in connection with work)
result in a reportable injury, disease, or dangerous occurrence as set out below.

Fatalities: Any work-related death (excluding suicides) must be reported under RIDDOR. If a person dies from a work-related injury within one year, this must also be reported regardless of whether the incident has already been reported. Fatal (and specified major injuries) can be reported by telephone or online.
If death occurs in premises solely owned/ occupied by a self-employed person, this is not reportable.

Specified injuries: The following specific injuries must be reported:
- fractures (except fingers, thumbs, toes)
- amputations
- permanent loss or reduction of sight
- crush injuries to head/torso causing internal organ damage
- serious burns (covering over 10% of the body or significantly damaging the eyes, respiratory system or other vital organs)
- scalping requiring hospital treatment
- loss of consciousness from head injury or asphyxia
- injuries from working in enclosed spaces leading to hypothermia/heat illness or requiring resuscitation or hospital admission for more than 24 hours.
over-7-day incapacitation: If a worker is unable to perform their normal duties for more than seven consecutive days (excluding the day of the accident but including weekends, rest days and days the worker would not normally be expected to work), this must be reported within 15 days.
injuries to non-workers: If a member of the public is injured due to a work-related accident and taken directly to hospital for treatment, this is reportable.

Occupational diseases

These are reportable when a responsible person is notified that a worker is suffering from any of the following diseases:

carpal tunnel syndrome, where the work involves regularly using percussive/vibrating tools
hand/forearm cramp, where the work involves long periods of repetitive movement of the fingers, hand or arm
occupational dermatitis, where the work involves significant or regular exposure to a known skin sensitizer/ irritant
hand-arm vibration syndrome, in work involving regular use of percussive/ vibrating tools or holding of materials subject to percussive processes/ processes causing vibration
occupational asthma, where the work involves significant/ regular exposure to a known respiratory sensitizer
tendonitis/ tenosynovitis in the hand or forearm, in physically demanding work involving frequent, repetitive movements
occupational cancer linked to workplace exposure to a known human carcinogen or mutagen
diseases due to workplace exposure to biological agents.

Dangerous occurrences

Certain events with the potential to cause serious harm must be reported, even if no injury occurs. Examples include:

collapse or failure of lifting equipment or of the failure of any load-bearing part of such equipment (cranes, hoists, forklifts), but not of the failure of accessories to the equipment or ancillary equipment
explosion or fire due to an electrical short circuit/overload causing work stoppage or a significant risk of death
accidental release of hazardous substances which might result in personal injury to anyone (other than through the combustion of flammable liquids/ gases)
incidents when plant/equipment unintentionally contacts an uninsulated overhead electric line with voltage over 200 volts or comes close to such a line where an electric discharge is caused
incident involving the release or potential release/escape of a biological agent likely to cause severe human infection/ illness
complete or partial collapse of:
- a substantial part of any scaffold over 5 metres high
- any supporting part of a suspended scaffold which results in a working platform falling
- any part of any scaffold where anyone falling from it would be at significant risk of drowning.

Practical examples of reportable dangerous occurrences

a warehouse worker fractures their arm (not a finger or thumb) in a fall
a member of the public slips in a shop and is taken to hospital for treatment
a forklift overturns but no one is injured
an employee is diagnosed with occupational asthma
a chemical storage tank ruptures, releasing hazardous vapours which cause injury to non-employees.

Reporting stress-related and mental health illnesses under RIDDOR

While stress and mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression are increasingly recognised as significant workplace health issues and employers have a duty to protect workers from stress as with other health and safety risks at work, they are not currently classified as RIDDOR-reportable.

The HSE is unlikely to investigate a report of an individual case of work-related stress or related ill health but may investigate if it appears several employees are suffering from work-related stress. 

Further steps and best practice tips

train responsible persons on identifying and reporting incidents
use online forms and resources to ensure accurate reporting
if circumstances change (for example, an injury later results in death), amend the report online using the HSE portal
keep a copy of the submitted RIDDOR report and any supporting documentation
maintain records of reportable incidents, reportable diagnoses and of workplace incidents which prevents the injured worker from doing routine work for more than three consecutive days (excluding the day of the accident); such records must be kept for at least three years
keep accurate records of all workplace incidents, even those not reportable, for internal review and improvement
review the HSE’s guidance regularly for changes in reporting requirements.

Useful links and resources

HSE RIDDOR Guidance
Types of Reportable Incidents (HSE)
Make a RIDDOR Report Online
HSE’s A to Z of guidance by topic HSE: Guidance: Topics
For a full list of dangerous occurrences, refer to Schedule 2 of The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-transactional-and-advisory/ddcc-people-and-reward

]]>

What the CMA’s new green claims guidance mean for businesses

Mon, 23 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:b8256f35-2c91-4ea3-be53-1580d6e9e3b3/as/ART-US00092-(24).avif?assetname=ART-US00092+%2824%29.jpg

Article | 7 min read

What the CMA’s new green claims guidance mean for businesses

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

In January 2026, the Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) released Making green claims: Getting it right, across the supply chain (the “Supply Chain Guidance”).

This guidance builds on the CMA’s Green Claims Code and provides guidance to businesses about where responsibility for making environmental claims lies across the supply chain.

In this article, we set out what the Supply Chain Guidance means for your business.

Published: 23 March 2026
Authors: Adam Flynn

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

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/charles-arrand/profile

false

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/angus-evers/profile

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

false

style

single-column-text

What is a green claim?

Environmental claims (or green claims) include claims which suggest or create the impression that a product or service: (i) has a positive environmental impact or no impact on the environment, (ii) is less damaging to the environment than a previous version of the same product or service, or (iii) is less damaging to the environment than competing products or services.

A business can make a green claim in any form of broadcast or non-broadcast advertising, either by explicitly setting out the environmental credentials of a product, or by presenting information in a certain way (i.e. via the use of “green” logos or imagery).

How are green claims regulated in the UK?

Under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (the “DMCC”) the CMA has direct enforcement powers to protect consumers from unfair commercial practices, such as misleading marketing, and has the power to impose fines of up to 10% of global turnover on businesses / traders that breach the DMCC.

The CMA published the Green Claims Code in 2021 to help businesses understand and comply with their obligations under consumer protection law when making environmental claims. It sets out six key principles to be aware of when making environmental claims: (i) claims must be truthful and accurate; (ii) claims must be clear and unambiguous; (iii) claims must not omit or hide material information; (iv) claims must only make fair and meaningful comparisons; (v) claims must consider the full lifecycle of the product or service; and (vi) claims must be substantiated.

The Advertising Standards Authority (“ASA”) bans ads which breach the CAP and BCAP Codes, (together, the “UK Advertising Codes”). The UK Advertising Codes are underpinned by consumer protection legislation, specifically the DMCC, and contain rules which prohibit misleading advertising and misleading environmental claims in both broadcast and non-broadcast advertising. In recent years, the ASA has released several rulings which banned misleading environmental claims across a range of sectors.

What is the key takeaway in the Supply Chain Guidance?

The CMA state that businesses across the supply chain must take steps to ensure any environmental claims made (whether directly, indirectly or by passing information from others on to consumers) are accurate and not misleading.

The CMA go on to say that a business may be deemed to be repeating an environmental claim where it stocks a product containing a claim. For example, if a manufacturer falsely or misleadingly labels a product as having an environmentally friendly characteristic, both the manufacturer and the retailer stocking that product may be liable for engaging in an unfair commercial practice.

The Supply Chain Guidance includes illustrative examples to clarify this approach to enforcement. We have summarised some of these below. The examples show that the CMA’s enforcement approach will very much be assessed on a case-by-case basis, but will in each instance consider which entity made the claim, and the processes each company in the supply chain has in place to ensure the claim is accurate (see What does the CMA expect businesses to do for further information).

Scenario 1

Situation: Misleading product information relating to the recyclability of a product is uploaded onto the retailer’s website from the brand’s online product information system. The retailer has a relationship with the brand, performs regular random checks to ensure that product descriptions are accurate, requests evidence for a selection of claims, and asks the brand to complete an annual declaration that all claims are accurate and that appropriate substantiation is held.

Enforcement: The CMA state that both the retailer and brand have a responsibility to ensure the claim is not misleading. The CMA may be more likely to prioritise action against the brand as there is potential for widespread harm from the brand’s commercial practices and the brand is better positioned to remedy the issue.

Scenario 2:

Situation: A large supermarket chain orders branded body wash which includes one ingredient that is certified organic. This organic content constitutes 10% of the ingredients of the body wash. The supermarket decides that the body wash will be marketed as part of the supermarket’s ‘environmental’ range. The range description explains that all products in the range have an organic content that is 60% or higher.

Enforcement: The CMA state that both the retailer and brand have a responsibility to ensure the claim is not misleading. The CMA is likely to focus on the commercial practices of the retailer as the retailer has marketed the product with misleading environmental credentials and is best placed to remedy the situation.

Scenario 3:

Situation: A retailer running a small store orders dish cloths from a large manufacturer, who labels the product as “compostable”. The cloths can only be composted if returned to specific stores, where they are sent for specialist processing.

Enforcement: The CMA explain that both the retailer and the manufacturer have a responsibility to ensure the claim is not misleading. The CMA explains that it may be more likely to prioritise action against the manufacturer who made the claim on the product, as the manufacturer would be best placed to inform consumers of how to dispose of the cloths to achieve the environmental benefit claimed.

Does the CMA say anything else about its enforcement approach?

According to the Supply Chain Guidance, the CMA will take various factors into account when deciding its enforcement approach, including: (i) the strategic significance of acting (i.e. the extent to which CMA action fits with the CMA’s overarching objectives and strategy); (ii) the likelihood of a successful outcome; and (iii) how substantial the positive impact of CMA intervention would be (i.e. the direct impact on consumer behaviour, or the indirect effect of deterring poor practices or improving compliance in the market).

The CMA is likely to view practices as particularly egregious where businesses should be clear about their obligations, such as in situations where guidance already exists or ASA rulings relating to a particular type of claim have already been published. Businesses that do not have processes in place to ensure the accuracy of their environmental claims (noting in the Supply Chain Guidance that claims “they make” includes claims made either directly, indirectly or by passing information from others on to consumers), or that fail to properly follow their procedures, are also likely to be a focus of CMA attention.

What does the CMA expect businesses to do?

The CMA explain that businesses across the supply chain must take steps to ensure any environmental claims they “make” (either directly or indirectly, or by passing information on to consumers) are accurate and not misleading.

Retailers

For retailers, the relevant steps may include:

seeking robust, credible and up to date evidence (which according to the CMA may vary according to the claim, type of product, service or sector) from suppliers ahead of advertising or selling products to consumers. The CMA state that in the fashion sector, this can include final scope certificates and final transaction certificates (documents issued by an approved certification body to evidence that a facility is certified to produce products, fabrics or fibres to the relevant given standard, or that products, fabrics or fibres being shipped or received were produced to the relevant given standard)
where obtaining evidence is not possible due to timing or confidentiality, asking for confirmation (i.e. via a self-assessment questionnaire) that suppliers or brands hold proof, or a declaration, that their claims are accurate
reviewing claims and documents regularly to ensure product information is accurate i.e. performing random spot checks of product descriptions and requesting evidence to support a selection of claims from suppliers
adopting additional measures when working with new suppliers, such as checking whether a change in supplier impacts any claims being made
maintaining regular contact with suppliers and checking for changes in the supply chain which may affect the accuracy of a claim
considering if environmental claims are clear and whether additional information is required for consumers to understand them.

Brands selling through third parties

The CMA say that brands selling through third party retailers should ensure any claims they make are accurate, and should provide retailers with the appropriate assurances that the claims made by the brand are correct. This includes sharing underlying evidence with retailers and explaining the basis on which the brand’s environmental claims are made, or if this is not possible due to timing factors, providing a declaration that the product information is accurate.

Suppliers and manufacturers

According to the CMA, suppliers and manufacturers should provide retailers and brands with the assurance they need so they can confidently make accurate claims. This may include:

ensuring evidence is provided to support claims and that records on product composition, testing and provenance are retained
facilitating supply chain transparency (i.e. updating others in the supply chain if there is a change to the raw materials used
providing assurances to others in the supply chain in a different way if product information is confidential
not making casual claims which could be mistaken for objective environmental claims.

What does this mean for retailers in particular?

Understandably, the Supply Chain Guidance has caused concern amongst large retailers that stock a huge quantity of third-party products, many of which contain environmental claims on the packaging. Implementing every action included in the CMA’s recommended checklist for retailers would represent a substantial administrative burden for large retailers.

However, with the CMA’s newly acquired direct enforcement powers under the DMCC, retailers can ill afford to be complacent, and should take note of the examples and checklists contained in the Supply Chain Guidance. This is particularly important given that the CMA recently imposed its first significant fixed penalty of £473,000 under the new DMCC direct enforcement regime.

On that basis, in relation to claims on own-brand products, we suggest that retailers:

ensure any environmental claims can be substantiated prior to the publication of the claim, and ensure documentary evidence is held in relation to each claim
ensure those responsible for marketing compliance are aware of the principles established in the CMA’s Green Claims Code, in ASA rulings and in CAP guidance on environmental claims, via the provision of staff training
actively monitor and ensure staff are aware of any ASA rulings published in relation to environmental claims
implement an ‘environmental claims policy’ explaining the steps that must be taken by staff prior to making environmental claims on own brand products.

Regarding third-party products stocked and sold by retailers, we recommend that retailers implement the CMA’s recommended checklist in the following, proportionate way:

include assurances as to the accuracy of any environmental claims appearing on third-party products in contracts with third parties
seek an annual declaration that all environmental claims on the third parties’ products are true and accurate
perform random spot checks of environmental claims and request evidence to support a selection of environmental claims from third-party suppliers
seek additional assurances and undertake additional spot checks when working with new suppliers.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

Renewable energy stakeholders & fossil-fuel shocks: Competition law

Fri, 20 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:f8f0ea0c-c7e7-4029-b79a-73f288d7bd1c/as/ART-u2114277519_coffee_table_book_style_high_end_photography_show_536f92f6-c582-43e2-ab95-b5bebe5f6373_3.avif?assetname=ART-u2114277519_coffee_table_book_style_high_end_photography_show_536f92f6-c582-43e2-ab95-b5bebe5f6373_3.jpg

Article | 2 min read

Renewable energy stakeholders & fossil-fuel shocks: Competition law

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

Energy shocks affect renewables too. Stakeholders must react fast yet stay within UK/EU competition law, even in times of crisis.

Published: 20 March 2026
Authors: Kiran Desai

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/kiran-desai/profile

false

style

single-column-text

Volatility is not a defence—conduct matters. UK and EU competition authorities acknowledge that genuine scarcity can drive price increases and volatility, but their focus is on how companies respond to such volatility. Making pricing decisions based solely on a firm’s own costs and risks is permitted. However, risk emerges when companies—sometimes inadvertently—begin coordinating, signalling, or aligning their behaviour, especially under a “crisis narrative”.

Renewable energy players must be wary of sharing commentary on market conditions, bidding strategies, or contracting approaches. Even well-meant efforts to “stabilise” the market risk being seen as attempts to influence competitors.

