The Legal Empowerment Blog Understanding EU Legislation and Its Impact on UK Law Post-Brexit The United Kingdom (UK) officially ceased being a member of the European Union (EU) on January 31, 2020. Since then, the UK has navigated a complex legal transition as it has separated itself from the EU’s regulatory framework. However, as of December 31, 2020, EU legislation that applied to the UK on that date was retained as part of domestic UK law. This retained legislation is now accessible on legislation.gov.uk, ensuring that the transition remains transparent and manageable. EU legislation that was in force on December 31, 2020, has been transformed into what is known as “retained EU legislation.” This encompasses various legal instruments like EU Regulations, Decisions, and Directives, which now sit under the UK’s domestic legal system. Such legislation governs a wide range of areas—from trade and travel to business operations and personal matters—making it crucial for individuals and businesses to stay informed. Some EU laws, such as Regulations and Decisions, were directly applicable in the UK before Brexit. These types of laws no longer require further domestic action, as they have been integrated directly into UK law post-Brexit. For example, certain Regulations originally published by the EU have been carried over, and these documents are now available on legislation.gov.uk. The Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU outlined the framework for the UK’s exit and transition, including an implementation period during which EU laws continued to apply. With the conclusion of the implementation period at 11:00 p.m. on December 31, 2020, all EU law that applied to the UK at that time was retained in UK law. This shift is managed through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and its amendments, ensuring continued legal consistency. Since the end of 2023, the status of “retained EU legislation” has evolved into what is now referred to as “assimilated law,” governed by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. How to Access the Legislation Legislation originating from the EU is now published on legislation.gov.uk, which consolidates and updates these laws. You can access the full range of EU-derived legislation, including amendments, corrections, and point-in-time versions, directly from this platform. The EU Exit Web Archive serves as an additional resource, providing historical snapshots of EU law as it stood at the end of 2020. For those seeking to understand the ongoing impact of retained EU law, it’s important to recognize that changes may occur as the UK Parliament revises these laws. Legal professionals and businesses should regularly consult the gov.uk and legislation.gov.uk websites to stay updated. Specifics for Northern Ireland One particularly complex area of EU legislation’s continuation involves Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Protocol ensures that some EU laws still apply in Northern Ireland, to maintain a seamless border with the Republic of Ireland. This area of law remains particularly sensitive, and stakeholders need to be aware of specific legislation that may still impact Northern Ireland’s legal framework. What You Need to Do If you are looking for guidance on adapting to changes resulting from Brexit, visit the gov.uk/transition page for practical advice and instructions. This includes vital information for businesses, families, and individuals on how to manage the transition from EU rules to UK domestic law. In conclusion, while the UK is no longer a part of the European Union, EU legislation continues to play a significant role in UK law. Understanding and staying updated with this legislation is essential for ensuring compliance and navigating the post-Brexit legal landscape effectively. For more information and to explore the complete body of retained EU legislation, visit legislation.gov.uk and gov.uk/transition. The voter turnout varied across the regions In England, the turnout was 73.0% 0 % in Northern Ireland, it was 62.7%, 0 % in Scotland, it was 67.2% 0 % in Wales, the turnout was 71.7%. 0 % The “Leave” side received 53.4% of the total votes across all regions, with a total of 15,188,406 votes from England, 349,442 votes from Northern Ireland, 1,018,322 votes from Scotland, and 854,572 votes from Wales. Meanwhile, the “Remain” side garnered 46.6% of the total votes, with 13,266,996 votes from England, 440,707 votes from Northern Ireland, 1,661,191 votes from Scotland, and 772,347 votes from Wales. The voter turnout varied across the regions. In England, the turnout was 73.0%, in Northern Ireland, it was 62.7%, in Scotland, it was 67.2%, and in Wales, the turnout was 71.7%. In Scotland, the “Leave” side received 38.0% of the votes, amounting to 1,018,322 votes. On the other hand, the “Remain” side won 62.0% of the votes, totaling 1,661,191 votes.
