Business

You’ll hear a lot of nonsense these days about “British jobs for British people”, as though talent stops at Dover and genius requires a passport. I’m here to tell you—rhetorically, floridly, perhaps even provocatively—that if we carry on down that road, the only thing we’ll be exporting is our future.

Because here’s the cold, unapologetic truth: some of the best companies in Britain right now weren’t started by blokes from Bromley or lasses from Loughborough. They were built—boldly, brilliantly—by immigrants. Entrepreneurs who came here with no old-school tie, no Oxford college affiliation, no seat at the Garrick. Just vision, stamina, and a burning need to build something better.

Take Revolut, the digital bank that made high-street banking look like dial-up internet. Started by Nikolay Storonsky (pictured), born in Russia and schooled in physics and hustle, Revolut tore through the crusty layers of traditional finance like a chainsaw through suet. Or Monzo—built with help from a multicultural team whose mission wasn’t British tradition, but global innovation.

Then there’s ElevenLabs, the AI voice tech company that’s gone from zero to warp speed in less time than it takes HMRC to answer a phone call. Co-founded by Piotr Dąbkowski, who’s Polish, and Mati Staniszewski, who is—whisper it—also not from Guildford. They’re building the future of media from a country still arguing about Radio 4.

And Synthesia. God bless it. A startup so cool, even the Americans are jealous. An AI video platform used by companies all over the world—led by a team of immigrant founders whose collective ambition makes the Houses of Parliament look like a village fête. They didn’t come here for the weather or the late trains. They came here to build something. And thank God they did.

Now, imagine for a moment if we’d told them all to bugger off at passport control. “Sorry mate, can’t let you in. We’ve got a lad in Swindon with a Raspberry Pi and a dream.” Ludicrous, right? But that’s the direction we’re drifting in. A little more visa red tape here, a little more rhetoric about “taking back control” there—and suddenly, the UK becomes a nation of heritage rather than a hub of invention.

I’m not saying British-born entrepreneurs don’t deserve praise. They do— many of them are sensational. But if we want to build a truly great entrepreneurial economy, it’s not about geography. It’s about gravity. The UK must become a gravitational centre for the best minds in the world. The brightest thinkers. The hungriest founders. The wildest dreamers. Not just the ones born within the sound of Bow Bells.

We don’t win by narrowing the gate. We win by making the UK the best bloody place on Earth to start a company. That means generous and intelligent visa schemes. That means startup tax incentives with real teeth. That means investment channels that don’t require your uncle to be in the House of Lords. And it means—crucially—a culture that doesn’t sneer at ambition or treat innovation like an awkward dinner guest.

If you ask me, the Home Office ought to be handing out platinum-tier welcome packs at Heathrow. “Welcome to Britain, here’s your Innovator Visa, a coffee, and directions to the nearest co-working space.” Let’s treat entrepreneurs the way we treat Premier League footballers: as indispensable imports that raise the whole game.

Instead, we get Nigel-from-Twitter banging on about “taking our country back”, while the most talented people on the planet quietly buy one-way tickets to Berlin, Austin, or Dubai.

Do you know what makes Silicon Valley what it is? Not just code and venture capital. It’s the constant influx of people who don’t give a monkey’s about status quo. People with accents, ambition, and absolutely no sense of when to quit. Sound familiar? It should. That’s the same spirit that built the UK’s best startups.

And yet, for all our history of trade and talent, empire and enterprise, we now seem more interested in walling ourselves off than inviting brilliance in. It’s short-sighted, self-defeating, and stupid. Like unplugging your router because the internet’s “a bit foreign”.

The truth is, we’re in a global arms race for innovation. AI, biotech, climate tech—it’s all moving at warp speed. If we want to be in the room where it happens, we need to open the door.

And no, this isn’t about immigration versus opportunity. It’s about immigration as opportunity. About recognising that talent is our last competitive advantage in a world where supply chains are broken, politics is polarised, and interest rates are doing the Hokey Cokey.

So let’s be bold. Let’s be a magnet for ambition. Let’s stop pretending that greatness wears a particular passport and start building a Britain that says to every global innovator: “Yes. Here. Now.”

Because if we don’t, the Revoluts and ElevenLabs of the future won’t be British. They’ll be Belgian. Or Balinese. Or based in Boston.

And we’ll be left here, proud and poor, wondering why all our best ideas now come with a return address in Zurich.

