Media ownership and its concentration in a few powerful hands have been on the European political agenda since the 1980s. To date, no coherent and effective control mechanism has been put in place. Instead, and despite repeated calls from the European Parliament for strong rules to control media ownership, recent policy activity in this area has sidelined the problem of media ownership concentration and focused on ownership transparency. This focus risks absorbing transformative energy at the expense of progress in limiting the power and dominance of transnational media and communication conglomerates. As a minimum requirement, European regulatory mechanisms should impose obligations for greater internal editorial freedom as media ownership concentration increases.

This chapter examines the early integration of generative AI (GenAI), particularly large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, into judicial workflows. Unlike traditional rule-based decision-support systems, GenAI adopts a bottom-up approach, generating insights from vast datasets to assist real-time decision-making. While offering speed and improved access to information, these tools also present challenges that require careful understanding by their users. Using the recent case of a Dutch judge who employed ChatGPT to estimate the lifespan of solar panels, the chapter illustrates how GenAI is already being used in courtrooms. The value of GenAI lies in supporting, not replacing, human judgement. Yet without a clear grasp of how these systems work, including their limitations and potential biases, judges risk relying on opaque or flawed outputs. The ‘black box’ nature of LLMs complicates their responsible use and raises concerns about the balance between efficiency and discretion. The chapter argues that effective integration of GenAI depends not primarily on regulation, but on judicial education and critical awareness of the technology’s capacities and constraints.

This dispute concerns the United States' compliance with the adopted recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in United States – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Ripe Olives from Spain. The European Union claims that the United States has failed to comply with the adopted findings of the panel report concerning the incompatibility of Section 771B of the US Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 771B) "as such" and "as applied" in the Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order of 1 August 2018 on ripe olives from Spain, with Article VI:3 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1994) and Article 10 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement).

Chapter 1 introduces the plight of future generations, wildlife, and natural resources as voiceless communities that are disproportionately vulnerable in the face of the climate crisis. It explores the troubling gridlock in international climate diplomacy and recent backsliding of ambition in domestic environmental law in the United States and Europe. It also recognizes that a shift towards an ecocentric governance paradigm is underway in many nations, which would provide greater protection for these voiceless communities. Despite this recent progress, the chapter acknowledges that much work remains in this transition.

Private dispute resolution mechanisms – such as arbitration, mediation, and negotiation – are often criticised for high costs, lengthy proceedings, and inconsistent outcomes. Simultaneously, confidence in traditional courts is declining amid rising litigation expenses, delays, and concerns over impartiality, highlighting the need for more efficient and equitable resolution methods. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) offer promising tools to address these challenges. AI enhances case preparation through natural language processing (NLP), which organises documents, extracts key insights, and supports evidence analysis. Predictive analytics help anticipate outcomes based on past decisions, aiding strategic planning. AI also enables automation in routine case management, accelerating resolution and reducing costs. Generative AI further alleviates administrative burdens, enabling legal professionals to focus on complex legal reasoning and client interactions. This chapter examines how AI is reshaping private dispute resolution, with a focus on current applications, emerging innovations, and future developments. While AI cannot replace human judgement in complex disputes, it plays a vital role in streamlining procedures, promoting fairness, and improving user satisfaction.

In governing the development and deployment of AI across the European Member States, the EU AI Act tries to bring together two very different visions of AI. The first sees AI as a powerful tool that can be made less risky to the health, safety, and fundamental rights of European consumers if it adheres to a series of technical requirements. The second sees AI as a systems technology whose governance requires a nuanced understanding of its transformative effects on the values, fundamental rights, and power relations that characterise society. This chapter uses these two perspectives on AI as a lens through which to reflect on the implications of the EU AI Act for the justice sector. It analyses the extent to which the Act’s provisions and safeguards are aligned with emerging ethical guidelines for the use of AI in the administration of justice and discusses whether it can be expected to effectively address core ethical concerns about the use of AI in the justice sector. This analysis demonstrates the limitations of the ‘tool’ perspective that dominates the AI Act and reveals the considerable discretion it gives judicial authorities to guide the integration of AI as a societally transformative systems technology into the justice sector.

This chapter explores issues of patent infringement and sustainability, with a focus on the case of destruction of infringing goods and contextualizing the analysis in relation to the practice of upcycling. The destruction is a corrective measure adopted by courts when a patentee is confronted with an infringing product or a product resulting from an infringing method of production (Article 64(2)(e) of the UPC Agreement). While this remedy is standard practice, it often results in the destruction of fully functional, high-quality – albeit infringing – goods. In view of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and the Unitary Patent (UP), it is imperative to look at the provision on destruction of infringing goods through the eyes of sustainability. The UPC Agreement neither bars sustainable alternatives to destruction nor offers a sustainability-focused interpretation of the remedy. After reviewing UPC and EU case law, the chapter explores more sustainable interpretations of the destruction remedy, including whether practices like upcycling might still qualify as ‘destruction’. As such, this chapter could serve as a guide for future, more sustainability-centred interpretations of the identified provision under the UPC, thereby better aligning European patent law with the goals of the EU Circular Economy Strategy and the Green Deal.

