I’d have liked to introduce 42nd picks with the ice cream van song. Seemed highly appropriate, you wait for the ice cream van to pop by and when you finally feel like giving up on waiting – you hear the song. Readers stuck in their childhoods will understand me. Anyway, where did we leave off? Not a day going by where IT law doesn’t excite us, ah yes.
🤖 Artificial Intelligence
The German Federal Court of Justice (“Bundesgerichtshof”) confirmed an AI-generated invention is patentable, and a natural person can be named as an inventor. Even if AI has been used to generate the invention, yes. The court highlighted that while AI can significantly aid in the discovery of technical teachings, the concept of inventorship is intrinsically linked to human creativity and legal personhood, which AI lacks. While acknowledging the role of AI in aiding the inventive process, the court stated that AI systems, despite their advanced capabilities, cannot fulfill the role of an inventor. AI can assist in discovering technical teachings, but the legal concept of inventorship is tied to human activity and contribution. There you are, AI nerds, next question?
The world’s biggest record labels are suing two AI music generation services. Sounds like they’re ganging up? Kind of. Music companies including Sony Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings, and Warner Records are suing AI start-ups Suno and Udio for copyright infringement. The cases are accusing Suno and Udio of unlicensed use of copyrighted sound recordings to train their AI models. AI firms argue their use falls under fair use, but the record labels assert that AI-produced music threatens genuine human artistry and the music ecosystem. Record labels argue the lawsuits aim to ensure that artists, songwriters, and rightsholders maintain control over their works, and that the music community supports this action to protect creative works and develop responsible AI tools that respect copyright laws and artists’ rights. An ongoing tension between AI innovation and copyright protection in the music industry?
🛒 E-Commerce & Digital Consumer
The European Commission sent its preliminary findings under the Digital Markets Act to Meta over its “Pay or Consent” model. Shocking news: it may, may, violate the DMA. The preliminary findings suggest that Meta’s approach forces users to either pay for an ads-free service or consent to extensive data use for personalized ads, without offering a less personalized, equivalent service. This practice does not comply with Article 5(2) of the DMA, which mandates user consent for data combination and requires access to a less personalized service if consent is withheld. Meta can respond to these findings, and the Commission will conclude its investigation by March 2025. If non-compliance is confirmed, Meta could face fines up to 10-20% of its global turnover and additional corrective measures. An unsurprising turn of events.
In other DMA news, the summary of the Commission’s decision to designate Booking Holdings as a gatekeeper on 13th May was published in the OJ. The Commission’s assessment concludes:
- Booking.com is considered separate from other Booking Holdings services (Agoda, Priceline, Kayak, OpenTable), because these services (i) are offered as entirely distinct services, and, (ii) in the case of Kayak and OpenTable, are used for different purposes by their end users and their business users
- Booking.com is a single online intermediation service (OIS) core platform service (CPS) despite offering various travel services, because Booking.com is used for the single purpose of intermediating travel services and RentalCars.com is included as part of Booking.com’s CPS
- The Booking Network Sponsored Ads (BNSA) is a distinct service from Booking.com’s CPS.
“the Decision designates Booking Holdings as a gatekeeper in relation to Booking Holdings’ OIS Booking.com.” congrats are in order.
The European Commission sent Amazon a request for information (RFI) under the Digital Services Act (DSA). The request focuses on Amazon’s compliance with DSA obligations. Amazon has been asked to provide detailed information on the following:
- Transparency of its recommender systems (input factors, features, signals, information and metadata)
- User options to opt-out of profiling for recommender systems
- Design, development, deployment, testing, and maintenance of the Amazon Store’s Ad Library
- Supporting documents regarding its risk assessment report
The due date is 26th of July, keep a look out.
📄 Recommended Readings
Here are –in no particular order– some recent publications that caught my eye recently. Remember to grab a cuppa and settle in for some riveting reading.
Computational Antitrust Within Agencies: 3rd Annual Report by Thibault Schrepel & Teodora Groza (eds.) (2024)
The five generations of facial recognition usage and the Australian privacy law by Jorge Conde & Dan Jerker B Svantesson
Global Competition Law and Policy Approaches to Digital Markets – UNCTAD (2024)
Second report on the State of the Digital Decade – European Union (2024)
Disclaimer: I am in no way affiliated with the authors or publishers in sharing these, and do not necessarily agree with the views contained within. I try to include mostly open access publications due to, well you know, accessibility of knowledge and science.
If you’d like to see more recommended readings, visit us here.
Remember to pop back soon for your latest dose of legal updates, served with a twist. Cheerio!
If you have any thoughts or suggestions on how to make this digest even more enjoyable, feel free to drop a line. Your feedback is always welcome!
Featured image generated using DALL·E 3.