Read more:
We must make Britain the best place to build companies for the world’s best talent

PPE Medpro, the company linked to Conservative peer Michelle Mone, has launched a robust defence in its £122 million High Court battle with the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), accusing the government of “buyer’s remorse” and “chaotic mismanagement” during the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic.

In its opening submissions, PPE Medpro claims the government is unfairly targeting the firm to deflect attention from its own errors during the emergency procurement frenzy. The company’s legal team argues that DHSC approved the surgical gowns it supplied, despite knowing full well that they did not bear CE markings with a notified body (NB) number—technical requirements usually mandatory under medical device regulations, but waived under emergency rules at the time.

The defence pivots on the claim that PPE Medpro offered the gowns under what was known as an “equivalent technical solution,” a route explicitly permitted by the UK government’s own guidance during the pandemic. The firm says DHSC’s technical assurance team signed off on this basis and never indicated that a formal derogation or notified body certification was necessary prior to contract approval.

“Gowns have been approved by Technical!” an email from a DHSC official to PPE Medpro read at the time, indicating departmental consent. This, the company argues, confirms that the government accepted the technical and regulatory basis of the order. PPE Medpro also asserts that the gown packaging was clearly marked and that DHSC—or its logistics agent Uniserve—had the opportunity to inspect the goods upon collection in China but failed to do so .

The government has alleged that the gowns were unfit for use, citing later sterility tests in the UK. But PPE Medpro has dismissed those results as irrelevant, arguing that the tests were conducted on expired or poorly stored items long after delivery—potentially contaminating the samples. The firm adds that independent experts agreed the unusual mix of microorganisms found in the tested gowns pointed to contamination during storage and transport, not manufacturing .

In a striking accusation, PPE Medpro claims it has been singled out among hundreds of Covid suppliers, possibly due to the high-profile connections of its backers and the perception of its financial capacity to pay back funds. The firm also points to a wider “campaign of pressure,” alleging that the civil case is running in parallel with a “never-ending” National Crime Agency investigation that is yet to yield charges.

“The DHSC is attempting to retroactively rewrite the rules of engagement,” the submission argues. “This is a textbook case of a government seeking to claw back money from a contract it regrets, despite the fact it knew exactly what it was buying.”

The legal row centres around a £122 million order for 25 million sterile surgical gowns, delivered in 2020. The DHSC rejected the gowns months later, citing concerns over CE marking and sterility—despite having passed them through its technical assurance process and cleared the contract through internal approval committees, including sign-off by then-senior civil servant David Williams .

The outcome of the case could have far-reaching implications for pandemic-era procurement disputes and future government use of emergency powers. With billions of pounds’ worth of PPE still unused in storage, the trial is being closely watched as a bellwether for accountability.

The case continues.

Read more:
PPE Medpro hits back in £122m DHSC court case, blaming government ‘chaos’ during Covid procurement

Every entrepreneur faces a moment of truth. When the numbers wobble, the vision blurs, and a tough decision looms: double down or walk away. In poker, it’s called going “all in” or folding. In business, the stakes are often higher and the tells less obvious.

Knowing when to commit fully to an idea or cut your losses isn’t just instinct. It’s a skill  sharpened by experience, informed by data, and grounded in honest evaluation.

Data

Your metrics tell a story – sometimes flattering, often sobering. Are you acquiring customers at a sustainable cost? Do they stick around? Do they pay?

If the numbers are poor but trending up, that could justify another push. If they’re flat or declining despite your best efforts, that’s a red flag. It’s one thing to refine an idea; it’s another to resuscitate a doomed one.

Gut feeling plays a role, but it shouldn’t be louder than data.

Many business ideas need time to mature. But time costs money. Before doubling down, assess your burn rate. Can you afford to keep going?

Business is not a casino online. Success doesn’t come from spinning the wheel – it comes from studying the odds and placing informed bets. Smart bets require discipline. If you have enough capital to test, refine, and scale thoughtfully, it may be worth the risk.

If not, folding could be the wisest move.

Feedback

Entrepreneurs often fall in love with their ideas. That passion fuels long nights and risky bets, but it can also cloud judgment. Ask yourself: are you defending the idea because it’s good, or because you’re attached?

Step back. Seek neutral feedback. If people you trust—customers, advisors, or mentors—see promise where you do, that’s a signal. If you’re the only one still excited, it might be time to fold.

You might have built something beautiful, but if no one wants it, it won’t matter. Market timing, demand, and competition should all guide your decision. Take a hard look at who your product serves and whether that audience is large and hungry enough.