This chapter examines the pervasive issue of media capture within the European Union (EU) and its detrimental effects on media freedom and democratic governance. Using a theoretical model of media capture consisting of four critical components (control over national media regulators, manipulation of public service media, misuse of state funds for media control, and the consolidation of private media ownership by government-aligned businesses), it maps past and ongoing EU interventions in those areas. Despite the EU’s legal frameworks such as the European Media Freedom Act and the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, significant gaps remain in enforcement and oversight, limiting the Union’s ability to address these challenges. The analysis highlights the EU’s struggles to effectively intervene in safeguarding media independence due to constrained competences, weak enforcement tools, and reliance on politicised national regulatory authorities. The chapter underscores the need for enhanced regulatory mechanisms and stricter monitoring to counteract media capture and uphold democratic principles in EU Member States.

This chapter analyzes upcycling through an economic lens. First, it discusses the similarities and differences between resale, recycling, and upcycling from an economic perspective. Next, it analyzes the incentives for producers in the primary market to engage with these markets further down the lifecycle of a product. The author argues that companies with sufficient market power in their primary market often have an incentive to try to control such aftermarkets, particularly in the case of resale or upcycling, in order to price discriminate in the primary market or to reduce competition in their primary market. Subsequently, the chapter discusses the role of IPRs in this and analyzes from a normative economic perspective (incentive rationale for IPRs), whether IPRs should grant producers control over resale and upcycling.

Upcycling involves the creative reuse of materials that implicate a range of IPRs. Analyzed within the parameters of exhaustion, upcycling in practice illustrates the potential for the exhaustion doctrine in unleashing creativity through reusing and repurposing works. But this potential is limited by the existing contours of exhaustion, specifically its roots in the distribution rights and its uncertain expansion into repair and reconstruction. These limitations within the exhaustion doctrine are magnified through the overlap of rights in upcycled works: copyright with trademark, trademark with design rights. This chapter sets forth the policies underlying recognition of upcycling as permitted use within the contours of exhaustion and overlapping IPR’s. Overlap does not accrete the rights of IP owners or subtract the rights of follow-on creators. Instead, upcycling invites a rethinking of the dynamic of creative ecosystems marked by the reality of markets, transformative creations, and the needs of creative communities. The chapter also critically examining the policies raised by upcycling mandates challenging the linear model of IP dissemination which traces the origin of works to the owner of broadly defined IPRs.

The European Union’s (EU) media policy balances harmonising regulations across Member States with national autonomy. Traditional audiovisual media is heavily regulated, but digital media formats and user-generated content add complexity to policy frameworks. Public service broadcasters (PSBs), guided by the Amsterdam Protocol, have aimed to promote pluralism and public interest while grappling with market distortions due to public funding. Many PSBs have evolved into public service media (PSM), with websites and presence on third-party platforms. Member States face challenges defining PSB mandates amid technological changes and commercial competition, exacerbated by advertising revenue shifting to global platforms. Additionally, ‘information disorders’ such as disinformation and hate speech have pressured the EU to find ways to safeguard a healthy media environment. Media capture, where governments control propaganda outlets, further threatens democratic communication. The European Media Freedom Act recognises PSM as crucial to democracy, mandating editorial independence and proper funding. Yet implementation and governance lie with Member States, leading to varied outcomes. This chapter offers case studies from Finland and Hungary to illustrate how the lack of specific guidance for PSM challenges the information resilience of national media landscapes. The chapter argues for EU-wide guidelines to foster national and EU-wide resilience.

In recent years, and especially, after the pandemic, policymakers in Latin America and the Caribbean have become increasingly interested in promoting the principles of the circular economy as a core component of the region’s sustainable development. Under the banner of sustainability, the national and regional markets for circular economy items have grown and consumer preference for them has been attracted. However, the debate on the impact of IPRs on the upcycling of goods, which could be protected by an IPRs system, is still very young. This chapter examines whether IP laws interfere with the production and distribution of goods by analyzing national and regional regulations in selected countries in the region, where there is growing interest in circular economy products. In addition, an analysis of the legal defences available within the IP system for the relevant stakeholders will also be undertaken. In particular, the IP systems concerning trademarks, industrial designs, and copyright will be discussed. Finally, the chapter examines whether creating distinctive signs specific to the goods produced under these practices exist and whether this seems desirable.