Business

Online gambling continues to gain traction, especially as digital platforms become more accessible.

Players aren’t just looking for entertainment; they want platforms that operate transparently, process payments securely, and follow legal standards. Regulation has become central to that experience.

Businesses that rely on trust and long-term customer engagement have a lot to gain from understanding how licensed online casinos operate. These platforms show how regulation and transparency can support both compliance and commercial success.

Why Regulation Matters in the Online Casino Sector

Licensed platforms are subject to regular checks and conditions set by recognised authorities. This legal framework exists to prevent fraud, promote fair play, and ensure that payouts are processed properly. Regulation also aims to restrict underage access and support those who may be vulnerable to gambling-related harm.

Operators who meet licensing standards must offer terms that are transparent. That includes how bonuses work, how player data is stored, and how customer disputes are resolved. With oversight in place, users can better understand what they’re signing up for — and what to expect if issues arise.

Unlicensed platforms, on the other hand, might not meet any of those requirements. They may still look legitimate on the surface, but without regulatory backing, users are exposed to greater risks. That includes sudden account closures, withheld winnings, or misleading terms.

A proper licensing system helps raise industry standards. It also sets a benchmark for digital service providers outside of gambling who may deal with financial transactions or sensitive personal data.

The Business of Compliance: How Licensed Casinos Gain Trust

Licensed platforms invest in verification, technology, and transparency. These aren’t just regulatory checkboxes; they’re also what make users return. A secure platform that delivers consistent service earns trust, and that trust supports long-term business value.

Businesses that operate under licence gain access to safer payment systems and advertising channels that may be restricted to regulated services. For example, some payment processors or affiliate networks will only partner with verified platforms. That limits exposure to fraud and reduces legal risks across the chain.

It’s also common for licensed platforms to work with third-party testing agencies. These firms audit games, check payout ratios, and issue certifications. When users see those details published clearly, they know the site has been through independent assessment.

Those running unlicensed platforms often rely on aggressive promotions or hidden terms. The short-term approach might bring in traffic, but it doesn’t build a lasting brand. Regulated services take longer to establish, but they offer more security for both the user and the business.

What Users Should Look for in a Legal Casino Site

Reliable platforms make their licence details easy to find. Users should verify the presence of an official registration number and determine which regulatory body has issued it. UK users may be familiar with the UK Gambling Commission, but other authorities, such as the Malta Gaming Authority or the Gibraltar Regulatory Authority, also oversee international services.

Terms and conditions should be accessible and written in clear English. Look for details around deposit and withdrawal methods, timeframes, bonus terms, and dispute procedures. If the site hides these or makes them too complex to follow, that’s a red flag.

Trusted services also invest in encryption and ID checks. This protects user data, prevents underage sign-ups, and ensures that transactions are linked to verified accounts.

Sites like legalnekasynoonline.org help users compare legal online casinos that meet licensing and safety criteria. Their reviews often explain which features are most important, and what separates compliant platforms from those that fall short.

Tools like this make it easier for users to make informed choices without needing to read through every line of fine print.

Global Trends: How Regulated Casino Markets Are Evolving

Digital gambling is no longer limited to one region. Cross-border platforms now serve millions of users, and regulators are responding by improving cooperation. Some are sharing data, while others are aligning compliance models to reduce risk and confusion.

As licensing becomes more standardised, regulators are also introducing stronger tools for consumer protection. These include affordability checks, session limits, and responsible gambling messages that appear during use.

Technology is playing a bigger role, too. Automated systems now track user activity to identify patterns linked to harm. While not perfect, these tools demonstrate the industry’s commitment to compliance.

At the same time, countries are updating their laws to reflect user behaviour and platform capability. That includes limiting stake sizes, requiring real identity verification, and imposing higher fines on unlicensed operators.

With every change, the message is clear, safe online access needs more than a sign-up form. Regulation is no longer seen as optional, but as a signal that a business is serious about quality.

The Impact of Regulation on User Experience and Market Growth

Well-regulated platforms reduce friction. Users don’t need to worry about losing funds, being misled by promotions, or waiting weeks for withdrawals. This creates a smoother experience and increases confidence.

For businesses, that trust translates into long-term growth. Licensed casinos are better able to attract repeat users and form stable partnerships. Advertising becomes easier too, since many platforms now check for licensing before running campaigns.

Regulated markets tend to show fewer complaints and higher satisfaction rates. Users know their rights and where to go if things go wrong. They’re also more likely to use a service again if it treats them fairly.

Instead of cutting corners, businesses that invest in licensing benefit from stability. They can plan for the future, scale services, and maintain a strong reputation without constantly fighting off legal or reputational issues.

Make Informed Choices with Regulated Platforms

Trust takes time to build, especially online. Licensed casino platforms help by meeting agreed standards and offering services that are transparent, fair, and secure. These principles apply to any online business that deals with money, data, or user safety.