Businesses rarely succeed on product alone. Airbnb didn’t win because of listings. It won because of timing, execution, and a deep understanding of what users were craving. If your idea fits a gap in the market and the demand is real, that’s a strong case for going all in.

Pivoting

An idea that’s not working might just need a shift. Pivoting isn’t failure; it’s strategy. Twitter started as a podcasting platform. Slack was born from a failed gaming company. In both cases, the founders recognised when to redirect rather than double down blindly.

Staying with one business idea means saying no to others. Time, energy, and capital are finite. Ask yourself: if I wasn’t already in this, would I choose to pursue it today?

If the answer is no, then folding frees you to pursue something better. If it’s yes, if the vision still excites you and the fundamentals check out, then it’s time to double down.

There’s no guaranteed formula for success in business. Even the best ideas come with risk. But recognising when to commit and when to let go is what separates seasoned founders from stubborn dreamers.

Read more:
All In or Fold: Recognising When to Double Down on a Business Idea

Austrian synthetic data pioneer MOSTLY AI has launched a $100,000 global challenge to drive adoption of privacy-safe synthetic data and highlight its potential to safely fuel artificial intelligence innovation.

Dubbed The MOSTLY AI Prize, the challenge invites data scientists, AI developers, and researchers to create high-fidelity synthetic datasets from real-world data. Entries will be judged on accuracy, privacy, usability, and generalisability, with the aim of showcasing synthetic data’s role in powering safe, open-access AI.

The prize pool – the largest yet for a synthetic data challenge – is split between two tracks: the Flat Data Challenge, involving static, table-based data like patient records, and the Sequential Data Challenge, for time-ordered datasets such as stock values or longitudinal health data.

Entrants must submit anonymised synthetic datasets that closely mirror the original data while maintaining privacy and complying with regulations. Submissions close on 3 July 2025, with winners announced on 9 July.

Alexandra Ebert, Chief AI and Data Democratization Officer at MOSTLY AI, said the prize represents “a call-to-action for anyone with an interest in data and AI”.

“Open data access is key to unlocking AI’s full potential – but achieving that will require wider adoption of synthetic data tools,” Ebert said. “This challenge is about showcasing the power of privacy-safe data generation and making it accessible to all.”

The competition follows MOSTLY AI’s release of the first open-source toolkit for synthetic data generation. While participants can use this toolkit, it is not a requirement.

The challenge comes amid growing demand for AI training data and tightening privacy regulations. With traditional data sharing increasingly constrained, synthetic data – which mimics real-world data while stripping away identifiable information – is seen as a breakthrough solution.

MOSTLY AI, which raised $25 million in Series B funding and works with clients including Citi, Telefónica and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, says synthetic data can help businesses and researchers share and scale data securely across industries.

Full details of the challenge, including data samples, scoring metrics, and eligibility, are available at: mostlyaiprize.com.

Read more:
Mostly AI launches $100k global challenge to spotlight privacy-safe synthetic data for AI development

Momentum is building behind the Better Business Act as more than 150 business leaders gathered in Westminster on Wednesday morning to call for a new model of responsible capitalism that balances profit with social and environmental purpose.

Hosted by B Lab UK to mark Better Business Day 2025, the event saw entrepreneurs, B Corp companies, and MPs rally behind a growing movement of purpose-led organisations demanding change to outdated company law. At the heart of the call is an amendment to Section 172 of the Companies Act — a legislative shift that would require directors to consider people, planet and communities, not just shareholders, when making decisions.

Retail legend Mary Portas OBE and Douglas Lamont, CEO of Tony’s Chocolonely, co-chairs of the Better Business Act campaign, led the charge in Parliament, arguing that business has a moral and economic responsibility to adapt to the challenges of the 21st century.

“The world is on a knife-edge – socially, culturally, environmentally,” said Portas. “We’re still shackled to rules made for a world that no longer exists. This is not just about economics — it’s systemic. The Better Business Act is about choosing to be part of the solution.”

The number of businesses backing the campaign has surged from 300 in 2021 to more than 3,000 today, with prominent supporters including Bloom & Wild, The White Company, Coventry Building Society, giffgaff, ELEMIS, and Farrow & Ball.

Backing also came from Parliament itself, with cross-party MPs joining the call to modernise corporate governance and back private members’ legislation due for a second reading on 4 July: The Company Directors (Duties) Bill, introduced by Lib Dem MP Martin Wrigley.