Where renewables face heightened risk. As energy systems decarbonise, competition issues increasingly relate to flexibility and system access rather than fuel supply. In practice:

storage and balancing markets: Sharing information on expected availability, outage timing, or state-of-charge strategies between competitors may constitute unlawful information exchange.
grid access and congestion: Discussions among developers about grid connection sequencing or curtailment responses can raise competition concerns if they impact rivalry.
ancillary services and optimisation tools: Shared platforms and algorithmic bidding increase the risk of indirect coordination if data segregation and governance are inadequate.

Crisis-driven cooperation: possible, but tightly constrained. Market stress may prompt talks about cooperation, such as shared logistics or coordinated responses. While competition law doesn’t ban all collaboration, it must be lawful and follow three principles:

necessity and proportionality: Limit cooperation to clearly defined operational issues and keep it temporary.
no coordination on strategic variables: Avoid discussions on prices, output, bidding, capacity withholding, or contracting positions.
safeguards: Use clean teams, data aggregation, or independent intermediaries when data sharing is unavoidable, with clear records and sunset clauses.

Arguments about “security of supply” or “system resilience” do not override competition rules for renewables.

Geopolitical shocks: tighten governance, not conversations. External shocks, such as geopolitical tensions, can quickly affect energy pricing and liquidity. Renewables businesses, often spanning multiple sectors, face increased risk of cross-portfolio spillovers. Informal exchanges between teams may stray into sensitive territory.

In summary, renewables are at the centre of the energy transition but must operate within markets still shaped by gas, imports, and geopolitics. Competition law remains strict during disruptions. The safest approach is to ensure that rapid, resilient responses always embed competition compliance, so actions remain lawful and defensible.

style

single-column-text

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

]]>

Charity trustees and whistleblowing: insights for the charity sector

Thu, 12 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:4bb8cb5a-28a1-4030-b5eb-e93f082539a1/as/ART-MJ00007.avif?assetname=ART-MJ00007.jpg

Article | 4 min read

Charity trustees and whistleblowing

Insights for the charity sector

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

A recent Employment Tribunal decision has confirmed that a charity trustee was not entitled to whistleblower protection. What does this mean for the charity sector?

Published: 12 March 2026
Authors: Robert Nieri

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/robert-nieri/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/antonia-blackwell/profile

false

style

single-column-text

What is whistleblower protection?

The whistleblowing legislation in Great Britain provides protection for workers against being subject to a detriment, as well as protection for employees against dismissal, where the worker or employee makes a protected disclosure of information about malpractice by their employer or a third party, such as breach of a legal obligation, criminal offences or actions which present a danger to the health and safety of any individual.

Currently, a worker includes both an employee and an individual who works under any other contract where the individual agrees to perform personally any work or services for another party. Importantly, office holders are not treated as workers, although case law has established that whistleblower protection can be extended to cover holders of judicial office on grounds of their occupational status.

Within the charity sector, whistleblowing disclosures help the Charity Commission to detect serious problems such as fraud, safeguarding concerns and mismanagement in charities. Whilst the Commission seeks to encourage anyone connected with charities to raise concerns, the recent case of MacLennan v British Psychological Society could be seen as a deterrent to doing so for anyone not classed as a worker.

Background to the case

Dr MacLennan had been a member of the British Psychological Society for many years. He had concerns about how the Society was run and campaigned to be president-elect to address those concerns. He was also a trustee of the Society.

He was elected in May 2020, but his election remained confidential until ratified. He claimed to have made four protected disclosures in June 2020, followed by a further nine protected disclosures between July 2020 and December 2020 once his role as president-elect was ratified. Relations between Mr MacLennan and the Society deteriorated and, following an investigation into allegations of bullying, he was expelled from membership of the Society in May 2021, which terminated his role as both trustee and president-elect. He brought a claim in the Employment Tribunal on the basis that these actions amounted to detriments resulting from the protected disclosures that he had made. To progress the claims, he needed to demonstrate that he came within the definition of worker.

What was the outcome of the case?

Initially, it was held that Dr MacLennan was never a worker of the Society but rather a volunteer carrying out activities on a pro bono basis. As a result, the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear his claim.

Dr MacLennan appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) arguing that he should be treated as a worker, despite the absence of any written contract between himself and the Society. The EAT allowed the appeal and sent the case back to the Employment Tribunal for further consideration as to whether his position as a charity trustee was akin to occupational status, given the nature of the role, responsibilities and regulatory regime, such that the whistleblower protection could be extended to cover his role, as had been found to be the case with judicial office holders.

However, the Employment Tribunal has again held that Dr MacLennan is not entitled to whistleblower protection based on his status as a charity trustee. Although his position was similar to that of a worker in some respects, these factors were outweighed by others such as the fact he operated as a volunteer and was not paid by the Society, any retaliation against him could not include dismissal and he could raise concerns directly with the Charity Commission, which has statutory obligations to consider, investigate and act on any wrongdoing reported by a charity trustee. For these reasons, his position as a charity trustee was not the same as that of an employee or worker. The Employment Tribunal also decided that the status of a charity trustee did not count as occupational status, because their status was governed by law and the relevant regulatory framework. In particular, the Employment Tribunal was keen to avoid conflicts of interest that could arise where a charity trustee brings claims against their charity resulting in the charity’s funds being used to defend and potentially satisfy the claim. On this basis there was reasonable justification for excluding charity trustees from whistleblowing protection.

What does this mean for the charity sector?

If the Employment Tribunal had found in Dr MacLennan’s favour, this would have had significant implications for the charity sector and volunteers generally, opening up whistleblower protection to a much wider group of individuals. As it is, charity trustees and volunteers remain outside of whistleblower protections for the time being, which may make such individuals think twice before raising concerns.

This decision should not, however, be seen as a deterrent. Aside from this being a first instance decision and so not binding on other Employment Tribunals therefore allowing a future tribunal to reach a different conclusion, this decision does not mean charity trustees are left without any agency to challenge perceived wrongdoing.

As part of their role within a charity, charity trustees are required to act in what they consider to be the best interests of their charity’s purposes and while charity boards act collectively, the Charity Commission makes clear in its guidance that charity trustees should exercise independent judgement and feel able to give their views, raise concerns and to challenge. If they strongly disagree with a decision the charity board has made, they should ask for this to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting, and sometimes they may disagree so strongly with a decision that they have no choice but to resign. Charity trustees should also bear in mind required behaviours under the recently revised Charity Governance Code (which is good practice but not legally binding), in particular Principle 4 ‘Ethics & Culture’, a requirement that charity trustees should speak up when they have concerns about the charity’s governance or operations.

There may still be circumstances where it is not possible for a concern to be properly addressed within a charity and as mentioned charity trustees can report issues to the Charity Commission that have happened, are happening or are likely to happen and that could seriously harm the people a charity helps, its staff or volunteers, the services it provides, or its assets or reputation. The Charity Commission is a ‘prescribed person’ making it the regulatory body for appropriate disclosures on matters relating to ‘the proper administration of charities and funds given, or held, for charitable purposes’. It is noteworthy that 46% of whistleblowing disclosures made to the Commission between 1st April 2024 and 31st March 2025 were received from non-employees (46%), which include trustees.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-transactional-and-advisory/ddcc-people-and-reward

]]>

Lessons from Grenfell: Consultations on construction products

Wed, 11 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:32fffa48-6aae-4824-96d9-5e91f8da4ebf/as/ART-clark-van-der-beken-OpWcYdI7L9s-unsplash.avif?assetname=ART-clark-van-der-beken-OpWcYdI7L9s-unsplash.jpg

Article | 5 min read

Lessons from Grenfell

Consultations on construction products

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The Government has launched two consultations on construction product safety: a new General Safety Requirement for unregulated products and the Construction Products Reform White Paper. The reforms seek to close the regulatory gaps exposed by Grenfell.

Published: 11 March 2026
Authors: Rubina Zaidi

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/rubina-zaidi/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/hayley-saunders/profile

false

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/charles-arrand/profile

false

style

single-column-text

What matters

The Government is consulting on a new General Safety Requirement (GSR) for all currently unregulated construction products, alongside a consultation on an extensive White Paper proposing transformation of the construction products regime, as highlighted in our previous article on the proposed reforms to construction product regulation- Building safety: Time for radical clarity. Both consultations aim to address systemic failures exposed by Grenfell and drive cultural, regulatory and institutional change across the construction product lifecycle.

What matters next

Both consultations close on 20 May 2026 at 11:59pm. Views are sought from all stakeholders be they manufacturers, importers, distributors, designers, contractors, specifiers, developers, building control professionals and residents. The reforms will shape the future of regulation of construction products in the UK, with new regulations to be introduced by the end of 2026 and implementation expected from late 2027 onwards. While the consultation is open to everyone, such stakeholders should consider engaging with the consultation, to ensure their views are considered as these far-reaching reforms progress.

Importance of the consultations

The independent reviews and Inquiry into Grenfell revealed fundamental weaknesses in the construction products system including inadequate safety standards, fragmented regulation, limited enforcement, misleading marketing and insufficient accountability across the supply chain. While steps have been taken to address these concerns, such as the Building Safety Act 2022, the creation of the Building Safety Regulator, and bans on combustible cladding, large parts of the construction products market remain unregulated, with only products covered by designated standards or technical assessments currently falling within the UK’s construction products regulatory regime.

The consultations address these gaps, promoting a system designed to prevent unsafe products from entering the supply chain.

The GSR consultation for construction products

The proposed risk-based GSR, which will operate alongside UK construction products regulation, introduces an overarching legal duty to ensure that any construction product placed on the UK market is safe, under its intended and reasonably foreseeable conditions of use. It applies to all products not regulated by designated standards or technical assessments, so that the significant numbers of products currently unregulated will be regulated.

The GSR addresses the inability of regulators to intervene when unregulated products pose known risks and aims to ensure consistent standards across all construction products.

Key features of the GSR proposals

Manufacturers must identify and assess product safety risks, considering intended use, foreseeable misuse, installation conditions and interactions with other products. Risk mitigation measures must be proportionate and evidence‑based.
Manufacturers must provide comprehensive safety information, including:
- intended use and technical specifications
- installation, assembly and maintenance instructions
- safety warnings
- conditions where a product should not be used
- any voluntary standards or third‑party certifications obtained

Information must be accessible, accurate, current and not misleading.

Manufacturers and importers must keep risk assessments, product documentation, and safety incident records for 10 years.
Products must carry unique identifiers and manufacturer/importer details. Digital identifiers (e.g., QR codes) are encouraged to support traceability and recall processes.
Importers and distributors, including builders’ merchants, must verify compliance, maintain records, and have controls in place to ensure unsafe products do not enter the market.
All those subject to obligations in relation to the manufacture of products, making them available on the market must ensure that:
- construction products are safely stored and transported
- construction products are monitored
- safety issues are identified and addressed
- complaints are investigated and recorded
- corrective actions (amending information or enabling the withdrawal of unsafe products from the market) are undertaken.
The National Regulator for Construction Products will gain enhanced enforcement and sanctionspowers:
- market surveillance
- investigatory powers (entry, seizure, testing)
- suspension, prohibition and recall notices
- civil penalties
- criminal sanctions for serious breaches
- power to recover enforcement costs

An appeals process will be available.

Used products for re‑use in construction will be regulated unless clearly marketed as requiring repair or reconditioning.

The Construction Products Reform White Paper consultation

The White Paper sets out the Government’s long‑term vision for a safer, more transparent and accountable construction products system. It is wider in scope than the GSR, covering:

future standards and regulation
digital product information
testing, certification and accreditation
oversight of conformity assessment bodies
the future role of regulators
environmental and sustainability considerations
competence across the product supply chain

Key Proposals in the White Paper

Every product will be regulated through designated standards or technical assessments or the new GSR.
Products critical to safe construction will be subject to enhanced requirements
Enhanced product information will be mandated to eliminate misleading marketing practices, with the proposals including:
- accessible labelling and safety‑critical data
- mandatory product information requirements
- digital product records
- a national construction product information library
- increased transparency of testing and certification data
Digitalisation of product records is proposed by way of:
- digital product records by default
- QR‑linked product information
- integration with the “golden thread” for higher‑risk buildings
- support for a future digital ecosystem across the construction supply chain
Strengthening Testing and Certification to address concerns about inconsistent and commercially influenced testing should be achieved by the proposals for:
- a licensing regime for all Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs)
- mandatory duty for CABs to act in the public interest
- greater oversight and transparency of testing processes
- expanded public sector testing capacity
New enforcement powers and sanctions for the regulator include:
- civil monetary penalties
- criminal sanctions
- director disqualification
- recovery of proceeds of crime

Routes to redress for those harmed by defective products will be improved.

Improved sustainability of products should be achieved by proposals regarding:
- sustainable materials
- environmental performance reporting
- support for circular economy principles
- integration of MMC (Modern Methods of Construction) within the regulatory framework

What this means for the industry and duty holders

Manufacturers, importers, distributors and designers must prepare for more stringent responsibilities and greater scrutiny. The reforms demand cultural change: safety, integrity and transparency must be embedded into every stage of commercial practice.

Clearer roles are proposed for principal designers, principal contractors and installers, especially where products are critical to safe construction to achieve greater accountability across the chain.

The Government acknowledges the scale of change and intends to introduce phased implementation with detailed guidance to support compliance, including for SMEs.

Next steps

The Government invites responses to the consultations from all stakeholders in the construction product sector, and from members of the public.

To respond to the GSR consultation, please visit the online survey platform at:

Consultation on the General Safety Requirement (GSR) for Construction Products - Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government - Citizen Space

To respond to the White Paper consultation, please use the online survey platform at:

Construction Products Reform White Paper - Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government - Citizen Space

Alternatively, you may respond to the consultations by email to:

ConstructionProducts@communities.gov.uk

And finally…

The two consultations represent a significant proposed overhaul of construction product regulation and provide a key opportunity for stakeholders to help shape a safer, more transparent system. We will publish further articles and post information on LinkedIn as the consultations, and the reforms, progress.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

Algorithmic collusion: CMA investigation & lessons from US settlements

Tue, 3 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:a414d920-dbf0-4337-9f5d-637f955534da/as/ART-skyler-sawyer-Ce-CG2WU59E-unsplash.avif?assetname=ART-skyler-sawyer-Ce-CG2WU59E-unsplash.jpg

Article | 3 min read

Algorithmic collusion

CMA investigation & lessons from US settlements

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has announced the launch of an investigation into the suspected sharing of competitively sensitive information among competing hotel chains using the software of a third-party data analytics provider. Businesses using or considering price‑optimisation or algorithmic decision‑making tools to make commercial decisions should be aware of rapidly evolving regulatory scrutiny and, in particular, they should be alert to the possibility of competition authority challenge.

Published: 3 March 2026
Author: Manu Mohan

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/kiran-desai/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/simon-barnes/profile

false

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/manu-mohan/profile

false

style

single-column-text

Pricing algorithms powered by data analytics and predictive modelling are playing an increasingly significant role in sectors such as real estate, insurance, transportation, and education. However, in parallel, competition authorities in the UK, EU, and US are increasingly focused on how such technologies may facilitate coordinated pricing or reduce independent decision‑making.