For anyone using online services, it pays to check that the platform operates under a recognised licence. This small step can make a big difference, whether you’re spending money, sharing information, or just exploring options.

Take the time to review before you click. A regulated service is more likely to deliver what it promises, without surprises later.

Read more:
Licensed Casinos and the Growth of Regulated Online Markets

Expanding into new markets often exposes teams to payroll hurdles that slow growth and create compliance risks.

Different countries have unique tax laws, payment systems, and employment rules that make managing payroll across borders complex. An Employer of Record (EOR) helps simplify these challenges so growing teams can stay focused on business goals instead of payroll headaches.

As companies scale across regions, they face new obstacles related to paying staff accurately, managing currencies, and meeting local labor regulations. The right EOR partner acts as a guide through this process, handling these complexities with clarity and structure. This article explores how EOR solutions solve payroll challenges that emerging global teams face.

Compliance with local labor laws and tax regulations

Hiring across borders can create problems with labor laws, taxes, and payroll obligations. Each country sets its own rules, and any mistakes can lead to delays, penalties, or disputes. Partnering with an EOR helps companies meet those legal standards while maintaining accurate employment records and payroll.

Borderless AI serves as the legal employer for global staff, managing contracts, taxes, and benefits in accordance with local laws. It helps businesses follow regional employment standards without creating entities in multiple countries.

Its platform correctly handles withholding taxes, statutory contributions, and other payroll deductions. This removes guesswork and keeps records aligned with each jurisdiction’s requirements.

Combining technology with on-the-ground compliance support allows teams to focus on growth rather than administration. As a result, companies maintain smoother operations and lower the risk of labor or tax violations abroad.

Managing multi-currency payroll and foreign exchange issues

Expanding into new countries brings payroll challenges that can weaken financial control if not handled well. Each location may follow different banking rules and currency systems, which can create confusion for internal HR and finance teams. Exchange rate shifts can also affect payroll accuracy and employee satisfaction.

An EOR helps businesses simplify multi-currency payroll by handling payments in each local currency while maintaining compliance with local laws. This approach reduces administrative work and limits mistakes linked to manual conversions. It also helps employers meet payment deadlines without delays caused by fluctuating exchange rates.

In addition, EORs often use technology that applies real-time rates to payroll calculations. This gives companies a clearer picture of payment costs across markets. As a result, teams can plan budgets better and reduce unexpected losses connected to currency movements.

Guaranteeing timely and accurate international payments

Global payroll can easily lead to delays or mistakes if each country’s rules and deadlines are not followed. Exchange rates, bank processing times, and local holidays add more layers of complexity. Small delays can affect team trust and cause compliance issues.

An Employer of Record helps by managing all local payroll timelines and payment schedules. It handles the correct payment amounts, tax deductions, and benefits based on each country’s laws. As a result, employees receive their pay on time and in the right currency.

Accurate data collection also matters. An EOR verifies employee details, contract terms, and hours worked before processing payments. This extra step reduces common payroll errors and improves transparency across different regions.

With these systems in place, growing teams spend less time fixing payroll issues and more time focusing on business growth and staff satisfaction.

Navigating complex tax withholding and reporting requirements

Payroll taxes create challenges for teams that hire across different states or countries. Each location may have different income tax rates, filing schedules, and reporting standards. Small mistakes can lead to delays, notices, or penalties from tax agencies.

An Employer of Record (EOR) manages these details to keep payroll accurate and compliant. It calculates tax withholdings for each employee based on local rules and files the correct forms at the proper time. This support saves internal teams from tracking frequent regulatory updates.

In addition, the EOR monitors changes in laws so growing businesses avoid mismatched classifications or missed deposits. By coordinating withholding, filing, and reporting, it reduces risk and maintains smooth payroll operations without diverting staff from other work.

Reducing risks associated with employment classification

Employee classification errors can create major legal and financial issues. Incorrectly labeling workers as contractors instead of employees may lead to unpaid taxes, fines, or back wages. Therefore, clear rules and consistent review of each role are important for compliance.

An Employer of Record (EOR) helps companies apply the correct classification criteria. It follows local laws and reviews how each worker fits those standards. This process reduces the chance of disputes with tax or labor authorities.

In addition, an EOR updates records as roles change over time. It checks contracts, payment methods, and work arrangements to confirm they meet legal definitions. As a result, growing teams can focus on expanding business goals while avoiding costly missteps in employment status.

Conclusion

EOR solutions help growing teams handle complex payroll tasks across different countries with far less stress. They allow companies to stay compliant with local tax and labor rules without needing large internal HR or legal groups.

These services also save time by managing details such as benefits, salaries, and payment schedules. As a result, teams can focus on performance and expansion instead of payroll errors or missed deadlines.

In addition, EOR partners create a smoother global hiring process. They reduce risks that come from currency differences and changing labor requirements.