Chris Turner, CEO of B Lab UK and Director of the Better Business Act campaign, said: “The business case is clear. Last year, B Corps outpaced the national average with 23% revenue growth. Purpose-driven businesses are not only more resilient — they are economically powerful.”

New analysis by think tank Demos suggests that widespread adoption of purpose-led business models could boost GDP by 7%. The BBA would align the legal obligations of company directors with long-term value creation — taking into account stakeholders like employees, customers and local communities, not just shareholders.

Douglas Lamont of Tony’s Chocolonely added: “The desire to build a more balanced economy is palpable. This is a business-led movement, but it needs political will to unlock its full potential.”

Support was echoed by Lord Sonny Leong CBE, Labour’s Business and Trade spokesperson in the Lords, who praised companies “stepping up with purpose and integrity” and said such leadership aligned with government goals of “higher wages, lower emissions, and stronger communities”.

The call for reform comes at a time of growing scrutiny around corporate purpose. UK businesses are facing increasing pressure from consumers, employees, and investors to demonstrate ethical leadership — especially in the wake of economic turbulence, climate risk, and social inequalities.

B Lab UK has coordinated dozens of visits for MPs to tour B Corp businesses in their constituencies in recent weeks, including trips to Brighton with Sian Berry MP, Devon with Lib Dem leader Caroline Voaden, and Stroud with Labour’s Simon Opher.

As Westminster debates the next chapter for UK business, the message from campaigners is clear: better business isn’t just possible — it’s already happening. The Act, they argue, is about levelling the legal playing field to let responsible businesses thrive.

As Mary Portas put it: “The Better Business Act is the line in the sand. You either step up, or get left behind.”

Read more:
Mary Portas leads Westminster rally for Better Business Act as momentum grows for purpose-led reform

A team of Oxford Saïd Business School alumni has secured £700,000 in UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) funding to bring affordable, clean energy to off-grid communities in Nigeria—potentially replacing thousands of diesel and petrol generators with a sustainable alternative.

Led by Ishaq Bolarinwa, CEO of Anfani and a 2022 Oxford MBA graduate, the project will deploy storage-integrated wind and solar hybrid systems using cold storage infrastructure as anchor loads. Bolarinwa is joined by fellow Oxford Saïd alumnus Tom Gibson and his Gyre Energy co-founders, Michael McKenna and Dougald Coulson. Together with academic partners from the University of Oxford’s Department for Engineering Science, the group is one of just five consortia progressing to the ‘Lift Off’ phase of the ZE-Gen Technology Accelerator, sponsored by Innovate UK and DSIT.

Nigeria currently has the world’s largest energy access deficit, with 85 million people—43% of the population—lacking grid electricity. The result is widespread reliance on costly, polluting backup generators. According to the World Bank, unreliable power costs the country an estimated $26.2 billion annually.

“This project hits that sweet spot of being good for the economy, reducing energy costs for communities, and helping the planet,” said Bolarinwa. “Limited access to power is holding Nigeria back. What we’re building has the potential to unlock real change.”

The Oxford-led team will now focus on industrial research and system testing, paving the way for deployment across rural Nigeria. The clean energy microgrids will use wind turbines, solar panels, and thermal storage technology, supporting off-grid cold chain systems essential for food and medical supplies.

The project emerged from the Entrepreneurship Project module during Bolarinwa’s MBA at Oxford Saïd, where the Anfani concept began as a renewable energy brokerage. He credits the Oxford network with playing a vital role in bringing the project to life: “The education was world-class, but it was the connections—from classmates to academics—that transformed the idea into a mission-led business.”

Academic support comes from Professor Lucia Corsini, Dr Jesús Lizana, Ana Outeirinho Morgado, and doctoral student Bogosi Msutwana from Oxford’s Engineering Science Department. Other consortium members include Sirius-X Energy and ThinkClock Battery Labs.

Looking ahead, the most promising projects from the ‘Lift Off’ phase will progress to the ‘Flight’ phase, where innovations will be demonstrated and validated in-country. If successful, the system could offer a blueprint for energy access solutions in other parts of sub-Saharan Africa and beyond.

Tom Gibson, co-founder of Gyre Energy, said: “This is a perfect example of Oxford’s innovation ecosystem in action. We’re thrilled to join forces with Anfani to build decentralised renewable energy systems that deliver practical, scalable impact where it’s needed most.”