The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), in its draft Annual Plan for 2026 - 2027 and as part of implementing its 2026 - 2029 Strategy, had identified deterring algorithmic price collusion as a priority area. CMA officials have publicly acknowledged that algorithmic pricing is an “area of focus and concern” and that the CMA is “watching and learning” from US cases.

Two US Department of Justice (DOJ) proposed settlements from late 2025 now offer practical guideposts for both developers and users of pricing tools, signalling how regulators are likely to approach the design, procurement, and deployment of algorithmic pricing systems. Key learnings are that:

the technical capabilities of software can enhance competitors’ ability to optimize cartel gains, monitor real-time deviations, and minimize incentives to cheat
competing users who rely on the same algorithm, particularly one trained on competitively sensitive, non-public data, may be found to have engaged in unlawful coordination, even if each retains discretion to override the algorithm’s recommendations
direct communication between competitors is not required to establish collusion. It may suffice that a software provider proposes a coordinated pricing model to multiple firms, each aware that its competitors were also being invited to participate, and that those firms adopted and adhered to the model, creating a common understanding among the competitors that prices would rise collectively
agreements to fix list prices or starting prices (e.g., advertised list prices), even if final transaction prices vary, can distort the competitive process and may be treated as unlawful
even if an algorithm fails to raise or stabilize prices, the collective delegation of pricing decisions to a common algorithm can itself constitute unlawful coordination
features such as “auto accept” or default settings that encourage outsourcing of pricing function to the algorithm and make it easier for users to bulk-accept or difficult to override pricing recommendations through administrative burdens may be viewed as reducing independent judgment and increasing the risk of coordinated pricing
guardrails in an algorithm that increase recommended prices or resist downward pricing pressures such as a “sold-out” mode that stops recommending lower prices once a target figure is reached (even if units remain unsold), or a “revenue protection” mode that limits availability to drive up prices could be seen as artificially constraining competition and contributing to coordinated price increases

Against this backdrop of heightened regulatory attention and recent enforcement actions, there are a number of practical measures that both developers and users of pricing algorithms may wish to consider.

Recommended best practices

Developers

avoid training models on non-public, competitively sensitive data such as rivals’ pricing, costs or customer information
ensure each customer’s model operates autonomously without centralized consideration, sharing of information, or enforcement of common pricing logic across users
maintain transparency in model design by avoiding “black box” logic that limits oversight, and keep clear documentation explaining how recommendations are generated and updated
apply restrictions on the use of any non‑public information both for model training and runtime optimisation
use historical or backward-looking data (e.g. that is at least 12 months old to train model algorithms
prevent the use of any market‑survey data that includes non‑public, competitor‑specific pricing or operational information
train sales and support teams to avoid statements implying access to other users’ competitively sensitive data, or shared commercial purpose across users references in customer presentations, marketing materials or discussions
implement audit trails and enable independent review of data sources, model updates and algorithmic performance to detect and address potential compliance risks

Users of pricing algorithms

verify whether the algorithm uses data or logic derived from competitors’ commercially sensitive information, and request documentation on data sources, training methods and compliance safeguards
maintain sufficient human oversight and avoid full automation or features that may undermine independent commercial judgment
establish internal guidance on extent of reliance on algorithmic pricing including escalation protocols when outputs appear to mirror market-wide patterns or competitive behaviour
understand the functionality and calibrate the use of features such as “sold-out” mode or “revenue protection” mode that may inhibit lowering of prices or align behaviour of competitors
provide targeted training to internal data science, commercial pricing and procurement teams to help them recognize risks of algorithmic coordination
avoid participation in vendor-hosted meetings or training sessions where market analyses, non‑public trends, pricing strategies, or operational benchmarks may be discussed with other competing users
avoid any language during procurement or implementation discussions that could imply commercial alignment or shared objectives with competing users of the algorithm
conduct regular reviews of algorithmic outcomes to detect unexplained price uniformity or parallel pricing across competitors

As the regulatory landscape continues to evolve, businesses may wish to review existing practices and ensure appropriate governance measures are in place. Regular assessment of data inputs, human and system behaviour, and internal controls can support compliance efforts and help ensure that pricing tools operate in a manner consistent with competition law expectations.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

Trends reshaping consumer & retail in 2026

Thu, 26 Feb 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

alternative text

alternative text secondary

ARTICLE | 6 min read

Trends reshaping consumer & retail in 2026

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

Consumer and retail in 2026 is being reshaped by AI-driven personalisation, omnichannel fulfilment and a sharper focus on compliance. We outline the trends impacting the sector this year and beyond.

Published: 26 January 2026
Author: Simon McArdle

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/simon-mcardle/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/hayley-saunders/profile

false

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/sanjeev-sharma/profile

false

style

single-column-text

Mission possible: AI agents driving the future of retail

Agentic AI is redefining retail in 2026. Unlike traditional automation or generative AI, these autonomous systems don’t wait for prompts – instead, they plan, act and learn continuously. Agentic AI monitors data, spots opportunities and executes tasks within set parameters. For consumers, this means a shift from passive browsing to proactive, personalised shopping. Platforms like Google and Microsoft now offer AI agents that compare prices, build baskets and even complete purchases with consent.

Behind the scenes, retailers are using the technology to optimise inventory, adjust pricing in real time and detect issues before they escalate – freeing teams to focus on strategy and boosting margins. Other uses include virtual try-on (VTO). VTO allows retailers to show whether a lipstick shade suits a customer’s complexion or how a piece of furniture will look in their living room. The challenge is how to ensure privacy by design, secure explicit consent and ensure fairness in AI outcomes when using it.

But the opportunity is real: analysts forecast agentic commerce could generate $3-5 trillion in retail value by 2030, accounting for up to 20% of e-commerce spend.

Social‑commerce platforms go one step further, analysing behaviour to surface the right product at the right time. This has fuelled a sharp rise in channels like TikTok Shop, an in-app e-commerce feature that lets users buy products directly within the app, which saw its sales increase 55% year-on-year in the UK in December 2025.

For retailers, the challenge is clear: adapt fast or risk falling behind in an AI‑orchestrated marketplace.

Sustainability: Still a growth driver, but now a compliance risk

For more than a decade, sustainability has been one of retail’s strongest selling points, with 41% of market growth in consumer-packaged goods coming from products marketed as sustainable. Today, those products hold 24% of branded market share in the US and 38% in the UK.

The influence is undeniable: adding a sustainability label can boost demand by almost 15% without changing price or advertising.

But there’s a catch: the claims only work if they’re credible. Regulators are watching and they’re leaning into AI to help them do it. In 2024, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) used its AI-powered Active Ad Monitoring System to scan 28 million ads, with more than 90% of those amended or withdrawn flagged by AI, not complaints from consumers.

Combine that with the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)’s Green Claims Code and new powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCC), and the stakes are clear: getting it wrong can mean fines of up to 10% of global turnover. These are just some of the trends impacting advertising and marketing this year.

Omnichannel: Beyond the storefront

With the shift towards e-commerce, how retailers use physical stores will continue to evolve. In today’s omnichannel world, many are moving beyond being places to just browse and buy. Instead, retailers are increasingly leveraging their existing portfolio of bricks and mortar to create hyper-local fulfilment hubs, which serve as mini distribution centres that make same-day, even near-instant delivery and collection possible.

Why? Because consumer expectations have shifted. Waiting days for an order feels outdated. Getting what you want within hours is now the norm.

Physical stores can power last-mile logistics, widen delivery and pickup options and connect seamlessly with online platforms. In addition, platforms that began with groceries are now beginning to target fashion, electronics and luxury goods. Uber and Deliveroo are also trialling same‑day drops for high‑value items, increasing customer expectation of how quickly they can receive a product they buy online down from days to hours.

Cyber threats, fragile supply chains and trade turmoil: A new retail reality

Retail is operating on a knife-edge. Geopolitical tension, regulatory scrutiny and digital threats are no longer background noise – they’re shaping every decision. From cyber-attacks and fragile supply chains to trade pressures, the risks are multiplying.

Shifting dynamics, from regulatory scrutiny to trade pressures, are influencing where and how retailers operate. This is something backed up by our litigation risk 2026 report, which surveys 360 UK-based general counsel and senior in-house lawyers. When respondents working in consumer and retail were asked which geopolitical trends had the biggest impact on risk over the past year, three themes dominated: state-sponsored cyber-attacks came top at 77%, highlighting the scale of digital vulnerability; supply chain risks followed at 67%, as global fragility continues to disrupt operations; and international trade tariffs and protectionism added further pressure (55%), reshaping cross-border strategies and exposing businesses to new layers of complexity.

To counter these risks, businesses in the sector are taking decisive steps. Building resilience against cyber-attacks tops the list at 74%, as digital threats escalate. Two-thirds (66%) are rethinking their supply chain matrix, strengthening weak links and improving visibility. And more than half (53%) are updating standard contract terms for international suppliers, ensuring agreements reflect today’s volatile trade environment.

For consumer-facing businesses, staying ahead of geopolitical and regulatory shifts is vital as we move into 2026. Retailers that anticipate change, embed DMCC compliance early and build agility into operations will be best placed to protect reputation, maintain trust and expand confidently in an unpredictable world.

Value in a volatile economy

In a climate of economic uncertainty, shoppers aren’t spending on autopilot, they’re making deliberate choices. Increasingly, consumers are trading down in some categories so they can invest where it matters most.

This isn’t about chasing the lowest price. It’s about justifiable value: quality and relevance that feel worth it. For retailers, that means every part of the offer needs to work harder: from pricing architecture to product mix and brand promise. Those who deliver on value, whether through affordability, premium options or flexible product ladders, will earn loyalty in a market defined by trade‑offs and prioritisation.

Health as the new battleground

The proliferation in use of weight‑loss drugs last year will continue to change what consumers eat and how retailers respond. Appetite‑suppressing treatments like Ozempic are already reshaping buying habits, with some retailers reporting dips in higher‑calorie sales while there has been a rise in demand for foods rich in protein. Food brands are under pressure to reformulate, while tightening HFSS advertising rules restrict how and where products can be promoted, especially online and in child‑focused spaces.

As a result, retailers and manufacturers will need to balance demand for healthier choices with compliance, while adapting to new consumption patterns driven by medication. Those who act fast, aligning product strategy with regulation and shifting behaviours, will stay relevant in a market where health is a new battleground.

Deals driving the next chapter

M&A will continue to reshape the sector in 2026. Over the past year, there’s been a steady stream of deals: strategic acquisitions, distressed sales and bold moves to snap up struggling brands or break into new categories. Some of the deals we advised on last year back-up that trend, including acting for Maven Group on its acquisition of Wagtail/ETM Collection, advising Santander Group and ABN Amro Bank on an £88 million refinancing facility for PPHE Hotel Group’s flagship asset, Park Plaza Victoria London hotel, acting for Hilco Capital on the strategic management-backed acquisition of Lakeland, and advising FTI Consulting as administrators of DC London PIE, franchise operator of Pizza Hut UK, on its pre-pack sale to Yum! Brands.

Expect that momentum to continue, with opportunities at both ends of the market, from luxury to value.

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

style

single-column-text

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

]]>

Supporting mergers that support the political-industrial agenda

Tue, 24 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:b007a12b-2b00-4af0-ba04-fea9eba53425/as/ART-u2114277519_create_high_end_photography_showing_fashion_detai_3a69a537-651d-4402-a2ca-bc0fed45538f_1.avif?assetname=ART-u2114277519_create_high_end_photography_showing_fashion_detai_3a69a537-651d-4402-a2ca-bc0fed45538f_1.jpg

Article | 2 min read

Supporting mergers that support the political-industrial agenda

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

While there is a debate to have on the point, it is generally agreed that the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and the EU’s Competition Directorate-General, have become closer to the executive branch. An example is the CMA’s recognition to support competitiveness in a broader international context. Would this extend to industrial chokepoints?

Published: 24 February 2026
Authors: Kiran Desai

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/kiran-desai/profile

false

style

single-column-text

It is time for Europe to weaponise its chokepoints

Financial Times

https://www.ft.com/content/b92fd917-9f1b-4393-b96d-6d22ba757c72

Two studies named in a Financial Times article identify chokepoints, namely, goods or services where Europe is particularly strong and others (in particular, China and/or the USA) are reliant on Europe. For example, countries outside Europe are reliant on the chip production machinery produced by Dutch firm ASML. One study identified 41 chokepoints where China depends upon the EU for 80 per cent of its imports, and 67 chokepoints where the United States is as dependent.

Competition authorities such as the CMA might be persuaded by the executive branch to implement competition law such that a merger that creates or strengthens a UK‑based chokepoint may be welfare‑enhancing or strategically desirable even if it lessens competition downstream.

Existing UK checkpoint examples include the civil nuclear fuel cycle (conversion, enrichment, services) as the UK (via Urenco) sits at the core of Western uranium enrichment capacity. Any merger consolidating enrichment, fuel services, or small modular reactors (SMR)‑linked fuel supply would strengthen a strategic chokepoint even if it reduced competition. Hypothetical others include aerospace engines and related high-value components, pharmaceutical manufacturing, advanced therapeutics, vaccine process development, interest rate derivatives clearing, FX trading, certain commodities benchmarks, and certain defence inputs.

Speculatively, sectors that could become UK chokepoints if major mergers were allowed include AI compute infrastructure and model deployment platforms, satellite services and space-based data (earth observation, navigation augmentation), and synthetic biology platforms (design-build-test infrastructure).

As regards practicalities, the legal advisory role comes in the ability to deliver a successful outcome for parties in the context of the tension that exists in the UK between the current law, which identifies the CMA should block mergers that likely result in a substantial lessening of competition, and the political agenda, recognised by the CMA, where “the need for capital” (read, transactions) are important “to unlock opportunities in critical sectors where the UK has a comparative advantage, like life sciences and AI”, (Doug Gurr, Interim Chair, CMA, speech, 23 October 2025) which is classic industrial-policy language.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

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/shoosmiths/index

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/alex-bishop/profile

/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

]]>

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/shoosmiths/index

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/stephen-johnstone/profile

/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

]]>

Logistics: Competition: Build & use exclusively, or build & share?

Thu, 22 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:57599a78-1b2e-4b8b-92fb-5e32f6a7b3ad/as/Brand_Images_Places-(150).avif?assetname=Brand_Images_Places+%28150%29.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

ARTICLE | 2 min read

Logistics: Competition

Build & use exclusively, or build & share?

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The owner of a logistics asset may be forced by competition law to give third parties access to and be able to use the asset.

Published: 22 January 2026
Author: Kiran Desai

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/kiran-desai/profile

false

style

single-column-text

Urban delivery infrastructure—locker networks, micro-fulfilment centres, and reverse logistics hubs—is emerging as a competitive battleground. When dominant players control these facilities, questions arise about access for competitors. The “essential facilities” doctrine, though applied sparingly, could gain traction if exclusionary practices hinder market entry. Regulators may require non-discriminatory access to such infrastructure, particularly where public funding or subsidies are involved.

This possibility is a result of an expansion in the concept of abuse of a dominant position in the court judgement Android Auto (ECJ, Case C-233/23). As applied to logistics assets, if the asset was developed and is used by the owner and, by agreement, some third parties, then if use of the logistics assets by other third parties is “more attractive” to those third parties’ customers, those third parties could claim the right to use the asset.