Overall, an EOR gives growing organizations a simple, structured way to manage payroll as they enter new markets. It helps them stay efficient and consistent while reducing complexity.

Read more:
What Payroll Challenges an EOR Solves for Growing Teams?

PPE Medpro, the company linked to Baroness Michelle Mone, has been wound up after a court ruling that makes it unlikely the government will recover most of the £148 million owed over a failed pandemic PPE contract.

The Insolvency and Companies Court ordered the company into liquidation on Thursday, just months after it lost a High Court battle with the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) over the supply of 25 million surgical gowns during the Covid-19 crisis.

The ruling follows PPE Medpro’s decision to file for administration on 30 September — just one day before the High Court ordered it to repay the £148 million. The firm was a consortium led by Doug Barrowman, Lady Mone’s husband, and had been awarded government contracts during the pandemic.

At Thursday’s hearing, lawyers acting for the joint administrators argued that the company should remain in administration in order to pay some creditors. However, Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Sebastian Prentis rejected that approach and ordered the company to be compulsorily wound up.

“I remain of the firm view that the correct course is now to discharge the administrators and to compulsorily wind up the company,” the judge said.

Court filings revealed that PPE Medpro’s liabilities extend well beyond the DHSC judgment. HM Revenue & Customs is also pursuing the company for £39 million in unpaid tax, while the administrators reported that only around £600,000 was available to meet unsecured creditor claims.

Simon Passfield KC, representing the joint administrators, told the court that PPE Medpro had one secured creditor, Angelo (PTC) Limited, registered in the Isle of Man. He said the administrators believed there was enough property within the business to repay around £1 million owed to that creditor and suggested there could still be a return for unsecured creditors, including the DHSC.

Passfield also told the court that there were potential legal claims against third parties which, if successful, could result in “substantial recoveries”, although no further details were disclosed.

However, the DHSC made clear it supported liquidation. David Mohyuddin KC, acting for the department, said there was no realistic alternative given the company’s financial position.

“The court’s discretionary power to make a winding-up order against Medpro is clearly engaged: it is obviously and very significantly insolvent,” he said.

Legal experts said the decision leaves the government facing an uphill battle to recover taxpayer funds. James Robertson, a dispute resolution partner at Spector Constant & Williams, said recovery may depend on whether the government is prepared to fund further legal action against the company’s directors or its ultimate beneficial owner.

“Piercing the corporate veil and going after such individuals is notoriously difficult, especially where assets may not be held in this jurisdiction,” he said, adding that the case risked becoming a “pyrrhic victory” for the government.

Robertson also noted that the liquidation could increase pressure on the National Crime Agency’s long-running investigation into PPE Medpro and its principals, raising hopes that at least some public money could ultimately be recovered.

Read more:
Michelle Mone-linked PPE Medpro wound up after being ordered to repay £148m

Mental health in the workplace has become a central concern for Australian businesses, with organisations increasingly recognising that employee wellbeing directly influences productivity, retention, and company culture.

While mental health initiatives often focus on counselling services, flexible working arrangements, and stress management programmes, one fundamental element is frequently overlooked: the physical environment in which employees spend their working hours.

Here’s a startling reality: the average office worker spends 1,700 hours per year sitting at their desk. That’s more time than most people spend sleeping. When businesses invest in quality office chairs online, they’re not simply purchasing furniture, they’re making a tangible commitment to their team’s physical comfort and psychological health. The connection between where we sit and how we feel is more profound than many realise, and understanding this relationship is essential for creating workplaces that genuinely support employee wellbeing.

The Link Between Physical Comfort and Mental Wellbeing

The relationship between physical discomfort and mental strain is well established in workplace health research. When employees experience persistent physical discomfort—whether from poor posture, inadequate lumbar support, or chairs that don’t accommodate their body type—their bodies respond with increased cortisol production, the hormone associated with stress. This physiological stress response doesn’t remain isolated to the body; it directly impacts mood, cognitive function, and emotional resilience.

Consider this: poor posture resulting from inadequate seating forces muscles to work harder to maintain stability, leading to tension in the neck, shoulders, and back. This constant low-level physical strain creates a feedback loop: discomfort reduces focus, leading to irritability and decreased patience with work tasks and colleagues. Over time, employees may start to associate their workplace with discomfort and stress, which can impact their overall job satisfaction and mental health.

Ergonomic principles aren’t merely about preventing injury. They’re about creating conditions where employees can work without their bodies becoming a source of distraction or distress. When seating properly supports the body’s natural alignment, employees can direct their mental energy toward their work rather than constantly shifting position or managing discomfort.

5 Ways Poor Seating Silently Destroys Employee Performance

The impact of uncomfortable seating extends far beyond physical aches. Here’s how it manifests in your workplace:

Concentration becomes impossible. Employees working in persistent discomfort find their attention repeatedly drawn away from tasks to their physical state. This fragmented focus reduces both the quality and efficiency of work output, affecting everything from creative problem-solving to routine administrative tasks.

