In a striking rebuke to Elon Musk, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently rejected a $97.4 billion acquisition bid led by Musk and his AI startup, xAI.

Long-Running Tech Feud

Altman’s decision has intensified the long-running feud between the two tech giants, bringing into focus their starkly different visions for the future of artificial intelligence (AI). With Musk levelling accusations of self-dealing and Altman responding with sharp jabs, the saga has left the tech industry and AI users questioning what comes next.

What Happened?

Musk’s unsolicited bid for OpenAI (revealed through legal filings and media reports) was supported by private equity firms Baron Capital Group and Valor Management. The proposal sought to acquire the non-profit entity that controls OpenAI, with Musk’s legal team arguing that OpenAI’s shift towards a for-profit structure contradicted its original mission.

As Musk’s attorney, Marc Toberoff, put it: “If Sam Altman and the present OpenAI board of directors are intent on becoming a fully for-profit corporation, it is vital that the charity be fairly compensated for what its leadership is taking away from it: control over the most transformative technology of our time.”

However, OpenAI swiftly dismissed the offer. In fact, Altman took to Musk’s own platform, X (formerly Twitter), to publicly rebuff the bid with a characteristically cheeky retort, saying: “No thank you, but we will buy Twitter for $9.74 billion if you want.” OpenAI board chair Bret Taylor reinforced the company’s stance, stating, “OpenAI is not for sale.”

Musk then fired back with some accusations, branding Altman as a “swindler” and claiming OpenAI had abandoned its founding principles in favour of corporate profit.

Musk’s Motivation and the OpenAI Backstory

The world’s richest man, Elon Musk, who co-founded OpenAI in 2015 alongside Altman, was one of its earliest financial backers. However, he left the board in 2018 following disagreements over the company’s direction and later launched his own AI startup, xAI, in 2023. Since then, he has been an outspoken critic of OpenAI, particularly regarding its partnership with Microsoft.

Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI, first filed in February 2024 and later revived in August, accuses the company of prioritising profit over safety and betraying its original commitment to open-source AI development. The lawsuit argues that OpenAI has become a “closed-source de facto subsidiary” of Microsoft, which has invested over $13 billion in the company.

Musk said in a statement explaining his bid: “It’s time for OpenAI to return to the open-source, safety-focused force for good it once was. We will make sure that happens.”

OpenAI Says It Was Necessary

OpenAI, however, contends that its evolution into a public benefit corporation was necessary to secure the capital needed to develop cutting-edge AI models. Interestingly, internal emails published by OpenAI last year revealed Musk had previously acknowledged the necessity of attracting significant investment to fund AI infrastructure.

Musk’s Growing Problems in Business and Politics

The rejection of Musk’s bid comes at a time of mounting challenges for the billionaire across his now sprawling empire. For example, Tesla, his most well-known EV venture, has seen its stock plummet by over 31 per cent since December 2024, amid declining sales and growing criticism of what many see as Musk’s divisive political interventions. Analysts have attributed Tesla’s downturn in part to Musk’s polarising behaviour (e.g. ‘that’ salute, which alienated not just his environmentally conscious consumers, who were once the company’s core supporters).

Also, his social media platform, X, continues to struggle, with its valuation reportedly falling by over 50 per cent since he purchased it for $44 billion in 2022. A combination of mass layoffs (reducing staff by 80 per cent) and controversial content moderation policies has driven advertisers away, with Bluesky and Threads, contributing to X’s financial woes.

Musk’s huge $227 million spend on Trump’s election campaign (and his wealth increasing by a reported $170 billion since) plus his increasing entanglement with the US government have also sparked concerns about conflicts of interest. Also, as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under President Trump’s administration, Musk has been widely criticised over his wielding of influence over federal agencies that regulate his businesses (including those that could investigate him). In fact, Musk’s DOGE team is now being investigated by the US government watchdog over its access to the Treasury’s payments system, which has been described as unconstitutional. In recent months, investigations into Tesla and SpaceX have been quietly shelved following the departure of key regulators, raising eyebrows in Washington and beyond.

Adding to the controversy, Musk recently conducted a White House interview alongside his son and President Trump, an appearance that critics claim blurred the lines between political advocacy and personal business interests. The interview, perceived by many as an attempt to shore up support for his ventures, has drawn scrutiny over whether Musk’s access to political power gives him an unfair advantage over his competitors.

What It All Means for OpenAI, Musk, and AI Users

For OpenAI, turning down Musk’s offer signals a firm commitment to its current trajectory. Despite Musk’s claims that OpenAI has lost sight of its original mission, the company maintains that its hybrid non-profit and for-profit model allows it to raise the funding necessary to develop safe and powerful AI. This decision also ensures OpenAI retains its independence from Musk’s influence, allowing it to continue its deep partnerships with Microsoft and other investors.