One consequence of this result is that vertically integrated companies—like retailers who own their logistics operations but also let third parties use those assets (for example, reverse logistics facilities)—might be required to offer access to any third party, even direct competitors. The main challenge then would be in determining the specific terms and conditions for such access. This potential outcome may make logistics asset owners stop and think about whether to share use of those assets, which likely affects the economics of a new asset build proposal.

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

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

Logistics: Collaborations: Efficiency or collusion?

Tue, 20 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:2d87ff6f-52e2-46d6-bb91-391debd0a85d/as/ART-US00041.avif?assetname=ART-US00041.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

ARTICLE | 2 min read

Logistics: Collaborations: Efficiency or collusion?

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

Collaboration takes various forms in the logistics sector and competition considerations always arise.

Published: 20 January 2026
Author: Kiran Desai

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/kiran-desai/profile

false

style

single-column-text

Cross-border logistics often necessitates collaboration—whether through joint ventures, shared infrastructure, or data-sharing agreements. While such cooperation can reduce costs and enhance sustainability, it must be carefully structured to avoid laws prohibiting anti-competitive agreement. Information exchange, particularly on pricing or capacity, is a red flag for regulators.

The EU Commission’s decision in Case AT.40795 – Food delivery services, identifies that a 15% equity stake between two otherwise independent entities is deemed sufficient to constitute a structural link capable of facilitating collusion, highlighting the antitrust risks posed by cross-shareholdings.

Green alliances present a nuanced challenge. Sustainability initiatives are laudable, but if they become a pretext for limiting competition—such as agreeing on delivery volumes or restricting access to urban hubs—they risk enforcement action. Businesses should adopt robust compliance protocols and seek legal advice before entering collaborative arrangements. Before engaging in what can be material upfront investments, parties can engage with regulators to have their proposed agreement cleared by the competition authorities.

A stumbling block for green alliances to benefit from the clearance criteria can be that the sustainability scheme must either have unlimited participation, be non-exclusive or at least not meaningfully foreclose competition. This can be a challenge when larger market participants want to move forward but need to have the scheme open to the smaller players, as this can complicate the scheme’s implementation and increase costs. This and other considerations mean that an element of the deliberation phase of a proposal should include a competition assessment to put in place guiderails that ensure the scheme’s adopted design and implementation plan are capable of being cleared and robust should any complaints arise.

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

style

single-column-text

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

]]>

Ethical AI: Turning intent into impact

Mon, 19 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:991252f8-30dd-48f0-a0ac-2f1ac27092e6/as/Detailed-perspective-(122).avif?assetname=Detailed+perspective+%28122%29.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

ARTICLE | 3 min read

Ethical AI

Turning intent into impact

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

AI promises efficiency and innovation, but without ethical and sustainable practices, it risks amplifying bias and environmental harm. Organisations must move beyond principles to practical governance, ensuring fairness, transparency and resource stewardship.

Published: 19 January 2026

Author: Max Finney

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

false

style

single-column-text

Navigating AI governance for better business performance

Our recent AI governance survey of 200 GCs and senior executives, produced in collaboration with FT Longitude, revealed a critical issue: while AI adoption accelerates, strategy and safeguards are lagging.

That gap matters. In this article we take a closer look at the ethical implications of AI, as many businesses grapple with how to adopt AI responsibly and without risking revenue, reputation or compliance.

The state of play: Where are we now?

AI is no longer a future concept – it’s here, shaping decisions and operations. Yet governance hasn’t kept pace. Our AI governance research shows only a third of organisations rate their AI accountability as advanced, and fewer than one in five have mature ethical foundations. Environmental impact is climbing the risk agenda, with energy and water use from large-scale models now firmly on the radar. Despite this, compliance and privacy still dominate governance priorities, leaving ethics and sustainability trailing.

The one group that does understand AI’s environmental cost is the C-Suite however, with respondents twice as likely to identify it as a key risk than GCs and below. Despite the awareness of organisations’ leaders this is clearly not being translated into practice. This gap between ambition and action matters: without robust frameworks, AI risks amplifying bias, eroding trust and harming people and the planet.

What’s holding organisations back?

The barriers are familiar: limited expertise, resource constraints, and the relentless pace of tech change. Many organisations articulate ethical principles but fail to embed them in day-to-day operations. Confidence in compliance is high, yet without independent audits and transparent reporting, it’s often misplaced. This mirrors challenges in supply chain transparency and carbon footprint reporting – complexity and opacity make it hard to verify reality. Moving beyond policy statements to measurable, accountable practice is essential.

Why it matters

Responsible AI isn’t just about compliance – it’s about shaping outcomes that matter. Algorithmic bias has the potential to entrench existing inequalities, while disparities in access to AI tools risk deepening digital divides. Within organisations, uneven distribution of AI expertise is common, and without inclusive training initiatives, these gaps can become further embedded. Those already disadvantaged may be left even further behind, undermining social mobility and cohesion. To close these divides, organisations must invest in accessible, equitable training programmes that bring everyone along on the AI journey.

Design choices, such as voice, tone and UX, can reinforce stereotypes if unchecked. On the environmental front, data centres powering AI could account for 8% of global emissions by 2040. Responsible AI practices are essential to ensure organisations are future-ready for a rapidly evolving legal landscape, but beyond compliance are able to demonstrate they are using AI to drive progress, not harm.

Turning principles into practice

Here are some ways that organisations can deliver AI responsibly:

implement robust governance: Move beyond policy statements to practical implementation, with transparency on where AI is used and clear accountability for addressing impacts
strengthen environmental impact assessments: Measure and mitigate the resource use of AI systems and providers, and set targets for improvement
tackle bias head-on: Invest in training to ensure your people are able to detect, mitigate, and report on bias in AI outcomes
audit and assure: Regular, independent reviews of AI practices help bridge the gap between organisational controls and how systems operate in practice

More information

To find out more about the state of AI governance check out our full report or contact one of our team.

Alternatively, join us at our Clean Currents event to explore the evolving intersection of energy development and data centre infrastructure.

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

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-sectors/ddcc-technology-and-ai-perspectives

]]>

Logistics: vertical integration & market power

Fri, 16 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:82fa45b3-f334-446a-8c56-460a2317945c/as/ART-GE00010.avif?assetname=ART-GE00010.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

ARTICLE | 1 min read

Logistics: vertical integration & market power

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

E-commerce giants and major retailers increasingly integrate logistics into their core operations, but competition concerns can arise.

Published 16 January 2026

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/kiran-desai/profile

false

style

single-column-text

Amazon’s fulfilment network and proprietary delivery systems exemplify this integration trend. While vertical integration can deliver efficiencies and improve service quality, it also raises antitrust concerns. When platforms bundle marketplace access with logistics services, smaller carriers may consider themselves squeezed out, and independent retailers can believe they face self-preferencing risks. Competition authorities are scrutinising these dynamics. The European Commission’s investigations into platform behaviour signal a growing willingness to intervene where integration distorts competition. For logistics providers, this means ensuring that partnerships and exclusivity arrangements do not cross the line into foreclosure of rivals.

Decisions and policy papers to date, supported by the weight of academic opinion, indicate that the potential existence of foreclosure is a real risk. Yet the counterview continues also to exist. For example, it is argued that a vertically integrated platform would favour its own logistics services, but the counter-suggestion is that third party sellers often also choose the same integrated logistics services, rather than those of a third party, because the platform’s services are proven to be better. By the same token, the platform has a strong interest in a highly efficient logistics ecosystem, often using the services of third parties to ensure high reliability. As such, the platform rewards the best logistics operators with business. As a final example, the logistics market, in particular B2C is growing strongly and while Amazon, Deutsche Post DHL and La Poste Group together share about a third of the B2C parcel delivery business in Europe, there are many other players and the picture in relation to B2B parcel delivery is very different, with Amazon largely being absent. That the EU Commission’s abuse of dominance case against Amazon ended by Amazon offering voluntary commitments, which the Commission accepted, is indicative of the practical if not formally settled nature and effect of vertical integration in this sector.

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

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

Logistics & competition law: Navigating the compliance tightrope

Thu, 15 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:a7c7e41d-0227-458c-89a0-b379d2268654/as/Brand_Images_Detailed_Perspective-(125).avif?assetname=Brand_Images_Detailed_Perspective+%28125%29.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

ARTICLE | 2 min read

Logistics & competition law: Navigating the compliance tightrope

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

As global trade accelerates and e-commerce reshapes consumer expectations, cross-border logistics has become the backbone of international commerce. Yet, this rapid evolution brings complex competition law challenges that logistics providers, retailers, and platforms cannot afford to ignore.

Published 15 January 2026

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/kiran-desai/profile

false

style

single-column-text

With the EU tightening its regulatory grip through initiatives like ICS2 (Import Control System 2) and the Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR), businesses face a dual imperative: optimise supply chains while staying compliant.

Cross-border logistics is no longer a simple matter of moving goods from A to B. It involves navigating customs regimes, tariff structures, and security protocols across multiple jurisdictions. For instance, the full implementation of ICS2 Release 3 on 1 September 2025 extended mandatory Entry Summary Declarations (ENS) to all modes of transport, including road and rail. Such stringent pre-arrival data requirements for goods entering the EU increase compliance costs and operational complexity, and risk creating barriers to entry for smaller players, raising questions about competitive neutrality.

From a competition law perspective, the concern is whether these regulatory burdens disproportionately favour large incumbents—global carriers and integrated platforms—over smaller logistics providers and retailers. If compliance costs become prohibitive, market concentration could intensify, reducing consumer choice and innovation.

At the same time, the EU’s FSR creates its own dynamic. In force since 12 July 2023, it is a major regulatory instrument enabling the European Commission to investigate and address distortions of competition in the EU internal market caused by subsidies granted by non EU governments. It is relevant to the logistics sector which is characterised by large scale procurement, infrastructure contracts, cross border mergers, and intense competition involving global players (in some cases state backed). Referencing in this commentary the public procurement element, foreign backed logistics firms (including state owned enterprises or heavily subsidised non EU competitors) may face mandatory notification if bidding for large procurement contracts and having received significant foreign financial contributions. This may create tension between the larger EU-based logistics operators keen to protect themselves from what they may regard as unfair competition, and the procuring authorities/entities who are seeking the best service on the best financial terms.

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

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

Lessons from Grenfell: Fire safety regulations for vulnerable residents

Thu, 15 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:1781c6a8-5f97-47c8-8090-a36d9f393569/as/Brand_Images_Places-(43).avif?assetname=Brand_Images_Places+%2843%29.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

ARTICLE | 2 min read

Lessons from Grenfell:

Fire safety regulations for vulnerable residents

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The finalised Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) (England) Regulations 2025 mark a decisive shift in building safety. With just months before they take effect, Responsible Persons face a clear challenge: identify vulnerable residents, assess real risks, and build evacuation plans that work in practice. The new Toolkit and Factsheet offer much needed clarity, but the real test lies in how organisations act now to support those most at risk.

Published 15 January 2026

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/hayley-saunders/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/charles-arrand/profile

false

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/rubina-zaidi/profile

false

style

single-column-text

In Lessons from Grenfell regulating the safety of vulnerable residents we considered The Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) (England) Regulations 2025 (the “Regulations”). These have now been finalised and will come into force on 6 April 2026.

What matters

Responsible Persons have around three months to prepare for the changes the Regulations introduce which require them to identify if the Regulations apply to buildings for which they are responsible (see our previous article¹- Buildings caught by the Regulations) and to identify and support vulnerable residents (“relevant residents”) who may need assistance leaving the building in the event of a fire by taking steps such as:

preparing emergency evacuation statements for relevant residents following completion of a person-centred fire risk assessment
preparing a building emergency evacuation plan for buildings to which the Regulations apply

What matters next

To prepare for the commencement date, Responsible Persons (RPs) should now:

assess whether the Regulations apply to their buildings
begin preparations to comply with the new duties, including using reasonable endeavours to identify relevant residents
review existing evacuation strategies
familiarise themselves with the RPs Toolkit² and Residential PEEPs Factsheet³, which were published by the government on 4 July 2025

Further steps to prepare for commencement

The steps above will assist RPs in undertaking the following further preparatory steps:

offer and conduct person-centred fire risk assessments (PCFRAs) for relevant residents who request them
discuss and agree emergency evacuation statements with residents
determine and implement mitigating measures, including cost responsibilities
provide information to the local Fire and Rescue Services (FRS), with the resident’s consent
prepare and maintain a building emergency evacuation plan
install and maintain a secure information box if required
establish procedures for all plans, assessments and mitigation to be reviewed annually, or earlier as needed

The finalised Regulations

Two further provisions appear in the finalised Regulations:

Regulation 12 confirms the duties imposed by the Regulations do not require or authorise the processing of information which would contravene data protection legislation but the duties will be taken into account in deciding if the processing breaches that legislation
Regulation 14 amends the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 to mandate that the secure information box required by section 4 of those Regulations is capable of containing the documents required to be placed in it by those Regulations and by The Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) (England) Regulations 2025

The following key draft provisions have been amended in the finalised Regulations:

Regulation 3 adds the words “above ground level“ when describing buildings caught by the Regulations which are more than 11 metres in height; this reflects the same wording used in the draft Regulations, and which appear again in the final version, when referring to buildings at least 18 metres in height
Regulation 6(2) clarifies that, when conducting a person-centred fire risk assessment ("PCFRA"), the following must be assessed:
- the risks⁴ to the relevant resident arising from their compromised ability to leave the building without assistance in the event of fire
- any other risks to the resident as regards the building considering their cognitive or physical impairment

The toolkit

The Toolkit is a practical resource designed to help RPs improve fire safety for residents who may struggle to evacuate during a fire. It complements but is separate from the Regulations and is intended to be useful even for buildings outside the scope of the new legal requirements. RPs can save time and resources by learning from others’ experiences.

The Toolkit shares real-life examples and case studies from housing providers with varying resources responsible for numerous building types, covering the following themes:

use of PCFRAs
identifying and engaging residents
providing “in-flat” fire safety measures
information sharing with the FRS

Feedback and contributions are invited which should promote the Toolkit evolving best practices.

1. Using PCFRAs

Orbit Housing: Uses general risk assessments when residents move into supported / specialised housing, with automatic safeguarding referrals to relevant organisations following the assessment, including to the local FRS. Risk assessments are generally carried out by Orbit’s ‘scheme officers’, who are familiar with the property and its residents, however, they can also be carried out centrally, with one person dealing with all the high-rise residential buildings. Scheme officers are given IOSH general risk assessment training supplemented by additional internal training. Orbit has used the London Fire Brigade’s checklist when fire specific risk assessments have been required.
Hammersmith & Fulham Council: Offers PCFRAs in all their high-rise buildings, using housing officers’ knowledge of residents. The Council started by offering PCFRAs to residents already known to be vulnerable, first by letter and then following up with phone calls. The PCFRA is resident-led, focusing on the resident, assessing what they can and cannot do and then considering what they should do in the event of a fire.
South Holland District Council: The Council offers PCFRAs to all new tenants using simple three question assessments. Serious cases are referred the FRS and if it transpires that evacuation is not feasible, residents may be relocated.