Irritability spreads through teams. When workers are uncomfortable, interpersonal friction increases. What might seem like personality clashes or poor team dynamics can often be traced back to the cumulative effect of spending eight hours in a chair that causes pain or discomfort.

Sick days multiply. Employees experiencing chronic pain due to poor seating are more likely to take sick leave, arrive late, or leave early, which directly impacts attendance and productivity metrics.

Creativity shuts down. Physical discomfort doesn’t just affect routine tasks. It actively suppresses the mental space needed for innovative thinking and problem-solving.

Long-term mental strain develops. Chronic musculoskeletal problems developing from years of poor seating contribute to ongoing mental strain, potentially leading to anxiety about work-related pain or depression linked to reduced quality of life. The costs, both human and financial, of neglecting proper seating are substantial.

7 Powerful Benefits of Ergonomic and Comfortable Seating

Investing in ergonomic seating delivers measurable benefits for both employees and employers:

Injury prevention that saves thousands. Quality office chairs with proper lumbar support, adjustable height, and adequate cushioning significantly reduce the risk of developing musculoskeletal disorders, which are among the most common workplace injuries in Australia.

Mood improvement you can measure. When employees are physically comfortable, they experience better mood regulation throughout the day. No more afternoon slumps caused by back pain or neck tension.

Concentration that actually lasts. Comfortable seating allows for sustained focus without physical distractions interrupting workflow every few minutes.

Enhanced creativity and problem-solving. When your body isn’t demanding attention, your brain is free to tackle complex challenges and generate innovative solutions.

Genuine job satisfaction. The ability to adjust seating to personal preferences gives workers a sense of control over their environment, which research consistently links to reduced workplace stress and increased job satisfaction.

Stronger workplace relationships. Comfortable employees are more patient, collaborative, and positive in their interactions with colleagues.

A clear message about values. The psychological message sent by providing quality seating is powerful: it communicates that the organisation values its people and is willing to invest in their comfort and wellbeing.

Creating a Mentally Healthy Workspace: The Essential Elements

Comfortable seating is most effective when integrated into a holistically designed workspace that prioritises employee wellbeing. Here’s what matters:

The right desk height. Your chair means nothing if your desk forces awkward arm positioning. These elements must work together, which is why businesses looking to upgrade their workspace should buy office desks that complement their ergonomic seating investments and support proper posture throughout the workday.

Proper lighting that reduces eye strain. Glare and poor lighting compound the stress of uncomfortable seating.

Quality ventilation and temperature control. Even the best chair becomes uncomfortable in a stuffy, overheated office.

Movement-friendly spaces. Modern workplace design increasingly recognises the importance of flexibility. While quality seating is essential, employees also benefit from spaces that encourage varied postures and activities throughout the day. Standing desks, breakout areas, and collaborative zones all contribute to a mentally healthy environment.

The Ultimate Office Chair Selection Checklist

Not all office chairs are created equal. When evaluating seating options, here’s what to look for:

Must-Have Adjustability Features:

Seat height that allows feet flat on the floor with thighs parallel to the ground
Armrest position that supports arms without hunching shoulders
Backrest angle that accommodates different working postures throughout the day
Seat depth that provides support without pressure behind the knees

Essential Comfort Elements:

Lumbar support that maintains the spine’s natural curve and prevents lower back pain
High-density foam or mesh cushioning that provides support over extended periods
Breathable fabrics that regulate temperature and prevent overheating
Stable base with smooth-rolling castors appropriate for your flooring type

Matching Chairs to Roles:

Task chairs with dynamic adjustment features suit employees engaged in varied computer work
Executive chairs with higher backs and additional padding work for leadership roles involving longer sitting periods
Meeting room seating requires a balance between comfort and aesthetics. It should support productive discussions without encouraging excessive lounging

Building a Wellbeing-First Culture: 4 Critical Actions

Providing comfortable seating is only effective when coupled with a culture that genuinely prioritises employee wellbeing:

Seek feedback regularly. Actively ask staff about their comfort levels and any pain or discomfort they’re experiencing. Regular workplace assessments can identify ergonomic issues before they develop into serious problems.

Make comfort adjustments easy. Ensure employees know how to properly adjust their seating and feel empowered to request changes if their desk chair isn’t working for them.

Lead by example. When leadership prioritises their own ergonomic setup and takes movement breaks, it signals that wellbeing is genuinely valued, not just corporate rhetoric.

Recognise that furniture investment speaks volumes. When businesses prioritise ergonomic seating and quality office environments, they signal to employees that their health and comfort matter. This builds trust and loyalty, contributing to a positive workplace culture where mental health is openly supported rather than merely acknowledged in policy documents.