For Musk, the somewhat humiliating public rejection represents a significant setback in his efforts to steer the direction of AI development. With OpenAI remaining out of reach, Musk’s xAI faces more of an uphill battle in competing with OpenAI’s dominant ChatGPT and the backing of Microsoft. His mounting legal battles, combined with declining public confidence in his leadership, may further strain his ability to expand xAI’s influence in the AI sector.

As for users, the outcome of this feud will have lasting implications. OpenAI’s continued autonomy ensures stability in its AI offerings, but Musk’s persistent attacks raise questions about regulatory oversight and ethical AI governance. Meanwhile, the turbulence surrounding Musk’s ventures, from Tesla to X, may further shape consumer trust and industry dynamics in the coming months.

What Does This Mean for Your Business?

Sam Altman’s rejection of Elon Musk’s audacious $97 billion bid marks yet another defining moment in what is an ongoing power struggle over the future of artificial intelligence. OpenAI’s decision to remain independent reinforces its commitment to a hybrid model that balances innovation with commercial viability, even as Musk continues to frame this approach as a betrayal of the organisation’s original mission. While the tech world is no stranger to high-profile disputes, this particular clash holds deeper implications, not just for AI development but also for the regulatory and ethical landscape surrounding it.

For Musk, the rejection highlights the mounting challenges he faces in both the business and political spheres. His attempt to bring OpenAI under his control appears to have been a strategic move to counteract the growing influence of Microsoft and reassert his own role in shaping AI’s future. However, his declining public perception, ongoing legal battles, and the struggles of his various ventures suggest that he is facing headwinds unlike any before. While xAI may still emerge as a formidable competitor, OpenAI’s ability to operate without Musk’s intervention has, for now, reinforced its market dominance.

For business users, this standoff between two of the most influential figures in AI raises significant considerations. OpenAI’s continued partnership with Microsoft should ensure stability in its product offerings, giving enterprises confidence that ChatGPT and other AI models will continue to develop without abrupt strategic shifts. This means businesses relying on OpenAI’s technology can probably expect further refinements, better integration with Microsoft products, and sustained investment in safety and governance frameworks. However, Musk’s criticisms of OpenAI’s closed-source nature may also fuel discussions about transparency and accessibility, potentially pushing regulators and competitors to advocate for more open AI ecosystems.

While this latest chapter in the Musk-Altman rivalry has made headlines, the broader impact will be felt in how AI is shaped moving forward. OpenAI’s stance suggests that it remains committed to its vision, even as Musk continues to challenge its direction. Whether this leads to a more competitive AI marketplace or a further entrenchment of power among a select few remains to be seen, but for now, OpenAI has made its position clear, i.e. that it’s not for sale, not even to one of the world’s richest and most controversial figures.

At the recent Artificial Intelligence (AI) Action Summit in Paris, the UK and the United States refused to sign an international declaration advocating for “inclusive and sustainable” AI development.

60 Other Nations Signed It

With 60 other nations (including China, France, India, and Canada) endorsing the agreement, the absence of two major AI powerhouses has ignited some debate over regulation, governance, and the global AI market’s future.

The Paris AI Summit and The Declaration

The AI Action Summit, held on 10–11 February, brought together representatives from over 100 countries to essentially discuss AI’s trajectory and the need for ethical, transparent, and sustainable frameworks. The summit concluded with a declaration designed to guide AI development responsibly. The key principles of this declaration include:

– Openness and inclusivity. Ensuring AI development is accessible and equitable across different nations and communities.

– Ethical standards. Establishing guidelines that uphold human rights and prevent AI misuse.

– Transparency. Mandating clear AI decision-making processes and accountability.

– Safety and security. Addressing risks related to AI safety, cybersecurity and misinformation.

– Sustainability. Recognising the growing energy demands of AI and the need to mitigate its environmental impact.

The declaration emphasised the importance of global cooperation to prevent market monopolisation, reduce digital divides, and ensure AI benefits humanity as a whole. However, despite broad support, both the US and UK opted out of signing.

A Hands-Off Approach to Regulation For The US

US Vice President JD Vance delivered a fairly candid speech at the summit (his first major speech overseas in government), making clear that the Trump administration favours minimal AI regulation. For example, Vance warned that “Excessive regulation of the AI sector could kill a transformative industry just as it’s taking off”. He also criticised Europe’s approach, particularly the EU’s stringent AI Act and other regulatory frameworks like the Digital Services Act (DSA) and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), arguing that they create “endless legal compliance costs” for companies.