2. Identifying and Engaging Residents

Existing staff knowledge is used to identify potentially vulnerable residents with calls following up on letters. Voluntary participation is encouraged. Some councils attend home visits with the FRS.

3. Provision of ‘In-Flat’ Fire Safety Measures

Such measures include, for example:

fire-retardant bedding
smoke detectors and sprinklers
misting systems
specialised alarms for sensory impairments
vibrating pillows

4. Information Sharing with the FRS

Secure Information Boxes or direct communication is used to share key information with the FRS, subject to residents’ consent.

The factsheet

The Factsheet is not intended to be guidance but has been published to provide information about the Regulations to RPs, residents and other interested parties. The opening paragraphs usefully summarise the duties RPs must meet under the Regulations once they come into force and emphasizes the requirement for residents’ consent throughout every stage of the process, including the decision to participate in the preparation of evacuation statements, agreeing the statement and the sharing of information with the FRS. The Factsheet goes on to set out the contents of the Regulations.

Comment

The finalised Regulations mark a significant step in implementing the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s recommendations. They place clear and enforceable duties on RPs to ensure the safety of vulnerable residents. The publication of the RPs Toolkit and Factsheet provides practical examples and practical support which should assist with compliance and should help RPs demonstrate that they have taken reasonable steps to meet their obligations under the Regulations. RPs must now act, in the countdown to 6 April 2026, to identify relevant residents, conduct PCFRAs, and prepare evacuation plans.

Looking ahead, the success of these reforms will depend on effective collaboration particularly between RPs, residents and the FRS. Feedback and shared learning will be key to evolving best practices and ensuring the Regulations deliver meaningful change.

And finally…

We will continue to monitor developments as the implementation date approaches and will support RPs in interpreting and applying the Regulations in practice.

[1] Lessons from Grenfell regulating the safety of vulnerable residents

[2] Responsible Persons toolkit - GOV.UK

[3] Residential PEEPs: Factsheet - GOV.UK

[4] "“risk” means the risk to the safety of persons from fire"- Article 2 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 at The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

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

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

2026 predictions: What’s on the horizon for the environment?

Tue, 13 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:176e61e6-6f9f-430f-ac06-1effc0879557/as/ART-sara-varasteh-pelH3Z0O8f0-unsplash.avif?assetname=ART-sara-varasteh-pelH3Z0O8f0-unsplash.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

ARTICLE | 7 min read

2026 predictions: What’s on the horizon for the environment?

As we welcome in 2026, what are the key issues in environmental regulation for businesses to watch out for? In this article, we set out our top 10 issues.

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

Environmental law is entering a decisive phase. From waste tracking to carbon border measures, 2026 will reshape compliance for UK businesses. Here’s what you need to know – and how to stay ahead.

Published 13 January 2026

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/angus-evers/profile

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

style

single-column-text

In December 2025, the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) published a revised Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP), described as a ‘roadmap for restoring England’s environment over the coming years’. The EIP contains numerous goals, targets and commitments across Defra’s environmental priorities.

The EIP’s publication may signal the government’s intent to bring about marked changes in environmental regulation in 2026. In this article, we set out our top 10 issues for businesses to watch out for this year, in areas such as waste, environmental permitting, carbon and chemicals.

Waste

1. Reform of the waste carrier, broker and dealer system

In August 2025, Defra published a policy paper confirming the details of its proposed reform in England of the waste carrier, broker and dealer (CBD) system, which applies to all those who transport waste.

We outlined the main proposed changes in our 2025 predictions article - waste carriers, brokers and dealers will be replaced by ‘controllers’ and ‘transporters’, ‘upper tier’ waste carrier registrations will be replaced with a requirement for a ‘standard rules’ environmental permit, and ‘lower tier’ registrations will be replaced by a requirement for a registered exemption. There will also be some exemptions from needing a permit or registered exemption.

Once the new system is in force, those with upper tier registrations will be required to apply for a permit when their registration is due for renewal. Those with lower tier registrations will be required to register for an exemption or apply for a permit within 12 months of the system coming into force. A further consequence of CBD regulation coming under the environmental permitting system will be that penalties for non-compliance will be stricter.

Although we predicted the implementation of the CBD system reforms in 2024 and 2025 too, we anticipate that the new system will finally be implemented this year, after an Environment Agency consultation on the form of the new standard rules permits.

2. Introduction of mandatory digital waste tracking

This is another long-overdue change, first consulted on in 2022. In February 2025 Defra announced that a digital waste tracking service would be in place from April 2026.

The first element of the waste tracking service will focus on waste-receiving sites inputting data about all the waste they receive. It is envisaged that by April 2026 all nations will have laid secondary legislation to mandate the use of the mandatory tracking service by site operators required to hold a permit or licence to receive waste, from October 2026. A beta version of the IT service will be made available for all permitted and licensed waste receivers in spring 2026.

3. Get ready for the introduction of deposit return schemes across the UK

The Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025 came into force in January 2025. They introduce a deposit return scheme (DRS) which will commence on 1 October 2027 (summarised in this article). From that date, customers in England or Northern Ireland will pay a refundable deposit for certain single-use drink containers. A DRS in Scotland will also come into operation on that date.

Wales is also developing its own DRS, the details of which the Welsh Government set out in a consultation published in August 2025. Unlike the English / Northern Irish and Scottish DRSs, the Welsh DRS will also include glass. While the Welsh Government has not set a date for the introduction of the Welsh DRS, it indicated in a written statement issued in November 2025 that implementing regulations will be placed before the Senedd in February 2026 and that applications for the appointment of a deposit management organisation to run the Welsh DRS will open from March 2026.

We expect further details of the Welsh DRS and the timeframe for its implementation to become clearer in 2026. Irrespective of the progress of the Welsh DRS, those caught by the English / Northern Irish and Scottish DRSs will need to undertake preparatory work throughout 2026 (e.g. following the publication of labelling specifications) to ensure they are properly prepared for the introduction of the schemes in October 2027.

4. Publication of circular economy growth plan

Defra was expected to publish its circular economy growth plan for England in 2025, but in December 2025, in its Residual waste reduction Environment Act target delivery plan, it announced that it would publish the growth plan (also known as the ‘circular economy strategy’) in ‘Early 2026’ instead.

The circular economy growth plan is expected to set out how the government will deliver a more circular economy and will inform the additional policies required (beyond those already announced) to meet the statutory waste reduction target in the Environment Act and the related interim targets. The EIP also makes it clear that the growth plan will set out options to promote greater circularity in sectors which will be key to reducing residual waste, including waste entering landfill.

5. More changes to the extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging waste (pEPR)

As reported in our 2025 predictions, the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024 (2024 Regulations) came into force in January 2025 and introduced pEPR in the UK.

On 1 January 2026, the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 (2025 Regulations) came into force. The 2025 Regulations amend the 2024 Regulations and allow the pEPR scheme administrator, PackUK, to appoint a producer responsibility organisation (PRO) to perform certain functions on its behalf, or to provide advice, recommendations or support to the scheme administrator. As set out in this guidance, PackUK intends to appoint the PRO in March 2026.

Additionally, and as explained here, the 2025 Regulations allow large producers to offset the weight of ‘closed loop’ packaging waste (household packaging that is made of food-grade plastic packaging, is collected from the end user by the producer, is recycled by a single processor and is recycled into food-grade plastic material) against the weight of the household packaging they supply.

In 2026, modulated fees are also set to be introduced, with different types of packaging being subject to higher or lower modulated fees based on recyclability assessments.

Environmental permitting

6. Exemptions reform

In April 2025, Defra and the Welsh Government launched a consultation on reforms to the process for creating exemptions under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 (EPR 2016).

In the consultation outcome (published in October 2025), Defra and the Welsh Government confirmed their intention to give new powers to the Environment Agency (EA) and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) to create, amend or remove environmental permitting exemptions. Defra and the Welsh Government intend to create a new process that will allow the EA and NRW to publish definitions for exemptions and the conditions that apply to them. The new powers are intended to initially apply to flood risk activities, groundwater activities, water discharge activities, and waste operations. In England, the new powers will also apply to exemptions under the reformed waste CBD system (see above).

Defra plans to make the required amendments to the EPR 2016 in 2026. The Welsh Government supports the need for change, but will not decide on amending the EPR 2016 until after May 2026.

In the EIP, Defra has also committed to remove three exemptions and tighten seven more, stop allowing multiple exemptions on a single site or on sites with an environmental permit, and to introduce record-keeping requirements. Further details of these proposed changes were set out in a policy paper in July 2025, in which Defra noted that further detail about when the relevant amendments will come into force will be shared in due course.

Carbon

7. Secondary legislation and guidance for the UK Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)

The government has confirmed the introduction of a UK CBAM from 1 January 2027 to mitigate the risk of ‘carbon leakage’ (the movement of production and associated emissions from one country to another due to different levels of decarbonisation effort through carbon pricing and climate regulation), to support the decarbonisation of UK industry.

The UK CBAM is a levy that will be applied to certain carbon intensive imported goods whose production would be within scope of the UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme if produced domestically. The UK CBAM will apply to imported goods from the aluminium, cement, fertilisers, hydrogen, and iron and steel sectors (products from the glass and ceramics sectors will not be in the scope of the UK CBAM from 2027, as originally proposed, but the scope will be kept under review beyond 2027).

The primary legislation for the UK CBAM is contained in the Finance Bill 2026, which received its first reading in the House of Commons in December 2025. The Finance Bill 2026 sets out the scope of the UK CBAM, how it will be administered, and how liability is calculated. It is expected that further detailed guidance on the UK CBAM will be published in 2026, ahead of the 2027 implementation date. A recent consultation outcome notes that draft secondary legislation and notices for technical consultation will be shared in ‘early 2026’ to allow interested stakeholders to review the legislation and ensure it meets the policy intent.

Chemicals

8. Increased regulation of PFAS

The regulation of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances – chemicals known as ‘forever chemicals’ because of their persistence in the environment) is likely to be a key environmental issue in 2026. Defra has committed in the EIP to publishing a PFAS plan in 2026 (Plan). The Plan will set out a range of regulatory and non-regulatory interventions, measures and initiatives. It is envisaged that the Plan will raise awareness of PFAS in the environment, identify and address releases of harmful PFAS, and protect people and the environment from harm relating to PFAS exposure.

Addressing the issue of PFAS in the environment will take time given their embedded and historic use. In addition to the publication of the Plan, which will no doubt increase public awareness, the Health and Safety Executive’s consultation on the proposed restriction of PFAS in fire-fighting foams closes on 18 February 2026. We expect the response to the consultation to be published later in the year.

In the EIP, the EA is made responsible for providing advice, guidance and tools to support the management of PFAS at contaminated sites on an ongoing basis. As the awareness of PFAS grows, so too will the prospect of litigation for PFAS pollution and mismanagement.

Greenwashing

9. Continued scrutiny of environmental claims

Environmental claims are likely to continue to face scrutiny from the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to ensure compliance with the CMA’s Green Claims Code and the Advertising Codes. This is particularly the case considering the CMA’s new increased enforcement powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which are set out in this article.

Throughout 2025, the ASA published several rulings concerning advertisements which breached Section 11 of the CAP Code (which contains rules specifically relating to environmental claims). Given that the ASA’s recent strategy specifically states that it will continue to focus on misleading green claims, we expect more rulings banning advertisements for a breach of Section 11 of the CAP Code to be published in 2026. The ever-improving capabilities of the ASA’s Active Ad Monitoring system and the shift in its focus towards proactive regulation, rather than solely complaints-based enforcement, mean it is more important than ever that marketers making environmental claims continue to ensure those claims comply with the requirements of the Advertising Codes, the Green Claims Code, and the CMA’s general guidance on unfair commercial practices.

Deforestation and supply chain due diligence

10. Launch of due diligence requirements for forest risk commodities

As explained in our 2025 predictions, the implementation of a forest risk commodities regime in Great Britain would prohibit certain businesses from using specified commodities (cocoa, palm oil, soy and non-dairy cattle products), and impose due diligence requirements to ensure the full traceability of supply chains. The Environment Act 2021 contains enabling powers for the regime, but the regime has yet to be brought into force.

In a letter to the Chair of the House of Commons’ Environmental Audit Committee in June 2025, Defra stated that its approach to ensure that UK consumption of forest risk commodities was not driving deforestation would be set out in due course. This was repeated in the EIP.

It remains to be seen if, and when, the government will introduce secondary legislation to bring the regime into force. The application of the EU Deforestation-free Products Regulation (2023/1115), which applies in Northern Ireland, has been postponed to December 2026 for large and medium sized undertakings, and to June 2027 for micro and small undertakings.

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

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

Negligence claims: judgment on scope of duty and recoverable loss

Tue, 13 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:99d3c618-83c6-46e1-8d43-5e741332a845/as/ART-US00045.avif?assetname=ART-US00045.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

ARTICLE | 5 min read

Negligence claims: judgment on scope of duty & recoverable loss

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The recent Court of Appeal judgment in Afan Valley Ltd & others v Lupton Fawcett LLP has highlighted the importance, in potential professional negligence claims, of carefully assessing scope of duty and recoverable loss at an early stage.

Published 13 January 2026

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

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/james-kidd/profile

style

single-column-text

The Court of Appeal (CoA) has unanimously dismissed an appeal by the various insolvent Claimant companies (acting by their Joint Administrators) against an order striking out their claims against the Defendant solicitors’ firm and granting reverse summary judgment. In his judgment Lord Justice Nugee (with whom Lord Justices Edis and Holgate agreed) endorsed the key finding of the High Court judge that the Claimants had failed to show they had suffered any loss as a result of the Defendant’s allegedly negligent advice, in particular on the basis of a ‘money in money out’ argument, and applying the Supreme Court’s approach set out in its 2021 decision in Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton LLP (MBS).

Background

In short, the Claimants were special purpose vehicles used as part of property investment schemes that together raised around £68m from investors in the UK and abroad. The schemes were however operated fraudulently, resulting in the Claimants’ eventual insolvency.

The Claimants’ case was that they had sought advice from the Defendant over a prolonged period as to whether the schemes were collective investment schemes (CISs) within the meaning of ss.235 and 417(1) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) (and therefore subject to the general prohibition at s.19 FSMA). The net result was that by late 2017 the Defendant advised the key individual operating the schemes to “become FCA regulated”.

The Claimants alleged the Defendant should have advised much earlier that the schemes were (or very likely were) CISs, in which circumstances the schemes would never have been promoted and no investments made. Instead, on the Claimants’ case, the consequence of the Defendant’s advice was that the Claimants incurred significant liabilities under s.26 FSMA, entitling the investors to recover (i) the funds invested, plus (ii) compensation for any loss sustained as a result of having parted with those funds.

High Court decision

The Defendant applied for strike out/reverse summary judgment, arguing that the Claimants had failed to establish any recoverable loss.

