This article explores the key features of the recently introduced Mandatory Guardrails for regulating high-risk AI in Australia, including the scope of the Mandatory Guardrails, who will be required to comply with the Mandatory Guardrails and how the Mandatory Guardrails grapple with the definition of high-risk AI.

This article focus primarily on the different data concepts and the resulting implications for the scope and extent of the associated obligations. First, the underlying system of Chapter II of the Data Act (I.) and its various data concepts (II.) are presented and both are then illustrated per three practical examples (III.): (i) connected car, (ii) connected field sprayer, and (iii) connected robotic system in plant engineering. Particular attention is paid to the resulting obligations and their impact on companies. By clarifying the different definitions of terms, it is shown how companies can design their compliance strategies as efficiently as possible to meet the new legal requirements and at the same time maintain their competitiveness. Targeted recommendations for action for companies that are still in the initial phase of dealing with the Data Act are provided in the form of a scoping guide (IV.).

Art. 16 DSA and its framework for notice and action mechanisms are one of the DSA’s central due diligence obligations for hosting services, including online-platforms. Such services must put in place user-friendly reporting mechanisms, so reporters can easily notify them about allegedly illegal content. Following proper notification, Art. 16(6) S. 1 DSA obliges providers to make a decision in a “timely, diligent, non-arbitrary and objective manner”. What does that actually mean?
This paper addresses these issues involved: First, what is the interplay of Art. 16(6) S. 1 DSA with other, more traditional take-down obligations? Can IP rights holders, based on Art. 16 DSA, initiate a Digital Services Coordinator (DSC) to act against, e.g., copyright violations? Does Art. 16(6) S. 1 DSA harmonize national tort law stay-down obligations? What triggers Art. 16(6)’s imperative: Every “notice” or only specific ones received through dedicated reporting mechanisms? What is the legal standard for “diligent” decisions: Must platforms enforce their Community Standards, or only relevant laws? Speaking of laws: Must platforms consider any Member State’s laws? And might the enforcement of Art. 16(6) S. 1 DSA through Art. 54 DSA advance civil law remedies against hosting providers?

One of the common themes among various failed ERP implementations and outsourcing transactions is the divergence between the representations made by technology vendor sales teams as to promised skills, expertise and delivery, and the actually provided skills, expertise and delivery. Part 1 (Beardwood, CRi 2024, 85) began by providing an overview of the law of misrepresentation, and then the common vendor defences of puffery and opinion, statements of future intent, and contractual disclaimers, in Canada (I) and the United States (II). Part 2 continues by providing an overview of the law of misrepresentation, and then the common vendor defences of puffery and opinion, statements of future intent, and contractual disclaimers, inthe European Union (III). The analysis then assesses how these defences were raised by vendors in two recent ERP failure lawsuits (IV), before concluding with lessons learned for vendors and customers (V).