Vance’s remarks positioned the US as a clear advocate for innovation over restrictive oversight, stating, “We need international regulatory regimes that foster the creation of AI technology rather than strangle it.” He also expressed concerns that content moderation could lead to “authoritarian censorship,” a nod to the ongoing debates over misinformation and AI’s role in shaping public discourse.

Also, Vance (more subtly) warned against international partnerships with “authoritarian” nations (i.e. basically implying China) by stating that working with such regimes risked “chaining your nation to an authoritarian master that seeks to infiltrate, dig in, and seize your information infrastructure.” Some critics of Trump’s government in the US may have found this remark to be ironic given Trump’s past praise for authoritarian leaders and his administration’s own controversies regarding misinformation, media control, and political influence over tech and AI regulation.

Concern

US Vice President JD Vance’s speech at the Paris AI Action Summit was met with a mix of concern and criticism from European leaders. Vance’s strong stance against European AI regulations and his emphasis on an “America First” approach to AI development seemed to highlight quite a significant policy divergence between the US and its European allies. French President Emmanuel Macron and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen responded by advocating for a balanced approach that fosters innovation while ensuring ethical standards, underscoring the contrasting perspectives on AI governance.

Why Didn’t The UK Sign?

The UK government’s stated reasons for not signing the declaration were its concerns over national security and AI governance. The UK was represented at the AI Action Summit in Paris by Tech Secretary Peter Kyle, with Prime Minister Keir Starmer opting not to attend. On the decision not to sign the summit’s AI declaration, a spokesperson for Starmer said the UK would “only ever sign up to initiatives that are in the UK’s national interest.” While the government agreed with much of the declaration, they argued it lacked practical clarity on global governance and failed to sufficiently address national security concerns.

A Downing Street spokesperson has also been reported as saying, “We felt the declaration didn’t provide enough practical clarity on global governance, nor sufficiently address harder questions around national security and the challenge AI poses to it.”

While the UK has previously championed AI safety, hosting the first-ever AI Safety Summit in November 2023, critics have argued that its refusal to sign the Paris declaration could now undermine its credibility as a leader in ethical AI development. For example, Andrew Dudfield, head of AI at fact-checking organisation Full Fact, has warned, “By refusing to sign today’s international AI Action Statement, the UK Government risks undercutting its hard-won credibility as a world leader for safe, ethical, and trustworthy AI innovation.”

Are The Real Reasons For Not Signing Geopolitical?

All that said, some analysts have argued that economic and geopolitical factors (rather than concerns about governance) may actually be the driving forces behind the US and UK’s decision. For example, by not signing the declaration, both countries retain the freedom to shape AI policy on their own terms, thereby potentially allowing domestic companies to operate with fewer regulatory constraints and gain a competitive edge in AI markets.

The decision may also be seen as aligning with broader economic policies. For example, the Trump administration has pledged significant investment in AI infrastructure, including a $500 billion private sector initiative to enhance US AI capabilities. Meanwhile, UK AI industry leaders, such as UKAI (a trade body representing AI businesses), have cautiously welcomed the government’s stance, arguing that AI’s energy demands must be balanced with environmental responsibilities.

However, some political voices in the UK have suggested that the UK has little room for manoeuvre but to align with the US, e.g. for fear of losing engagement from major US AI firms if it adopted a restrictive approach.

The Implications for AI in the US and UK

The refusal to sign the Paris declaration could have some serious effects on the AI landscape in both countries. These could include, for example:

– Regulatory divergence. The US and UK are likely to diverge further from the EU’s AI regulatory approach, which could create complexities for companies operating in multiple jurisdictions.

– Market positioning. AI firms in these countries may benefit from a less regulated environment, attracting more investment and talent.

– Global cooperation. The lack of a unified stance could complicate international efforts to set AI standards, leading to regulatory fragmentation.

– Public perception and trust. Concerns over AI safety and misinformation could be exacerbated, potentially undermining public trust in AI systems developed in more lightly regulated markets.

The Possible Impact on the AI Market and Business Users

For businesses trying to get the benefits of leveraging AI, these developments could signal both opportunities and challenges, such as:

– Regulatory uncertainty. Companies may need to navigate a fragmented regulatory landscape, balancing compliance in stricter jurisdictions like the EU with more flexible environments in the US and UK.

– Competitive advantage. Firms operating in the US and UK may see accelerated innovation and reduced compliance costs, while those in heavily regulated regions may struggle to keep pace.

– Investment trends. Investors might favour jurisdictions with fewer regulatory barriers, shifting funding patterns in the AI sector.