The High Court agreed; the s.26 liabilities to return the funds invested were the primary head of loss claimed, but those liabilities were only equal to the assets obtained, and so overall the Claimants were no worse off (the ‘money in money out’ argument). In addition, it was the (fraudulent) use of the funds invested which had caused the losses claimed, rather than merely their receipt. Following MBS, the scope of the Defendant’s duty of care to the Claimants was limited to the impact of FSMA to the extent the schemes were CISs; the relevant alleged harm flowing from that was the requirement to repay the funds invested which was set off in full.

The appeal

The Claimants appealed on three grounds, essentially that:

the investments made were not ‘balance sheet neutral’, since commissions and fees were payable on completion
the judge was wrong in his analysis of the scope of duty (albeit this later evolved into a point around longer-term expenditure)
they had a reasonable prospect of demonstrating further losses in the form of compensation payable under s.26(2)(b) FSMA

Court of Appeal decision

Addressing scope of duty first, Nugee LJ endorsed the judge’s conclusion that the duty of care the Defendant undertook was limited to the impact of FSMA if the schemes were CISs. This was the question it was asked to advise upon (not any wider issues around commercial viability of the schemes, risk of fraud etc) and the only pleaded impact was the s.26 liability.

On that basis, Nugee LJ considered there was no sufficient nexus between the Ground 1 losses (commissions and fees) and the Defendant’s duty of care. These were losses which would have been incurred whether the schemes were CISs or not and, applying the MBS framework, these were not losses the duty of care was intended to guard against.

Conversely there was sufficient nexus, in principle, between the Ground 3 losses (s.26(2)(b) compensation) and the Defendant’s duty of care; “the Claimants’ only possible escape from the logic of the [money in money out] argument”. This was also bound to fail, however; in the ‘counterfactual world’ in which the schemes were not CISs, the same sequence of events would have unfolded, culminating in the Claimants’ insolvency. Whilst the investors would not have rights under s.26 FSMA, Nugee LJ accepted the Defendant’s argument that the investors would (as they did in any event) have valid claims against the Claimants in the tort of deceit and in breach of contract which were “at least as valuable” as s.26 claims. It would only be if the s.26 claims were of greater value than other available claims that the alleged negligence would give rise to loss recoverable from the Defendant.

The Claimants’ further argument around losses relating to longer-term expenditure required from investors was disposed of in short order; it assumed the schemes were ultimately intended to be profitable which was “flatly inconsistent” with the Claimants’ own case that they were in fact a dishonest Ponzi scheme.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Key takeaways

The CoA decision provides a further useful example, to those engaged or potentially engaged in professional negligence disputes, of how the Courts will apply the “structured framework” set out in MBS in 2021, in particular the questions relating to scope of duty, factual causation and the nexus between duty and harm.

It also clearly illustrates the importance for parties contemplating bringing a claim of carefully considering at an early stage what the MBS analysis would ‘look like’, engaging constructively and comprehensively in pre-action correspondence, and (if/when appropriate) pleading their case fully and promptly. While certain aspects of the claim may well appear strong, if there are ‘gaps’ in other elements then the claim as a whole will be susceptible to strike out/summary judgment applications (and the attendant costs consequences).

Finally, in relation to unauthorised CISs generally, the decision highlights (and briefly contrasts) the different potential causes of action investors in such schemes may seek to rely on - subject of course to the facts - to recover associated losses, as well as a lack of authority on the statutory right to claim compensation under s.26(2)(b) FSMA.

Update

On 4 March 2026, an application for permission to appeal the Court of Appeal decision was lodged with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s decision will be published in due course and we await the outcome with interest.

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

style

single-column-text

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

]]>

New UK Competition Law regime for technology transfer agreements

Wed, 7 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:6db42e37-92b4-4b79-87d8-0d3b48f3ef01/as/ART-US00042.avif?assetname=ART-US00042.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

ARTICLE | 2 min read

New UK Competition Law regime for technology transfer agreements

Coming 1 May 2026

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

From 1 May 2026 technology transfer agreements that meet specified criteria are automatically exempt from the prohibition of agreements between businesses that prevent, restrict or distort competition pursuant to Chapter 1 of the Competition Act 1998 (the ‘Chapter 1 Prohibition’). With some minor changes, this exemption will be a continuum of an exemption that existed in the UK since Brexit and has existed under EU law for many years.

Published 7 January 2026

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/kiran-desai/profile

style

single-column-text

Technology transfer agreements are agreements involving the licensing or assignment of ‘technology rights’. Technology rights are know-how, patents, design rights (whether registered or unregistered), rights in semiconductor topographies, supplementary protection certificates, plant breeders’ rights granted in accordance with Part 1 of the Plant Varieties Act 1997, copyright in software, and copyright in a database and database right.

Parties to a technology transfer agreement typically do not need to concern themselves with the Chapter 1 Prohibition unless their combined share of a market relevant to the technology agreement is at least 20%, if the parties are competitors, or 30% if not competitors.

Points to note that are different under the new regime:

removed from the definition of technology rights compared to the current law are rights in utility models, as these are not protected under UK law (they are protected under EU law). Added to the definition are copyright in a database and database rights, reflecting the increased significance of data in the modern economy
the new regime introduces the concepts of ‘active sales’ and ‘passive sales’. Under the new exemption restrictions on active and passive sales included in technology transfer agreements are exempt, so allowing the technology agreement to mirror similar restrictions in a related distribution agreement
a new market share metric is introduced. Under the new exemption the 20% or as relevant 30% threshold test is not met if the parties fall below the threshold in relation to their share of the product market relevant to the agreement and, either is also below the threshold in relation to the market for the technology itself or (the new element) there are three or more independent competing technology rights

Technology transfer agreements that meet the current law but would not meet the conditions in the new regime will be considered exempt from the Chapter 1 Prohibition until 30 April 2027.

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

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

Modernising food safety: What’s changing

Tue, 6 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:f90043b3-b596-4cb5-b8cd-1515af847eb3/as/ART-US00017.avif?assetname=ART-US00017.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

ARTICLE | 2 min read

Modernising food safety

What’s changing

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The Food Standards Agency’s updated Codes of Practice and Practice Guidance mark a decisive move towards risk-based, flexible food law enforcement. For food businesses, this means smarter inspections, innovative compliance methods and a renewed focus on consumer trust.

Published 6 January 2026

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

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/charles-arrand/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/hayley-saunders/profile

style

single-column-text

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has published updated Food Law Codes of Practice (Codes) and Practice Guidance (Guidance) for England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

What is the Code of Practice and Practice Guidance?

The Code is written by the FSA and issued by the Secretary of State and is directed at competent authorities (local authorities and port health authorities) responsible for delivering official controls and other official activities. The Code outlines how competent authorities can ensure the quality, consistency, effectiveness and appropriateness of official controls and activities.

Competent authorities have a statutory duty to:

enforce the requirements of food law
have regard to the Code
discharge their statutory duties as effectively as possible, using means that are most appropriate to the circumstances

If competent authorities fail to consider the relevant provisions of the Code, their decisions or actions can be subject to legal challenge.

The Guidance complements the statutory Code and provides general advice on the approach to enforcement of the law where its intention might be unclear. The Guidance is not statutory guidance but provides illustrative, non-exhaustive, examples.

What is the update?

Following consultation and engagement with local councils (local authorities and port health authorities, etc.) and other key stakeholders, the changes are designed to help local councils target resources to where they make the most difference to public health outcomes.

The updated Codes and Guidance reflect the FSA’s wider commitment to modernise the food safety system in response to evolving food practices, changing consumer habits and ongoing pressures in the food industry.

Key updates include:

a more flexible, risk-based approach to prioritising initial official controls of new food businesses, allowing the flexibility for local councils to triage businesses when they first register
greater use of alternative control methods, including, for example, remote assessments to allow for a more efficient use of resource
broadening who can undertake certain activities to support delivery of official controls to ensure that expertise is dedicated to where it can have the most impact

Rachel Cooper, Director of Strategy and Regulatory Compliance at the FSA said:

“This update helps ensure that local councils have a more flexible, risk-based approach to carry out their vital work in a way that’s both effective and sustainable.  The changes we’ve made will strengthen the consistency of food law enforcement, support officer development and enhance consumer protection.”

The Codes and Guidance are available here.

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

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

Control of Asbestos Regulations consultation: What do you need to know?

Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:91463000-8c12-4cfb-83b4-65ab8be9b94d/as/ART-US00021.avif?assetname=ART-US00021.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

Article | 5 min read

Control of Asbestos Regulations consultation

What do you need to know?

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

Published 10 December 2025

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/charles-arrand/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/hannah-howard/profile

style

single-column-text

How prevalent are Health and Safety concerns relating to asbestos?

Asbestos, once widely used in construction and industry, is now recognised as the leading cause of work-related deaths in Great Britain. When asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) are disturbed, they release fibres that, if inhaled, can cause fatal diseases such as mesothelioma, asbestosis, and asbestos-related lung cancer. Despite a ban on asbestos use since 1999, the material remains present in many older buildings, posing ongoing risks to workers and building users, as recognised by the Minister for Social Security and Disability, Sir Stephen Timms, who said:

“The dangers of exposure to asbestos are well known. Its legacy is that it remains the biggest cause of work-related deaths in the UK — responsible for 5,000-plus deaths per year, with many more people living with the impact of asbestos-related disease. This consultation aims to improve these regulations and enhance worker and public protection from asbestos exposure.”

In short, it is clear that for the HSE, effective management and control of asbestos exposure remain critical to public and occupational health.

What do the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 currently require?

The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 (CAR 2012) is the primary legal framework for managing asbestos risks in Great Britain. The regulations consolidate previous legislation and set out clear duties for employers, duty holders, contractors, and others involved in work with asbestos. Key requirements include:

duty to manage (Regulation 4): Duty holders must identify and manage ACMs in non-domestic premises.
licensing: High-risk asbestos work must be carried out by licensed contractors.
notification and medical surveillance: Certain work must be notified to authorities, and workers must undergo regular medical checks.
training: Anyone liable to be exposed to asbestos must receive appropriate training.
four-stage clearance: After asbestos removal, a thorough clearance process must be completed before reoccupation.

CAR 2012 is supported by guidance documents and codes of practice to help duty holders comply with their responsibilities.

What changes are proposed by the consultation?

In order to meet its strategic policy objectives to reduce ill health caused by asbestos exposure and ensure the regulatory regime is clear for duty holders and other stakeholders, and proportionate to the hazards generated, the HSE has identified three proposals in its consultation. One of these is Regulatory (involves changes to the law, making compliance a legal requirement) and two are Non-Regulatory (focused on improving guidance, communication, and support without changing legal obligations).

The three proposals are:

amend CAR 2012 to ensure independence and impartiality in the four-stage clearance process after asbestos removal (Regulatory)
improve the quality of asbestos surveys through enhanced guidance and interventions (Non-Regulatory)
clarify the definition and management of Notifiable Non-Licensed Work (NNLW) with asbestos (Non-Regulatory).

Proposal 1: Ensuring independence in the four-stage clearance process

This proposalseeks to amend CAR 2012 to require the analyst conducting the four-stage clearance process after asbestos removal to be appointed independently by the client or duty holder, not by the asbestos removal contractor. This aims to eliminate conflicts of interest and ensure impartiality in certifying that an area is safe for reoccupation. Currently, contractors often appoint the analyst, which introduces a risk of pressure being applied to pass clearances quickly. The four-stage clearance is a critical process that ensures asbestos has been effectively removed and the area is safe.

The HSE has preferred a regulatory change because voluntary guidance has not achieved sufficient independence in practice. Data shows that in over half of cases, contractors still appoint the analyst. If this proposed regulatory change is made, it will put further responsibility on duty holders who will need to spend additional time and resources appointing analysts. Some contractors have expressed concerns about potential delays and the competence of clients to appoint analysts.

Proposal 2: Improving the quality of asbestos surveys

This proposal aims to improve the quality of asbestos surveys by enhancing guidance and support for duty holders, rather than mandating accreditation for all surveyors. The focus is on helping duty holders understand how to commission competent surveys and act on the results, essential for effective risk management. There are concerns about the competence of both accredited and non-accredited surveyors, and about duty holders’ ability to commission and interpret surveys.

Here, the HSE has preferred a non-regulatory approach, focusing on improved guidance and communication having concluded that informed clients are key to driving up survey standards, and that mandatory accreditation would be costly without guaranteeing better outcomes. This proposed change should be cost-neutral for compliant businesses, avoiding the significant expense of mandatory accreditation. It aims to raise standards through education and support, benefiting both businesses and safety outcomes.

Proposal 3: Clarifying notifiable non-licensed work (NNLW)

NNLW is a middle category of asbestos work that requires notification but not a licence. There is widespread confusion about what work falls into this category, leading to misclassification and potential safety risks, and this proposal seeks to clarify what constitutes NNLW by improving guidance and stakeholder engagement, rather than removing or redefining the category.

Again, the HSE has preferred to retain the category of NNLW but improve guidance, on the basis that removing the category could either increase costs (if work became licensed) or reduce safety standards (if work became non-licensed). Improved guidance will help duty holders correctly classify and manage asbestos work. Again, for compliant businesses, improved guidance is cost-neutral and aims to ensure that moderate-risk asbestos work is properly controlled without unnecessary regulatory burden, supporting both safety and business efficiency.

What do I need to do now?

Engaging with this consultation gives businesses a direct voice in shaping the future of asbestos regulation. The proposals will affect how asbestos risks are managed, the costs of compliance, and the safety of workers and building users. By providing feedback, businesses can help ensure that changes are practical, proportionate, and effective in reducing health risks.

Responses must be submitted by Friday 9 January 2026, and details of how to respond can be found here.

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

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

false

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

Work at Height Regulations: Practical Steps for Compliance

Thu, 4 Dec 2025 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:3f6ba56e-9c21-4a1b-98de-ff2d2bedd0a2/as/ART-u2114277519_meeting_room_with_two_colleagues_walking_away._ro_05fab423-cce9-437e-9323-83109f174755_2.avif?assetname=ART-u2114277519_meeting_room_with_two_colleagues_walking_away._ro_05fab423-cce9-437e-9323-83109f174755_2.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

Article | 5 min read

Work at Height Regulations

Practical steps for compliance

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

Falls from height remain the leading cause of workplace fatalities in Great Britain. This article summarises the Regulations’ key requirements and practical steps to help organisations manage the risks of working from height and to comply with the law.

Published 4 December 2025

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/hayley-saunders/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/charles-arrand/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/rubina-zaidi/profile

style

single-column-text

What matters

Falls from height remain the leading cause of not only of workplace fatalities but also of major injuries in the UK, with the construction and agriculture, forestry & fishing sectors particularly affected. The Work at Height Regulations 2005 (the Regulations) set out clear legal duties for employers and those in control of work at height, including self-employed contractors, to prevent injury and death resulting from falls from height.

The Regulations require all work at height to be properly planned, supervised, and carried out by competent persons, with risks assessed and appropriate equipment used. Recent HSE prosecutions and significant fines highlight the importance of robust compliance . Employers, self-employed contractors and those in control of work at height should review their arrangements now to ensure they are meeting their legal obligations and protecting workers from harm.