The Real Numbers: Cost Versus Value

Let’s talk about the elephant in the room: quality ergonomic seating isn’t cheap. But here’s what the numbers actually show:

The costs of doing nothing:

WorkSafe statistics consistently show that musculoskeletal disorders are among the most expensive workplace injury categories in Australia
Average compensation claim for back injuries: $15,000 to $30,000
Lost productivity from employees working through pain: immeasurable but substantial
Recruitment and training costs from turnover: typically 50% to 150% of an employee’s annual salary

The returns on investing:

Reduced workplace injury claims that pay back furniture costs within the first year
Improved retention rates (comfortable employees stay longer)
Productivity gains from improved focus and reduced discomfort
Enhanced employer brand that attracts top talent

The upfront cost of quality ergonomic seating can seem substantial, particularly for businesses furnishing entire offices in the UK and Australia. However, the return on investment becomes clear when considering the costs of workplace injuries, reduced productivity, and employee turnover. Investing in preventive measures like ergonomic seating substantially reduces these risks, delivering long-term savings that far exceed initial furniture costs. For businesses seeking quality solutions, exploring the best office furniture in Australia ensures access to ergonomic products designed specifically for local workplace standards and conditions, while UK businesses can find comparable suppliers meeting British safety and ergonomic regulations.

Conclusion: Seating Is Strategy, Not Furniture

Comfortable, ergonomic seating is not a luxury or afterthought—it’s a fundamental component of workplace mental health and employee wellbeing. The connection between physical comfort and psychological health is clear: when employees are free from persistent discomfort and pain, they experience lower stress levels, better mood, improved concentration, and greater job satisfaction.

For Australian businesses committed to supporting their teams, investing in quality office seating represents both a practical and ethical choice. It demonstrates genuine care for employee wellbeing whilst delivering measurable benefits in productivity, retention, and workplace culture.

As mental health at work continues to dominate organisational priorities, addressing the physical foundations of wellbeing, starting with where employees sit, is an essential step forward. The message is simple: comfortable seating equals better mental health and higher productivity.

Employers who recognise seating as an essential wellbeing investment, rather than a mere operational expense, position themselves to build healthier, more engaged, and more successful workplaces. The question isn’t whether you can afford to invest in quality seating. It’s whether you can afford not to.

Read more:
Why comfortable seating is crucial for mental health at work

Shoppers are paying significantly more for Christmas food this year, with festive chocolate treats costing up to 70 per cent more than last Christmas and the price of a turkey rising by as much as £15, according to new research from consumer champion Which?.

The organisation analysed the cost of key ingredients for a traditional Christmas dinner alongside popular seasonal treats such as mince pies, sparkling wine and chocolates. It found that while overall grocery inflation figures appear to have eased, sharp price rises on individual festive items are hitting shoppers hard.

Chocolate products recorded the steepest increases. A Lindt Lindor milk chocolate truffles box at Asda has risen by 72 per cent, from £1.15 last year to £1.98, while Morrisons’ Lindt milk chocolate teddy tree decorations have jumped 71 per cent, from £3.50 in 2024 to £6 this year. Lindt products dominated the list of the biggest proportionate increases, followed by items such as Terry’s dark chocolate orange, Galaxy sharing blocks and Kinder multipacks.

Across the chocolate category as a whole, Which? found prices were up by an average of 14 per cent year on year. Reena Sewraz, retail editor at Which?, said headline inflation figures masked the reality facing shoppers. “Some individual items have shot up by more than 70 per cent compared with last year, which will come as a shock to many households planning their Christmas shop,” she said.

Rising cocoa prices have been a major driver of higher chocolate costs, with poor harvests in key growing regions blamed on extreme weather, including high temperatures and heavy rainfall.

While chocolate has seen the largest percentage increases, turkeys have delivered the biggest cash impact. A Tesco Finest free-range medium bronze turkey crown has increased by £14.95 to £68.77, a rise of nearly 28 per cent. Across all turkey products — including whole birds, crowns and smaller cuts — prices were up by an average of 4.7 per cent year on year.

Which? said turkey prices had been pushed up by a combination of bird flu outbreaks and rising costs faced by farmers. The traditional centrepiece of the Christmas dinner has also been losing popularity, with more shoppers opting for alternatives. This year, Waitrose confirmed it would no longer sell whole frozen turkeys, following a similar move by Marks & Spencer last Christmas.

Looking across the major supermarket chains, Which? found that Waitrose recorded the highest overall price increases in the run-up to Christmas, with prices up 6.2 per cent compared with last year. Asda was found to have kept increases lowest, at around 3 per cent.

Waitrose said some products discounted last Christmas had not been reduced this year, while Sainsbury’s said it was continuing festive promotions, including price-matched mince pies from £1.25 and discounted vegetable trimmings available through Nectar prices in the final days before Christmas.

Which? warned that while shoppers may be reassured by easing inflation headlines, many families will still feel the pinch at the checkout as they prepare for the festive season.

