Generative AI has quickly become part of the software development workflow. Tools like GitHub Copilot, OpenAI’s ChatGPT, and Anthropic’s Claude can speed up coding, automate documentation, and even suggest architectural solutions. For developers working inside outsourcing companies, however, the use of these tools raises a critical legal and contractual question: What happens to IP created with AI assistance when the ultimate client expects full and unencumbered ownership.

In June 2023, the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) entered into force in general, marking the western world’s first comprehensive legal framework for crypto-asset markets. By September 2024, the clock is ticking: some provisions are already live, and the rest will become effective by the end of 2024.

As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly embedded in industries like healthcare, finance, transportation, and law enforcement, a critical question arises: who is responsible when AI systems cause harm? From self-driving vehicles causing accidents to biased facial recognition tools misidentifying individuals, AI-related incidents are no longer theoretical — they are real and growing.

Non-compete clauses have long been a standard tool for tech companies to protect intellectual property, client relationships, and confidential know-how. In April 2024, however, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) finalized a groundbreaking rule that would ban most non-compete agreements nationwide.

From 1 January 2024, the U.S. Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) will require many US and foreign companies doing business in the United States to disclose their "Beneficial Owners" and certain company formation details to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). For global tech businesses that rely on U.S. entities for operations, fundraising, IP holding, or market access, this marks a significant shift in compliance obligations.