What matters next

Organisations should:

review current work at height activities and risk assessments.
ensure work at height activities are avoided if possible.
where such an activity cannot be avoided, ensure all work at height activities are planned, supervised, and undertaken by competent personnel.
check that equipment used for work at height activities is suitable, maintained, and regularly inspected.
maintain records of such checks.
provide regular training and information to all staff involved in work at height.
monitor HSE guidance and enforcement trends to benchmark compliance.

What is “Work at Height”?

The term “work at height” itself can be misleading, as it may suggest that only tasks performed at significantly above ground elevation are covered by the regulations. However, the regulations and the supporting guidance make clear that work at height can include activities carried out at low levels, or even at ground level, where there is a risk of falling a distance which might cause personal injury unless proper controls are in place. For example, working near an unguarded low-level edge—such as a dock in a warehouse with a drop of just a few feet—or using a kick stool to reach shelves in a shop, are both considered work at height. These scenarios, though seemingly minor, must be managed in accordance with the principles of the regulations which includes risk assessment, planning, and the implementation of appropriate control measures, ensuring that all work at height, regardless of the actual height involved, is conducted safely and in compliance with legal requirements.

Common misconceptions about “work at height” are that it is limited to obvious activities such as working on roofs, scaffolding, or ladders, or that it only applies to one-off tasks like tree work. However, the Regulations extend beyond these scenarios. Many routine, repeat tasks integral to daily operations can constitute work at height for regulatory purposes. Examples include climbing onto and descending from the bed of a lorry trailer to secure goods or using airport-style ladders for picking stock in a warehouse or stockroom. Such activities, regardless of their frequency or perceived risk, must be subject to risk assessment, planning, and the application of the hierarchy of control described below to ensure that even the most routine tasks are performed with regard for the potential hazards associated with working at height.

The key legal duties

The Regulations apply to employers, the self-employed, and anyone who controls work at height, including facilities managers and contractors (Regulation 3). Key duties include:

avoid work at height wherever possible (Regulation 6(2)).
plan and appropriately supervise work at height and ensure it is carried out safely so far as is reasonably practicable (Regulation 4).
ensure competence of those involved in work at height (Regulation 5).
conduct risk assessments and have controls in place including the selection of appropriate work equipment and training and instruction to prevent falls of a distance liable to cause personal injury, so far as is reasonably practicable. (Regulations 6 and 7).
prioritise collective protection measures over personal protection measures when selecting of work equipment for use at height (Regulation 7).
take steps to prevent the risk of falling objects and manage the risk of working at, near or on, fragile surfaces (Regulations 10 and 9).
put in place, where reasonably practicable, devices preventing unauthorised entry into areas where there is a risk of any person at work falling a distance or being struck by a falling object, which is liable to cause personal injury (Regulation 11).
comply with specific requirements in respect of equipment such as guard-rails, toe-boards, barriers, working platforms, fall arrest systems and ladders (Regulations 8, 12 and Schedules 2 to 6).

Hierarchy of control

The Regulations set out a clear hierarchy (Regulation 6):

avoid work at height where reasonably practicable.
prevent falls by using collective protection (e.g., guardrails, scaffolds) before personal protection (e.g., harnesses).
minimise the distance and consequences of a fall where the risk cannot be eliminated, using nets, airbags, or fall arrest systems.

Practical tips to avoid falls from height

eliminate the need to work at height wherever possible.
use the right equipment for the task and ensure it is properly maintained.
install guardrails, toe boards, and other collective protection to prevent and arrest falls.
provide appropriate personal protection equipment.
train staff in safe systems of work and emergency procedures.
regularly review and update risk assessments.
supervise work at height and check for changing site conditions.
have robust near miss reporting systems and audits of such systems in place.
consult HSE guidance and FAQs for up-to-date best practice.

Comment

The Work at Height Regulations 2005 remain a cornerstone of workplace safety law. Recent enforcement action demonstrates that the HSE will not hesitate to prosecute where basic precautions are ignored and that significant fines can follow. By following the hierarchy of control, investing in training and equipment and learning from near misses, organisations can protect their workforce and demonstrate compliance. As work at height remains a persistent risk, ongoing vigilance and a proactive approach are essential.

Useful links:

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

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

Corporate liability: Expanding accountability

Fri, 28 Nov 2025 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:4309b235-2812-470e-8e25-1a43ac95e2df/as/ART-MJ00018.avif?assetname=ART-MJ00018.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

ARTICLE | 5 min read

Corporate liability: Expanding accountability

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The proposed introduction of the “senior manager” test in the Crime and Policing Bill aims to facilitate the prosecution of corporates, particularly large organisations, for criminal offences beyond economic crimes committed by senior managers.

Published: 28 November 2025
Author: Rubina Zaidi

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/rubina-zaidi/profile

false

style

single-column-text

What matters

The Crime and Policing Bill proposes the introduction of a “senior manager” test to make it easier to prosecute corporations, particularly large organisations, for criminal offences committed by senior managers. This change will more readily facilitate the prosecution of corporates for criminal offences beyond economic crimes, where existing legislation already provides an easier route to successful corporate prosecution.

Recent legislative developments, including the introduction of the offence of “failing to prevent” (“FTP”) in relation to economic crimes such as facilitating the evasion of tax and bribery, have significantly expanded the scope of corporate liability in the UK. The “senior manager” test in the Crime and Policing Bill (“the Bill”), currently at the Committee Stage in the House of Lords, marks a further shift towards facilitating the more ready prosecution of corporates, particularly large organisations, for criminal offences beyond already provided for economic crimes. This article explores the implications of these changes, highlighting the key points for corporates to consider and act upon should the Bill be passed.

What matters next

Organisations must now consider their preparations for a likely legal landscape in which liability can arise not only from direct corporate fault and/or from wrongdoing by directors or those with a “directing mind”, but also from the actions of senior managers acting within their authority.

The “senior manager” test, as currently set out in the Bill, means that companies may be held criminally liable for offences committed by senior managers, regardless of whether it was intended that the organisation benefited from the wrongdoing. Further, in contrast with the FTP offences, a company charged with a criminal offence based on the senior manager test has no defence on the basis that it had reasonable / adequate procedures in place, and, unlike many strict liability offences, which do not require criminal intent to be established, no due diligence or reasonable practicability defence will be available.

Organisations should therefore consider now the practical steps they might wish to take in order to prepare for the anticipated passing of the Bill and to mitigate their exposure in this new landscape of potential corporate liability:

review the scope of the new legislation and assess which roles within their structure have the potential to be considered “senior managers”.
having identified their potential senior managers, engage with them to clarify their responsibilities and the potential consequences of misconduct.
provide targeted training for senior managers on the implications of the new liability regime and consider refreshing/updating training on areas of key risk for those managers.
conduct regular risk assessments to identify key areas of risk for the business and potential vulnerabilities in governance and oversight.
review and update internal policies and procedures on areas of key risk to ensure robust oversight and accountability at all levels.
establish well-defined reporting lines and (confidential) escalation procedures for suspected wrongdoing.
document reasonable/ adequate procedures and controls including in relation to exercising due diligence, even where no statutory defence is available, to evidence a proactive approach to compliance.

The senior manager test: A new standard for non-economic corporate crime

The senior manager test represents a departure from the traditional “directing mind” principle, which required proof that the actions, intent, decision making or obvious neglect of a director or equivalent had clearly led to the commission of a criminal offence by the corporation. The new approach reflects concerns over the difficulty of identifying those with a “directing mind” particularly in large organisations with complex structures.

Under the proposed new regime, criminal liability will attach to an organisation if a senior manager commits an offence within the actual or apparent scope of their authority, even without intent to benefit the organisation and despite the organisation having reasonable/ adequate procedures in place and/ or having exercised due diligence.

While no guidance has yet been published on the senior manager test or on who is a senior manager for the purposes of the test, a senior manager is defined in the Bill as an individual with a significant decision-making role in a (substantial part) of the organisation or who is involved in managing or organising a (substantial part) of the business.

The test therefore involves considering the individual’s role and responsibility, including their managerial influence and decision-making authority, not simply considering their formal title, seniority or remuneration. Senior managers can include heads of major units within the business, regional directors/ managers, or senior functional leads (e.g., finance, operations) who control substantial parts of the business.

Expansion of corporate liability

The proposed expansion of corporate liability by the senior manager test in the Bill goes beyond economic crimes (such as introduced by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023) to all criminal offences. Under the Bill, if a senior manager, acting within the actual or apparent scope of their authority, commits an offence, the organisation will also be guilty of that offence.

If the Bill passes, organisations face being criminally liable if a senior manager breaches, for example, environmental, data protection and/or health and safety legislation and, possibly, it has been speculated, even for offences unrelated to the operation of the business. Organisations must therefore implement effective systems to prevent both inadvertent harm (such as pollution or safety breaches) and deliberate or reckless wrongdoing by individuals acting on their behalf, particularly those in the senior manager category.

Comment

This proposed new regime marks a significant evolution in UK law and places a premium on organisational culture, leadership, and good governance. While the aim of the Bill is to deter wrongdoing and the perceived unfairness of the current system which appears to favour large, complex organisations, there is a risk that liability may be imposed in circumstances where an organisation has acted entirely reasonably and in good faith. The absence of a statutory defence underscores the importance of proactive risk management, ongoing review of internal controls and effective collaboration between leadership, compliance teams, supported, where required, by external advisers.

Add finally…

We will provide updates regarding key changes, if any, to the reforms to corporate liability currently proposed in the Bill as it passes through Parliament into law.

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

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

Ban on selling high-caffeine energy drinks to under 16s – what you need to know

Mon, 24 Nov 2025 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:10c7dc6a-7ee5-4236-aa68-968488299b4a/as/ART-emile-guillemot-DFDAno7uMM0-unsplash.avif?assetname=ART-emile-guillemot-DFDAno7uMM0-unsplash.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

Article | 4 min read

Ban on selling high-caffeine energy drinks to under 16s

What you need to know

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

What matters

The government is planning to ban the sale of high caffeine energy drinks to children under 16 in England. A consultation has been launched to understand the views of stakeholders on the proposed policy, and the proposed approach to enforcement.

What matters next

Businesses impacted by the new restrictions should consider providing feedback on the proposed ban to ensure their voice is heard ahead of the ban coming into force. The consultation is open until 23:59 on 26 November 2025.

style

two-column-text

Published 24 November 2025

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

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

style

single-column-text

What is a high caffeine energy drink?

A high caffeine energy drink is a soft drink that contains at least 150 milligrams (mg) of caffeine per litre of drink. Currently, manufacturers must label any such drink (excluding tea and coffee) with the words ‘High caffeine content. Not recommended for children or pregnant or breast-feeding women’.

Why is a ban of the sale of these drinks to under 16s being proposed?

According to the government’s open consultation, data suggests that large numbers of children regularly consume high caffeine energy drinks in the UK, and growing evidence suggests a link between consuming such drinks and possible negative outcomes on children’s health and education.

Who does the plan apply to?

In 2018, many retailers, supermarkets and convenience stores voluntarily stopped selling high-caffeine energy drinks to under 16s. The Vending and Automated Retail Association (the AVA) issued voluntary guidance to its members recommending that high caffeine energy drinks should not be sold in vending machines in public sites where under 16s have regular access to them. The British Soft Drinks Association’s voluntary code of practice commits its members to not directly market such products to under 16s.

However, and crucially, the government have cited research which states that some businesses are continuing to sell high-caffeine energy drinks to children.

On that basis, it is proposed that the ban should apply to all sellers, retailers and businesses, regardless of business size. The ban will therefore apply to the out of home sector, including restaurants, takeaways and pubs, as well as to other types of retailers that do not primarily sell food and drink, such as newsagents and clothes retailers. The proposed ban will also extend to both in store and online sales. The government are inviting views on how the online ban would work in practice.

Will the ban apply to vending machine sales?

The government have made clear that the sale of high caffeine energy drinks from vending machines to under 16s is within scope of the proposed ban. The proposal states that the most effective and enforceable approach is to ban the sale of high caffeine energy drinks from all vending machines regardless of the prospective buyer’s age. This proposal has been criticised by the AVA.

It is proposed that the person controlling or managing the premises where the vending machine is located would be liable if the ban was breached.

How will the ban be enforced?

It is likely that local trading standards officers will be responsible for enforcement.

The government intend to introduce the ban using secondary legislation under the Food Safety Act 1990 (the Act). Sales in breach of the ban will therefore constitute a criminal offence under the Act. In addition, it is proposed that local authorities should be permitted to issue fixed monetary penalties as an alternative to the pre-existing criminal penalties outlined in the Act, when there is satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt that an offence has been committed, and where a civil sanction is the most appropriate action to take.

For businesses with 50 or more employees, the proposed value of the fixed monetary penalty is £3,750. To discharge liability, a payment of 50% of the sum of the fixed monetary penalty will be able to be paid within 28 days of receiving a notice of intent. If this 50% payment is not made, and representations and/or objections are not made, a local authority will be able to issue a final notice. Full payment of the penalty must then be made within 28 days of receiving this final notice, otherwise the penalty will be further increased by 50%.

What do I need to do now?

The government is proposing a six-month implementation period from the point at which secondary legislation is introduced, to allow businesses to prepare for the ban. It is felt this is a proportionate implementation period, given many businesses already have voluntary procedures in place to prevent the sale of the products to under 16s.

Businesses already complying with the voluntary commitment not to sell high caffeine energy drinks to under 16s should review their procedures (i.e. age verification checks and systems, keeping of a sales refusal record etc) to ensure they are effective at preventing the sale of such products to under 16s. Staff should be re-trained on the relevant procedures ahead of the ban coming into force to prevent non-compliance. These steps are necessary given the increased regulatory scrutiny such procedures are likely to be under once the ban comes into force, and given the types of sanctions that will be available to the enforcement authorities in future.

Those businesses not complying voluntarily should take steps to ensure relevant procedures are in place to prevent sales to under 16s.

Businesses can provide feedback on the proposed ban using the online survey. The consultation is open until 23:59 on 26 November 2025.

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

style

single-column-text

]]>

DMCC: Is the CMA starting to flex its muscles?

Wed, 19 Nov 2025 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:906b6bc4-e5ca-4dfb-adc5-81c7d4f83401/as/ART-US00076.avif?assetname=ART-US00076.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

Article | 2 min read

DMCC: Is the CMA starting to flex its muscles?

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The CMA has opened investigations into eight businesses and sent advisory letters to 100 others over online pricing practices and possible breaches of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC).

Published 19 November 2025

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

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

style

single-column-text

Background

Since the 6 April 2025, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has increased enforcement powers in relation to consumer law. We discussed the CMAs new powers, which include the ability to impose fines of up to 10% of global turnover, in our previous article. Since April, the CMA has been monitoring more than 400 businesses across different sectors to assess compliance with the rules on price transparency.

CMA activity

These investigations represent the first enforcement cases using its new powers which enable the CMA to determine whether consumer laws have been broken, rather than having to go to court.

The investigations, detailed here, relate to pricing practices including (i) mandatory additional charges on secondary ticketing sites (and whether or not these are included upfront), (ii) misleading time-limited offers, (iii) default opt-ins for optional fees, and (iv) one-off joining fees.