Read more:
Christmas dinner and festive treats up to 70% more expensive, Which? warns

Amazon is reportedly in discussions to invest as much as $10 billion in OpenAI, the artificial intelligence company behind ChatGPT, in a move that could value the business at more than $500 billion and further intensify competition in the global AI market.

The talks, first reported by The Information and subsequently confirmed by multiple sources, are said to be at an early and fluid stage. News of the potential deal pushed Amazon shares up around 0.6 per cent, reflecting investor optimism around the deepening relationship between the world’s largest cloud provider and one of the most influential AI developers.

As part of the proposed investment, OpenAI is expected to increase its use of Amazon’s Trainium AI accelerator chips, which are designed to compete with Nvidia’s dominant processors and similar offerings from Google. The deal could also form the cornerstone of a broader fundraising round involving additional investors.

The discussions come as OpenAI explores longer-term capital options, including a potential initial public offering that could value the company at as much as $1 trillion. The rapid expansion of generative AI has driven extraordinary demand for computing power, placing cloud infrastructure providers such as Amazon Web Services (AWS) at the centre of the technology’s growth.

Amazon and OpenAI already have a substantial commercial relationship. Last month, OpenAI agreed to a $38 billion, multi-year deal to purchase cloud services from AWS, primarily to run its AI workloads using Nvidia chips. The companies described the agreement as a strategic partnership designed to support OpenAI’s rapidly expanding computational needs.

OpenAI has also struck a series of other landmark infrastructure deals. In September, it announced an agreement with Nvidia to build and operate at least 10 gigawatts of AI data centres, with Nvidia committing to invest up to $100 billion as capacity is rolled out. Separately, OpenAI has a cloud partnership with Oracle that could be worth as much as $300 billion over time.

Founded in 2015 as a non-profit research organisation, OpenAI rose to global prominence following the launch of ChatGPT in 2022, which helped bring artificial intelligence into mainstream use. Earlier this year, the company completed a major restructuring that converted it into a public benefit corporation. The new structure, overseen by a non-profit entity with a financial stake, was designed to remove constraints on OpenAI’s ability to raise capital and secure the vast computing resources required to train and run advanced AI models.

For Amazon, a significant equity stake in OpenAI would strengthen its position in the intensifying battle for AI leadership, while helping to drive adoption of its in-house Trainium chips and AWS infrastructure. If completed, the deal would mark one of the largest strategic investments yet in the generative AI sector and underline just how central artificial intelligence has become to the future of global technology and cloud computing.

Read more:
Amazon in talks over $10bn investment in OpenAI as AI arms race accelerates

Senior ministers and MPs have warned that the UK’s recent agreements with Donald Trump are dangerously fragile, after it emerged that the flagship deal to avoid US tariffs on pharmaceuticals has no detailed legal text beyond high-level political statements.

The “milestone” UK–US pharmaceuticals agreement announced earlier this month, under which the NHS is expected to pay more for medicines in exchange for zero tariffs on exports to the US, currently rests on little more than headline commitments set out in two government press releases. No underlying draft treaty or legally binding framework has yet been produced.

Concerns have intensified following Washington’s decision to suspend the £31bn “tech prosperity deal”, which had been promoted by ministers as a “generational step-change” in the UK–US economic relationship. The US said the agreement was paused because of a lack of progress by the UK in lowering trade barriers in other areas.

It has also emerged that concessions promised to British farmers as part of an earlier tariff deal with Trump, hailed by Sir Keir Starmer as “historic” in May, have still not been formally approved by the US despite a January implementation deadline looming.

The Department of Health said negotiators were now working through the detailed terms of the pharmaceutical agreement. When asked for the agreed headline conditions, the department referred to its own press release and a US government statement describing the arrangement as an “agreement in principle”.

Critics have pointed out stark differences between the two announcements. The UK described the deal as securing zero tariffs on pharmaceuticals, while the US statement focused on higher prices for medicines supplied to the NHS, suggesting costs could rise by around 25%.

David Henig, a trade expert, said the UK risked making concrete commitments in return for little more than political assurances from a president known for unpredictability. He warned that pressure from US companies threatening to pull investment could further undermine the integrity of the process.

Ordinarily, provisional legal texts would be agreed and scrutinised before public announcements are made. No such document currently exists for the pharmaceuticals deal.

Privately, ministers acknowledged unease about the stability of the arrangements. One described the UK’s emerging set of agreements with the Trump administration as “built on sand”, while another said volatility had become the “new normal” in transatlantic relations.

Layla Moran, chair of the health select committee, said the NHS was being put at risk by what she described as a naive belief that the Trump administration would act in good faith. She warned that a deal already expected to cost taxpayers billions could become even more expensive if it collapsed.

Liam Byrne, chair of the business and trade select committee, said restoring the suspended tech prosperity deal must now be a priority.