Continue ReadingNew EU Regulation on Deforestation and Its Impact on Global Trade: What Businesses Need to Know
Here’s what companies need to prepare for and understand as the implementation date approaches The European Union has introduced a groundbreaking regulation aimed at reducing the environmental impact of deforestation and forest degradation linked to products entering the EU market. Set to become effective from December 2025, the regulation mandates that businesses involved in the trade of specific commodities must demonstrate compliance with strict due diligence requirements. Defining “Deforestation-Free” Products For a product to be considered compliant under the new regulation, it must be “deforestation-free.” This means the commodities it contains must not have been produced on land that was converted from forests into agricultural use after December 31, 2020. The regulation goes further to include forest degradation, meaning the conversion of primary forests into less biodiverse land uses, such as plantations, must also be avoided. Unlike previous legislation focusing on illegal logging, this regulation extends to deforestation that may have been legally sanctioned in the country of origin, with the goal of curbing even legal practices that contribute to environmental damage. What Does Compliance Require? From December 2025, businesses will be required to submit a detailed due diligence declaration before placing any affected product on the EU market. This will include a statement that confirms the goods are free from links to deforestation and forest degradation. Furthermore, businesses must demonstrate that the goods were produced in line with relevant environmental, social, and legal regulations in the country of origin, which can range from labor laws to forest management and indigenous land rights. The new law will be enforced through audits and checks by national authorities across EU member states, and the risk of non-compliance will be monitored regularly. Penalties for Non-Compliance For companies failing to meet the requirements, significant penalties will apply. Fines could reach up to 4% of the company’s turnover within the EU market. Repeat offenses may result in further penalties, including confiscation of goods, exclusion from public procurement opportunities, and temporary bans on trading certain products in the EU market. Impact on the Supply Chain Supply chains will be heavily scrutinized under the new regulation. Companies must provide detailed information about the entire journey of a product—from its origin to final sale. Businesses should consider the potential long-term impact of the regulation on their supply chains, especially as it relates to risk assessments and potential changes in sourcing strategies. What Commodities Are Affected? The regulation applies to a wide range of commodities that have been linked to deforestation and forest degradation, including: Cocoa Cattle Coffee Oil palm Rubber Soybeans Wood and wood-derived products In addition to these commodities, many processed goods derived from them, such as leather, chocolate, palm oil derivatives, coffee products, and paper, are also covered. To ensure compliance, businesses must carefully assess their products’ supply chains, as the regulation stipulates that these goods must not be associated with deforestation or forest degradation that occurred after December 31, 2020. Key Takeaways for Businesses: *Preparation is Key: Even though the regulation comes into effect in December 2025, companies should begin adjusting their practices now by revising supply chain audits and ensuring traceability for the products covered by the law. *Global Trade Implications: The regulation has far-reaching implications for businesses operating globally, not just those within the EU. It will affect how products are sourced, traded, and certified. *Due Diligence Requirements: Businesses will need to prove their products’ compliance through comprehensive due diligence processes, which may involve independent audits and working closely with suppliers. *Enforcement and Risk of Non-Compliance: Companies should be aware of the enforcement mechanisms in place, which will include routine checks by national authorities, as well as the possibility of scrutiny from private entities. By proactively aligning with the regulation’s requirements, businesses can mitigate risks, stay ahead of enforcement deadlines, and avoid potentially costly penalties. The regulation represents a significant shift in global trade and environmental responsibility, pushing companies toward more sustainable practices in the face of rising environmental concerns.