With backing from UKRI and the ZE-Gen programme, and with Oxford alumni and academics at the helm, the project demonstrates how university-born innovation can drive inclusive growth, decarbonisation and energy justice—one microgrid at a time.

Read more:
Oxford Said alumni win £700k UKRI backing to power Nigeria with clean, off-grid energy

British exports to the United States plunged by £2 billion in April — the largest monthly drop on record — as President Trump’s “liberation day” tariffs took effect, dealing a significant blow to transatlantic trade.

According to official data released this week, UK goods exports to the US suffered their steepest fall since records began in 1997. The slump followed Trump’s announcement on 2 April of a 10% minimum tariff on UK exports, part of a wider package of levies targeting over 120 global economies.

Although the White House paused the tariffs a week later for 90 days amid backlash from allies and domestic industry groups, the initial shock has already reverberated through British exporters, particularly in sectors such as cars, steel, and aluminium. All three are also facing the threat of a further 25% import tax under the latest proposals from Washington.

In the first quarter of the year, UK firms had raced to front-load shipments ahead of the tariff deadline, with exports to the US rising steadily from January to March. The April figures now suggest that this stockpiling surge has sharply reversed.

The disruption comes amid wider uncertainty in UK-US trade relations. Despite recent talks to finalise a bilateral steel deal, questions remain over whether the UK will be exempted from the full brunt of the new American tariff regime.

Trade bodies have warned that the volatility is already denting confidence among exporters. One industry source said: “Businesses made a huge effort to move goods early, but this cliff-edge approach to tariffs is costing us dearly. The stop-start policy makes planning virtually impossible.”

With the 90-day pause set to expire in early July, the pressure is now on the UK government to secure a long-term deal that protects its exporters from escalating trade barriers.

For now, the latest data marks a stark warning: despite a strong start to the year, UK-US trade faces serious headwinds if clarity and cooperation aren’t restored soon.

Read more:
Record fall in British exports to us as Trump tariffs bite

FirstGroup, one of Britain’s earliest adopters of employee directors on company boards, has quietly ended the long-running practice—delivering a symbolic blow to the once-ambitious drive to give workers a greater say in corporate governance.

The transport operator, which introduced employee representation on its board in the 1990s, confirmed it would no longer reserve a seat for a worker director. In its latest filings, the company offered little explanation beyond referring to the “transformation” of its business—particularly the scaling back of its UK rail operations, most of which have been handed back to the public sector.

The decision leaves a question mark over the relevance of employee voice in British boardrooms. Despite being championed by former Prime Minister Theresa May during her 2016 leadership campaign as a flagship policy to reset capitalism in the wake of the Brexit vote, the concept has made little headway. Fewer than a dozen FTSE-listed firms ever embraced the model, and FirstGroup’s exit from the practice may discourage others from following suit.

The company still employs thousands in its UK bus division, yet has not indicated any plans to reinstate worker representation in that area.

Governance experts say the withdrawal highlights a broader reluctance in UK corporate culture to hardwire employee perspectives into boardroom decision-making.

“FirstGroup was a rare example of a company that gave workers a seat at the table in a meaningful way,” said one governance adviser. “Its quiet abandonment of the policy risks confirming the view that employee voice in boardrooms remains more symbolic than structural.”

For now, the idea of employee directors appears to be losing traction—not with a bang, but with a shrug.

Read more:
Firstgroup quietly ends long-running employee director policy

Poundland, one of Britain’s best-known discount retailers, has been sold for a nominal sum of £1 as part of a last-ditch rescue deal that could see up to 200 of its 800 stores shuttered and thousands of jobs put at risk.

The ailing chain, which employs around 16,000 staff across the UK and Ireland, was offloaded by its parent company, Pepco Group, to retail turnaround specialists Gordon Brothers. As part of the deal, Poundland will receive an £80 million cash injection to support a major restructuring programme aimed at reversing its recent financial decline.

The discount giant has suffered a series of setbacks in recent years, from surging operating costs and declining footfall to what it described as a “shoplifting epidemic” that cost the business £40 million in stolen goods last year alone. Revenue dropped by 6.5% in the first half of this year to €985 million (£830 million), and 18 stores closed during the period.

While the company insists the Poundland and Dealz brands will continue to operate in the UK, Isle of Man and the Republic of Ireland, it confirmed that a significant restructuring process is underway, with full details to be revealed in the coming weeks. Industry insiders estimate that as many as 200 stores could be closed as part of the plan, and warned that around £100 million may be required to fully stabilise the business.