Government figures have sought to downplay the risk of the US reneging on the pharmaceutical agreement, arguing that the US drugs industry itself wants certainty. Officials also point to tangible gains, such as the UK avoiding 50% steel and aluminium tariffs imposed on other countries, and securing a reduced 10% tariff on car exports within quotas.

However, problems persist in implementing earlier commitments. Quotas for UK beef exports to the US have yet to be signed off, prompting warnings from farming leaders that agreed access could be delayed or used as leverage in future talks.

Tom Bradshaw, president of the National Farmers’ Union, said it was essential that promised reciprocal quotas were confirmed before the end of the year to avoid further uncertainty for producers.

While talks between UK and US officials are due to resume in January, critics argue that the lack of legal certainty surrounding recent announcements highlights the risks of relying on informal agreements with an administration known for abrupt policy shifts.

Read more:
MPs warn UK agreements with Donald Trump are ‘built on sand’

Thousands of hospitality businesses risk losing their right to Covid-related insurance compensation unless the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) intervenes to extend a fast-approaching claims deadline, industry leaders have warned.

In an open letter to the regulator, disputes firm Stewarts, alongside major hospitality trade bodies representing more than 155,000 businesses, has called on the FCA to require insurers to extend the business interruption (BI) claims deadline by two years. Without intervention, many firms fear they will be locked out of compensation to which they may be legally entitled.

Most Covid BI policies in England and Wales are due to expire in March next year under standard six-year limitation rules. These policies were designed to support businesses forced to close during the pandemic, allowing companies to borrow up to £5 million through participating banks.

However, Stewarts estimates that fewer than 50,000 claims have been accepted by insurers from an estimated 370,000 policies that could potentially qualify. The firm argues that the looming deadline will render the majority of unresolved claims time-barred, leaving thousands of hospitality businesses significantly out of pocket.

The letter warns that, unless the claims window is extended, unresolved cases could lead to a surge in litigation from policyholders able to shoulder the cost and risk of legal action. This, the groups say, would place unnecessary strain on the courts and public resources.

Signatories include UKHospitality, which represents more than 130,000 venues, the British Beer & Pub Association, the Music Venue Trust, the Association for Indoor Play and Gamechangers, which represents the competitive socialising sector. Together, they argue that many small and medium-sized firms lack the resources to pursue individual legal claims and would be unfairly excluded from compensation.

The groups say an extension would “avoid unjust avoidance of policy coverage” for businesses that have acted responsibly and in good faith throughout the claims process.

Aaron le Marquer, head of policyholder disputes at Stewarts, said more time was essential to allow recent court rulings to be properly implemented. He highlighted a forthcoming Supreme Court judgment, due in February 2026, which will determine whether insurers were entitled to deduct furlough payments from policyholder claims.

“It is vital that adequate time is now allowed for the latest court decisions to be implemented,” he said. “We are asking insurers to commit to following the Supreme Court’s decision regardless of whether claims would otherwise have been time-barred.”

Stewarts and the trade bodies are urging the FCA to issue guidance no later than January 20 next year, requiring insurers to continue paying valid claims for two additional years beyond the current March deadline. They argue that the extension would provide clarity on key unresolved issues, including the treatment of furlough payments, which remains one of the most contested areas in Covid BI cases.

The hospitality sector has endured years of pressure, first from forced closures during the pandemic and then from sustained cost inflation. More recently, businesses have faced a sharp rise in employment costs following measures introduced in Rachel Reeves’s first budget last year.

During the pandemic, the Treasury injected billions of pounds into supporting pubs, bars and restaurants, including a £2 billion package announced in the 2021 budget, alongside wider grants and business rates relief. Industry leaders now warn that failing to resolve outstanding insurance claims risks undoing much of that support, pushing otherwise viable businesses into financial distress.

Read more:
FCA urged to extend Covid insurance claims deadline for hospitality firms

Two of the world’s largest auction houses have signalled a return to growth in the global art market, offering early evidence that a prolonged downturn in demand may be easing.

Sotheby’s, headquartered in New York, said it expects sales to rise by 17 per cent in 2025 to around $7 billion. Auction sales alone are forecast to increase by more than a quarter year on year to $5.7 billion, alongside what the company described as its strongest-ever performance in luxury categories.

That outlook places Sotheby’s ahead of its closest rival, Christie’s, which said on Tuesday that it anticipates global sales rising by about 6 per cent to $6.2 billion this year. Both auction houses are privately owned and did not disclose profit or loss figures.

The fine art market has faced several challenging years, marked by weaker demand from ultra-wealthy collectors and shifting tastes among younger buyers. Sotheby’s, which is owned by billionaire Patrick Drahi, reported annual losses that more than doubled to $248 million in 2024, according to recent Companies House filings. Christie’s is owned by Artémis, the holding company of François Pinault, the French billionaire behind luxury group Kering.