Continue ReadingApple Faces Legal Battle Over Alleged Unfair App Store Fees in the UK
Apple Confronts £1.5 Billion Legal Challenge Over Alleged App Store Monopoly Practices in the UK Apple is embroiled in a significant legal battle in the UK over accusations that it has unlawfully abused its dominant market position in the App Store. The case, which began with a court hearing on Monday, seeks to recover an estimated £1.5 billion ($1.8 billion) in damages. The legal claim, initially filed in May 2021, argues that Apple has breached UK and European competition laws by creating an unfair market environment through its exclusive control over iOS devices, such as iPhones and iPads, and excluding rival app store platforms. This lawsuit is being brought on behalf of an estimated 20 million iOS users in the United Kingdom, who allege that Apple’s business practices have led to overcharging on apps purchased through its App Store. Rachael Kent, a lecturer at King’s College London specializing in the digital economy, is acting as the plaintiff. She is represented in the case by Hausfeld & Co., a law firm known for its expertise in handling large-scale class action lawsuits. The heart of the case revolves around the claim that Apple’s exclusive control over the iOS operating system, and its refusal to allow third-party app stores on its devices, has artificially inflated the costs paid by consumers. At the opening of the trial, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Mark Hoskins, outlined the case and made clear that Kent is pursuing the action “on behalf of all iOS mobile device users,” emphasizing the scale of the alleged harm caused by Apple’s practices. The claim asserts that Apple has “excluded all competition” through its restrictive terms and conditions, resulting in what the plaintiffs argue is an unfair surcharge on digital purchases. Specifically, Apple imposes a 30% commission on most app transactions made through its App Store. The plaintiffs contend that this commission is an unjustified cost passed on to consumers, ultimately inflating the price of digital goods and services available on the platform. The plaintiffs have argued that this 30% surcharge is not only a significant financial burden on consumers but also violates both UK and EU competition regulations designed to prevent market monopolies and encourage a competitive environment. The lawsuit highlights that Apple’s exclusionary tactics have hindered the ability of alternative app stores to access the iOS ecosystem, restricting consumer choice and inflating the cost of apps and in-app purchases. Kent, a leading figure in the study of the digital economy, pointed to popular apps like Tinder as examples of services that are impacted by the App Store commission, which applies to most digital content available through Apple’s platform. However, it is important to note that the surcharge does not apply to apps that offer physical products or services, such as food delivery platforms like Deliveroo and Uber Eats. Kent’s claim asserts that this exclusionary practice has affected all consumers who have purchased applications or subscriptions through the UK App Store since October 1, 2015. According to the legal team, affected consumers are entitled to compensation, which could potentially total £1.5 billion, based on the number of users and the overcharges identified. Apple, for its part, has dismissed the lawsuit as “meritless.” In statements provided to the media, the company has stressed that it remains committed to consumer protection and innovation. Apple’s defense is grounded in the assertion that its App Store offers users many benefits, including a secure and integrated system designed to prioritize user privacy and data protection. According to Apple, 85% of the apps available on the App Store are free, and the company maintains that the commission structure is in line with industry standards for digital marketplaces. Apple’s representatives have also emphasized that the App Store has contributed significantly to the UK’s tech economy, fostering innovation, and supporting the development of a wide range of digital services. The trial, which is set to last for approximately seven weeks, is being heard at the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London. This case is the first mass lawsuit under the UK’s emerging class action regime, which has been expanding in recent years to provide consumers with the opportunity to hold corporations accountable for anticompetitive practices. While this is the first case to reach trial, several others are poised to follow, potentially setting a precedent for future challenges to the practices of tech giants like Apple and Google. A similar legal battle, a $1.1 billion lawsuit against Google over its app store fees, is expected to go to trial in 2025, with other cases involving major tech corporations also in the pipeline. The legal action against Apple has drawn attention not just in the UK but internationally. In recent years, Apple has faced increasing scrutiny from regulators around the world over its App Store practices. The company is currently facing a separate complaint in the UK, valued at £785 million, related to the rates it charges to app developers. In addition, last June, the European Commission accused Apple of breaching digital competition rules by preventing app developers from directing consumers to alternative purchasing platforms outside of the App Store. In response to the ongoing investigations, Apple has taken some steps to adjust its business practices. For instance, in August, the company agreed to relax some of its rules, allowing iPhone and iPad users in the European Union to remove the App Store and use alternative app platforms. This decision was made as part of Apple’s efforts to comply with regulatory pressure from the European Commission, which has been investigating Apple’s market practices in connection with the Digital Markets Act (DMA). Rachael Kent has expressed her view that Apple is only responding to external pressure rather than making these changes voluntarily. She has emphasized the importance of collective legal actions like this lawsuit, which aim to hold tech giants accountable and provide consumers with the opportunity to seek compensation for practices they believe have harmed them financially. Kent’s argument highlights a broader issue within the tech industry: the growing power of large digital
Continue Reading