Poundland’s chief executive, Barry Williams – who returned to the top job earlier this year – will remain in place. He acknowledged the “challenging” trading environment but said the business remains one of “real significance,” serving 20 million customers annually. He pledged to deliver a “simplified and more focused” Poundland that continues to offer “amazing value”.

The deal marks a dramatic fall from grace for the retailer, which just eight years ago abandoned its all-items-for-£1 pledge in favour of a multi-price model. Items now range from 50p to £5 – a shift which, coupled with cost-of-living pressures, has seen customers turn to rivals such as B&M and Home Bargains.

Gordon Brothers, which previously owned the collapsed fashion retailer Laura Ashley, beat out competition from Hilco Capital for the takeover. The investment firm now faces the challenge of revitalising the brand and restoring consumer confidence.

Pepco, which has retained a minority stake, said the sale will allow it to refocus on its core European operations, particularly its higher-margin Pepco clothing and general merchandise brand. Chief executive Stephan Borchert said the disposal of Poundland aligns with the group’s strategic shift away from food and fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) and would support its “accelerated value creation programme”.

The sale, though symbolic at £1, reflects broader difficulties across the UK’s retail sector, with high inflation, rent pressures and consumer spending squeezes continuing to weigh on operators. Analysts said that while the Gordon Brothers’ backing gives Poundland a fighting chance, the size of the store estate and scale of the turnaround required remains significant.

The Unite union and retail workers’ groups have called for urgent clarity on store closures and job security as negotiations continue behind the scenes.

Gordon Brothers and Poundland are expected to set out detailed restructuring proposals within the next few weeks.

Read more:
Poundland sold for just £1 as up to 200 stores face closure amid major restructuring

Disney and Universal have filed a landmark lawsuit against AI image generator Midjourney, accusing the San Francisco-based company of large-scale copyright infringement and calling its tools a “bottomless pit of plagiarism”.

The entertainment giants allege that Midjourney’s AI model, which creates high-quality visuals from text prompts, unlawfully copied and distributed images of iconic characters including Darth Vader, Yoda, Elsa, Shrek, Iron Man, and the Minions. Filed in federal court in Los Angeles, the suit marks one of the most aggressive legal actions yet taken by Hollywood against the fast-growing generative AI industry.

“Piracy is piracy,” said Disney’s chief legal officer, Horacio Gutierrez, “and the fact that it’s done by an AI company does not make it any less infringing.” NBCUniversal’s general counsel Kim Harris echoed the concern, adding that the lawsuit aims to protect the creative work and investment of the studios and artists they represent.

According to the complaint, Midjourney’s training data included millions of images scraped from the internet without permission—a practice confirmed by founder David Holz in a 2022 interview. The studios claim Midjourney rebuffed requests to stop using their intellectual property or to implement safeguards that would prevent users from generating infringing content.

The studios have filed for a preliminary injunction to block Midjourney from offering its image and video generation services unless it adopts tools to prevent the unauthorised replication of copyrighted content. They are also seeking unspecified financial damages.

Midjourney, which generated $300 million in revenue last year through paid subscriptions, has not yet commented on the suit. However, the company has faced similar legal challenges before. A prior lawsuit filed by a group of visual artists remains ongoing, with a judge last year ruling that the artists’ claim—that Midjourney stored and reused their copyrighted works without consent—was “plausible”.

This latest action underscores growing tensions between creative industries and AI developers, as generative models increasingly encroach on areas previously protected by intellectual property law. The entertainment industry, in particular, has moved swiftly in recent months to push back against what it sees as widespread appropriation of its copyrighted content. In parallel lawsuits, major record labels, authors, and news organisations have taken similar action against AI companies accused of training models on protected materials without consent or compensation.

The legal outcome of Disney and Universal’s case could set a critical precedent for how AI tools are developed and monetised—and whether or not training models on copyrighted content constitutes fair use or infringement.

While some media companies, including The Guardian and Axel Springer, have opted to license their archives to AI firms, others, like The New York Times, have launched lawsuits against OpenAI and Microsoft for similar unauthorised use.

For now, the case marks a pivotal test of whether courts will draw a firm line on copyright protection in the age of artificial intelligence—or whether companies like Midjourney can continue scraping and generating from vast libraries of human-made work with limited accountability.

Read more:
Disney and Universal sue AI firm Midjourney over ‘bottomless pit of plagiarism’