Drip-pricing (where a headline price is initially shown to consumers, but mandatory charges are added later during the purchasing process) is an unfair commercial practice under the DMCC. A report by DBT found that drip pricing was particularly prevalent regarding event tickets (93% of the businesses reviewed), cinema tickets (69%), and gym memberships (60%) – all areas where the CMA has now taken action.

The advisory letters sent to 100 businesses, outline concerns about the use of additional fees and online sales tactics and include businesses in various sectors, including homeware retailers, holidays / travel, gym and fitness, driving schools, rail travel, parking, delivery companies, and online vouchers.

What do I need to do now?

Businesses should review their pricing practices to ensure compliance. The CMAs newly-published and updated pricing transparency guidance and unfair commercial practices guidance are useful for businesses that want to avoid scrutiny and potential enforcement action.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

Plastic wet wipes: A clean break

Fri, 7 Nov 2025 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:be77720c-ead5-4b2c-acfc-77113f9106b3/as/ART-US00024.avif?assetname=ART-US00024.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

Article | 6 min read

Plastic wet wipes: A clean break

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

England is set to ban the sale of single-use wet wipes containing plastic. While exemptions apply, the move signals a decisive shift in environmental regulation. Businesses must act now to protect supply chains, avoid penalties, and explore compliant alternatives.

Published 7 November 2025

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

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/angus-evers/profile

style

single-column-text

What is being prohibited and why?

The Regulations make it an offence, in the course of business, to supply or offer to supply wet wipes (i.e. a non-woven piece of fabric which has been pre-wetted and which is not designed or intended to be re-used) containing plastic to end users.

An end user is anyone other than someone who is then supplying the product to another person for business reasons, or to whom the products are supplied for the purposes of a manufacturing process.

The ban only applies to single-use products, and any reusable wet wipe products containing plastic will not be caught by the ban.

Importantly for manufacturers, and as per this Explanatory Memorandum, the manufacture of wet wipes containing plastic will not be banned. This allows manufacturers in England to continue to export wet wipes containing plastic to countries where their supply and sale is still permitted.

The ban is being proposed in order to reduce unnecessary plastic and microplastic pollution. It is said that the ban will lower the volume of plastic litter and reduce the amount of microplastics entering our waterways. 

Are there any exemptions to the ban?

Several sector-specific exemptions will apply.

Pharmacies: The supply of wet wipes containing plastic by pharmacies to their customers in England (whether supplied at a registered pharmacy or online) is not prohibited provided the pharmacy does not advertise the wet wipes to customers. If they are supplied at a registered pharmacy, the wet wipes must not be visible or accessible to customers, and they must not be offered or provided to a customer unless specifically requested. Displaying the wet wipes for sale on a website or app through which the pharmacy sells products online is not prohibited.

Medical purposes: The ban does not apply to a person supplying the products for use for medical purposes by or under the direction of a healthcare professional. Nor does it apply to a healthcare professional or NHS appliance contractor, provided they are supplying the products for medical purposes.

Businesses and local authorities: If wet wipes containing plastic were supplied to a person who carries on a business, or to a local authority, that supply will also be exempt provided the supply is for the purpose of that business, or local authority. 

What are the penalties for non-compliance with the ban?

The ban will be enforced by local authorities and local trading standards officers, in accordance with future guidance. Breaching the ban will constitute a criminal offence, and will carry a maximum penalty on conviction of an unlimited fine.

There is a due diligence defence available if a defendant can show that it relied on information provided by a third party (this may be the case if, for example, the defendant was supplied with, and then supplied to an end user, wet wipes containing plastic, despite their supplier claiming the wet wipes did not contain plastic).

A regulator may also impose civil sanctions. Not surprisingly, as per this Government response, it is expected that authorities will apply civil sanctions in the first instance. However, a failure to comply with a civil sanction, or repeated breaches, may result in prosecution.

Fixed monetary penalties or compliance notices: if a regulator is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a person has committed an offence, a fixed monetary penalty of £200 can be imposed, or a compliance notice issued. A compliance notice sets out steps a person must take (within a specified period) to ensure the offence does not continue or recur.

If a regulator proposes to issue either a fixed monetary penalty or compliance notice, it must issue a notice of intent setting out the grounds for the penalty and/or notice, and providing information on the right for a person to make representations or objections within 28 days. A recipient of a notice of intent can also discharge any liability for payment of a fixed monetary penalty by paying £100.

If a person is served with a notice of intent in relation to a proposed compliance notice, that person may, in response, undertake to act in a way which benefits any third party affected by the offence. A regulator may accept or reject this third party undertaking.

Stop notices: a regulator may decide to serve a stop notice if it reasonably believes a person is carrying on (or anticipates that a person is likely to carry on) an activity that is causing, or presents a significant risk of causing, serious harm to the environment (including animal health), and that activity involves, or is likely to involve, the commission of an offence. A stop notice prohibits a person from carrying on the activity specified in the notice until that person has taken certain steps.

Enforcement undertakings: if a regulator has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has committed an offence, a regulator can accept a written undertaking given by that person.

Non-compliance penalties: If a person fails to comply with a compliance notice or undertaking, a regulator may serve a notice imposing a monetary penalty in respect of the same offence. That penalty will be a percentage of the costs of fulfilling any remaining requirements in the notice or undertaking.

Regulators also have powers to enter premises without a warrant and take possession of any samples for as long as is necessary. 

What should suppliers of these products do now?

It is unclear when the Regulations will be approved, but when that date comes, businesses selling wet wipes containing plastic to consumers should ensure that any stock can be sold within 18 months.

In anticipation of the ban, businesses should consider their ability to supply to other businesses (rather than consumers), or to export to  countries where the supply and sale of wet wipes containing plastic is still permitted, or to source and sell wet wipes which do not contain plastic.

Businesses should begin to check the termination provisions in any relevant long-term supply contracts. Businesses left with unsold stock after the ban comes into force should consider how to dispose of their remaining inventory, as the products are likely to be viewed as ‘waste” by environmental regulators.

The proposed ban on wet wipes containing plastic is the latest in a series of recent bans on single use products. For our other articles on this topic, see “The Great British Clean-up: a ban on single-use plastics” and “Single-use vapes to be banned across the UK from 1 June 2025: what do you need to know?”.

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/angus-evers

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

false

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

Brand or banned? The new rules reshaping food ads

Wed, 5 Nov 2025 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:ead19cde-f3d7-4ac4-a782-f39ca4f1ef02/as/ART-u2114277519_create_high_end_photography_showing_detail_of_hot_871b7ce3-7550-4653-9769-5b93db310007_0.avif?assetname=ART-u2114277519_create_high_end_photography_showing_detail_of_hot_871b7ce3-7550-4653-9769-5b93db310007_0.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

Article | 5 min read

Brand or banned? The new rules reshaping food ads

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The Advertising (Less Healthy Food and Drink) (Brand Advertising Exemption) Regulations 2025, effective from 31 Oct, exempt brand ads from UK-wide restrictions on less healthy food ads. CAP is reviewing feedback from its latest consultation.

Published 5 November 2025

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

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

style

single-column-text

What are the restrictions?

As discussed previously, the advertising of “identifiable” LHF products on television, on demand and in paid for ads online will be restricted from 5 January 2026 (although many advertisers and broadcasters have committed to complying with the restrictions from 1 October 2025).

Is the ad for an “identifiable” LHF?

An LHF product is “identifiable” if “persons in the UK (or any part of the UK) could reasonably be expected to be able to identify the advertisements as being for that product”.

This will ultimately be decided by the Advertising Standards Authority (“ASA”) applying the “identifiability test”. Details of the application of this test are included in the latest version of CAP’s proposed implementation guidance (“the Draft Guidance”).

In short, the ASA will assess whether the average consumer would identify an ad as being for an LHF product, and not the advertiser’s intention. The Draft Guidance states an ad is likely to meet the “identifiability test” if, for example, a specific LHF product is clearly and prominently referenced in the ad. This could be by way of text, an audio reference, or an image (i.e. of an LHF product’s packaging, or of the LHF product, where that product has a distinctive shape, or mark).

Recap: what about brand advertising?

What was less clear (until recently) was whether brand advertising, which did not identify an LHF product, would be restricted. As explained in this Explanatory Memorandum, it was never the Government’s intention for such brand advertising to be restricted.

To bring that intention into effect, the Advertising (Less Healthy Food and Drink) (Brand Advertising Exemption) Regulations 2025 (“the Regulations”) were laid before Parliament on 10 September 2025, and are set to come into force on 31 October 2025. Following the laying of these Regulations, CAP published, and issued a consultation on, the Draft Guidance.

Brand ads: what do we know now?

It is now clear that a brand ad is exempt from the restrictions on the advertising of LHF products. A brand advertisement is an ad that promotes a brand, including the brand of a range of products (i.e. a series of products composed of different variants, such as flavours).

As well as setting out what a brand ad is, the Regulations set out what a brand ad is not. In other words, businesses will be unable to rely on the exemption for brand ads if their advertising does any of the following:

depicts a specific LHF

Importantly, “depict” means to represent by way of name, text, imagery, logo, audio cue, jingle, brand character or other (combination of) branding technique(s), whereas “specific” means a food or drink product capable of being purchased, and which is differentiated from other purchasable products.

In other words, if an ad includes an image of a specific LHF, it will not be exempt. The same is true of any ad including imagery representative of a specific LHF product (i.e. a brand character which is a personification of an LHF product).

Generic product imagery (i.e. an abstract representation of a type of a product) is likely to be exempt provided it is sufficiently distinct from any specific LHF products supplied by the advertiser, as is generic product related imagery such as packaging common to multiple products, provided no further information pointing to a specific LHF product is included in the ad.

The key for advertisers is to ensure that any combination of branding techniques used in an ad do not, when taken together, identify an LHF product.

promotes a brand the name of which is also the name of a specific LHF product

A brand name which is the same as the full name of a specific LHF product will not be exempt from the restrictions. The name of a range which is identical to a specific LHF is unlikely to be exempt.

However, the exemption will apply to brand ads which name a specific LHF product, if the full name of that product is (included in) the name of a company or entity, and that company or entity was established before 16 July 2025. Ads for brands which name a specific LHF are permitted if the named product is also the name of a range, provided that name was used prior to 16 July 2025.

includes a realistic image which is visually indistinguishable from a specific LHF.

The exemption will not apply to an ad which includes a realistic image (i.e. a photo, video, etc) of a food or drink product (and not only the packaging), where that product is visually indistinguishable from a specific LHF product.

Therefore, if an ad includes an image of an unpackaged product from a range containing both LHF and non-LHF products, the ad should make clear that the depicted product is non-LHF, if the products would otherwise be indistinguishable.

What should advertisers do now?

If they haven’t already, food businesses with 250 or more employees should identify which of their food and drink products are LHF products, and ensure they are ready to comply with the upcoming restrictions (if they are not already voluntarily complying).

Advertisers should also:

only feature non-LHF products, or brand advertising, in ads appearing on television, on demand, or in paid for online space

clearly signpost the fact an advertised product is non-LHF if it is otherwise visually indistinguishable from an LHF product, and appearing on TV, on demand or in paid for online space;

only advertise LHF products in unrestricted areas i.e. radio, billboards, non-boosted social media posts; and

train their in-house marketing teams on the upcoming restrictions.

Lastly, businesses should know which of their products are high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) as the pre-existing restrictions on HFSS product ads will continue to apply.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

A substantial role for third parties under the DMCC

Mon, 8 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0100

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:e2e907c9-fceb-4a53-b25f-6ad04237313a/as/ART-GettyImages-92268855.avif?assetname=ART-GettyImages-92268855.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

Article | 3 min read

A substantial role for third parties under the DMCC

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The DMCC marks a turning point in digital regulation. It doesn’t just target dominant tech firms—it empowers third parties to shape fairer markets. From SMS designations to pro-competitive interventions, the Act invites competitors, consumer groups and stakeholders to step forward, not stand back. This article explores how and why third-party engagement matters—and what ambitious clients should do next.

Published 8 September 2025

style

single-column-text

The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCC) envisages a strategic and participatory role for third parties such as competitors, consumer groups, and industry stakeholders.

By engaging in the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) regulatory process, third parties can help shape the future conduct of powerful companies in digital ecosystems, influence outcomes, and pursue compensatory legal remedies.

SMS designation: A firm may be designated by the CMA as having Strategic Market Status (SMS) in relation to a specific digital activity linked to the UK, if - based on a forward-looking assessment covering at least five years - it is found to hold substantial and entrenched market power, along with a position of strategic significance in that activity. Before designating a firm, the CMA must conduct a public consultation. This consultation process enables third parties to submit evidence, market insights, and technical expertise ensuring that the designation process is based on a proper understanding of market dynamics, potential harms and remedies.

Tailored codes of conduct: The CMA can impose conduct requirements on an SMS firm to promote fair dealing, open choices, and trust and transparency. When developing these bespoke codes of conduct, the CMA will hold public consultations, allowing third parties to influence the obligations imposed on the dominant companies.

Pro-competitive interventions (PCI): Once a firm has been designated with SMS in respect of a digital activity, the CMA can launch a PCI investigation. A PCI can be behavioural (e.g. data mobility, interoperability, data access), structural (e.g. divestment) or in the form of a recommendation for action to another public authority. The CMA will consult on the proposed decision, set out emerging findings and a description of any interventions that are proposed. Third Parties can submit written representations and may also have the opportunity to make oral representations.

Appeal against decisions: CMA decisions under the DMCC are generally subject only to judicial review, meaning the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) can overturn them only on limited legal grounds, such as procedural unfairness or irrationality. Since appeals on the merits are rare - except in cases like financial penalties - third parties would benefit from early engagement by submitting evidence or concerns before decisions are made by the CMA.

Declaratory relief: Designated firms owe a statutory duty to any person affected by a breach of a conduct requirement. An aggrieved third party may apply to the CAT for declaratory relief - a legal declaration that an SMS firm has breached a conduct requirement. The practical implications of this mechanism are: (i) it empowers private parties to obtain clarity without waiting for the CMA’s enforcement action; and (ii) such a declaration can form the basis for subsequent legal steps, including claims for damages. Where compliance with conduct requirements by SMS firms is uncertain, third parties can play a proactive role in monitoring obligations and may pursue either CMA enforcement or litigation as appropriate. This mechanism is particularly valuable given the uncertainty that already surrounds compliance under the EU Digital Markets Act (DMA), where allegations and denials of non-compliance have emerged and clarity is often lacking.

Damages: The DMCC allows the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) to award exemplary damages to third parties in certain cases. These are punitive damages, granted in addition to compensation, intended to punish particularly egregious conduct and deter future breaches. However, exemplary damages are not available in collective proceedings. Their availability may encourage third party stakeholders to bring individual claims against SMS firms where misconduct is especially serious.

The DMCC is a significant milestone in digital market regulation, aiming to promote competition in fast-moving digital environments. For third parties that depend on access to critical digital markets, it offer avenues to seek a fair deal and protection from unfair or harmful practices of very large technology firms. Crucially, the CMA appears to be encouraging stakeholders to move beyond passive observation by actively contributing evidence, sharing insights, and engaging with its processes to help shape informed and effective oversight of complex digital environments.

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/manu-mohan

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/kiran-desai

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/simon-barnes

style

single-column-text

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

]]>