Charles Stewart, chief executive of Sotheby’s, said the latest figures pointed to a “return to growth”, underpinned by strong buyer demand across more than 450 auctions held in nine countries.

Among the most high-profile sales this year was the $10 million auction of Jane Birkin’s original Hermès Birkin bag in July, making it the most valuable handbag ever sold at auction. A collection of Patek Philippe watches also fetched $11.9 million during Sotheby’s collectors week in Abu Dhabi.

Sotheby’s said interest from younger and first-time buyers continued to grow. First-time bidders accounted for 35 per cent of participants, while buyers under the age of 40 made up 17 per cent of global fine art bidders and just under 30 per cent in luxury categories.

“Our strong performance in the second half of the year demonstrates clear momentum in our markets,” Stewart said. “This has been driven by more high-quality collections coming to market and meeting record levels of buyer demand.”

Christie’s also struck an upbeat tone. Bonnie Brennan, its chief executive, said that “the energy has returned to the salesroom, online and across the market”.

Both auction houses highlighted strong growth in luxury sales, which rose by 22 per cent at Sotheby’s and 17 per cent at Christie’s. Luxury goods have increasingly been positioned as an entry point for younger collectors, a strategy both firms have leaned into as they seek to broaden their client base and stabilise revenues beyond traditional fine art.

While challenges remain, the improved outlook from the two dominant players suggests the global art market may be entering a more stable phase after years of contraction.

Read more:
Sotheby’s and Christie’s hail recovery in global art market

The Bank of England has cut interest rates for the fourth time this year, lowering borrowing costs to their lowest level in almost three years as policymakers forecast that inflation will fall back to the 2 per cent target by spring.

Members of the Bank’s nine-strong monetary policy committee (MPC) voted narrowly, by five votes to four, to reduce the base rate by a quarter of a percentage point to 3.75 per cent, down from 4 per cent. The decision delivers immediate relief to mortgage holders and businesses with variable-rate loans.

The Bank said inflation was now expected to fall close to target within six months, helped in part by measures announced in last month’s budget that will ease household costs. Officials estimate that government decisions, including removing some levies from energy bills, extending the fuel duty freeze and cancelling a planned rail fare rise, could reduce inflation by as much as 0.5 percentage points and bring forward the disinflation process by around six months.

Andrew Bailey, governor of the Bank of England, said the peak in inflation had passed but warned that future rate cuts were not guaranteed.

“We’ve passed the recent peak in inflation and it has continued to fall, so we have cut interest rates again,” he said. “We still think rates are on a gradual path downward, but with every cut we make, how much further we go becomes a closer call.”

The Bank had previously expected inflation to return to target only in 2027. The latest projections mark a significant shift in outlook following faster-than-expected disinflation in recent months.

The rate cut follows a run of weaker economic data. Inflation fell to 3.2 per cent in November, down from 3.6 per cent in October, while unemployment has risen to 5.1 per cent, its highest level in nearly six years. Private sector wage growth has also cooled, easing concerns about persistent inflationary pressure.

The economy contracted by 0.1 per cent in October, and the Bank now expects growth to flatline in the final quarter of the year. A survey of businesses conducted by the Bank found the economy was “lacklustre” in the run-up to the budget, with retail sales stagnant and investment stalled amid uncertainty over tax policy.

Speculation over possible tax rises in the months before the budget was cited by firms as a drag on confidence, though the Bank believes the fiscal measures ultimately announced will now help suppress price growth in 2026.

Bailey cast the deciding vote after switching from backing a hold at the previous meeting in November. He was joined in voting for a cut by deputy governors Sarah Breeden and Dave Ramsden, and external MPC members Swati Dhingra and Alan Taylor.

Huw Pill, the Bank’s chief economist, along with deputy governor Clare Lombardelli and external members Catherine Mann and Megan Greene, voted to keep rates on hold at 4 per cent, citing ongoing risks to inflation.

Breeden said the budget meant “administered price shocks should not repeat next year”, reinforcing the case for easing policy.

Financial markets had largely priced in the move. Following the announcement, sterling rose 0.25 per cent against the dollar to $1.34, while yields on ten-year UK government bonds edged up to 4.5 per cent. The FTSE 100 slipped 0.1 per cent.

Economists said further rate cuts in 2026 would depend on whether inflation continues to fall, the labour market weakens further and growth remains subdued. Goldman Sachs has forecast that rates could fall to 3 per cent over the next year, though others believe the Bank is nearing the end of its easing cycle.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves welcomed the decision, saying: “This is the sixth interest rate cut since the election — the fastest pace of cuts in 17 years. That’s good news for families with mortgages and businesses with loans. But I know there’s more to do to help families with the cost of living.”

For now, the Bank has signalled cautious optimism: inflation is easing faster than expected, but policymakers remain wary about how much further they can safely loosen policy without reigniting price pressures.

Read more:
UK interest rates cut to 3.75% as Bank signals inflation nearing target