A Growing Divide

The refusal of the UK and US to sign the Paris AI declaration essentially highlights a growing global divide over AI regulation. For example, while Europe and other signatories are pushing for stringent oversight to ensure ethical and sustainable AI, the US and UK appear to be prioritising market-driven approaches that foster innovation with fewer constraints. As AI continues to shape industries and societies, this divergence in policy is likely to significantly influence the future of AI governance, business strategy, and global competitiveness.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The decision by the UK and US to abstain from signing the Paris AI declaration reveals the fundamental and growing divergence in global AI governance. While Europe and other signatories advocate for regulatory frameworks designed to ensure ethical, transparent, and sustainable AI development, the UK and US are instead opting for a more market-driven approach. This contrast highlights deeper geopolitical and economic considerations, as both nations seek to maintain a competitive edge in the rapidly evolving AI sector.

Companies operating in the US and UK may benefit from reduced compliance burdens and faster innovation cycles, but they also risk regulatory uncertainty when engaging with more tightly controlled markets such as the EU. Meanwhile, concerns over AI safety, misinformation, and ethical considerations could influence public trust, potentially shaping consumer and business adoption patterns in the years ahead.

Beyond immediate market implications, the lack of a unified international stance raises broader questions about the future of AI governance. The absence of the UK and US from the Paris declaration may complicate global efforts to establish common AI standards, increasing the likelihood of regulatory fragmentation. This, in turn, could lead to inconsistencies in AI oversight, making it more challenging to address issues such as bias, cybersecurity risks, and the environmental impact of AI systems on a global scale.

That said, the refusal to sign the declaration does not mean the UK and US are simply abandoning AI regulation altogether; rather, both countries will continue to shape policy on their own terms. However, their decision does signal a clear preference for maintaining regulatory flexibility, even at the cost of global consensus. Whether this approach actually fosters long-term innovation or leads to unintended risks remains to be seen, but what is certain is that AI governance is now a defining battleground in the race for technological leadership. The coming years will likely reveal whether a hands-off approach delivers the promised benefits, or whether the cautionary stance of other nations proves to be the wiser path.

A new study in Wales has shown that nearly half (46 per cent) of young people aged 8 to 17 have fallen victim to online scams, with 9 per cent (including children as young as eight) having lost money to fraudulent schemes.

Scams A Regular Part of Online Life For Young People

A recent study by the UK Safer Internet Centre (UKSIC) has unveiled a worrying trend, with findings released in conjunction with Safer Internet Day 2025 on 11th February. The results highlight how exposure to online scams has become a regular part of life for young internet users.

The Scale of the Issue

As part of the research, the UKSIC conducted an extensive survey to assess the frequency with which young people come across online scams, the types of scams they encounter, and their effects. Alarmingly, a massive 79 per cent of those surveyed said they come across scams at least once a month, with 45 per cent encountering them weekly and 20 per cent seeing scams every single day! These figures appear to show that scams are not occasional threats but are a persistent online hazard.

An Urgent Matter

Will Gardner OBE, Director of UKSIC, has highlighted the urgency of the matter, stating: “This Safer Internet Day, we want to put the importance of protecting children from online scams on the agenda. For too long, young people have been overlooked, yet our research clearly demonstrates how much of an impact online scams can have on them.”

What Are The Most Common Scams Targeting Young People?

The research identified several scams that young people are particularly vulnerable to. The most common include:

– Fake giveaways. Scammers promise free prizes or rewards to lure victims into sharing personal information.

– Phishing scams. Fraudsters send messages or emails pretending to be from a trusted source to trick individuals into handing over sensitive details.

– Fake websites. Counterfeit online stores or platforms that appear legitimate but are designed to steal money or data.

– Online shopping scams. These include fake ticket sales and fraudulent in-game purchases or ‘trust trades.’

Mostly On Social Media

Social media platforms were found to be the most common space for encountering scams (35 per cent), followed by email (17 per cent) and online gaming (15 per cent). The research revealed, perhaps not surprisingly, that younger children (8 to 11) are particularly vulnerable in online gaming environments, with 22 per cent reporting that they had experienced scams in this setting.

The Emotional and Psychological Toll

The impact of online scams appears to extend far beyond any financial loss. For example, the research found that almost half (47 per cent) of those scammed felt anger and frustration, while 39 per cent felt sadness. Other emotional reactions highlighted in the research included stress (31 per cent), embarrassment (28 per cent), and shock (28 per cent). Also, and alarmingly, over a quarter (26 per cent) said they blamed themselves for falling victim to a scam, a figure that rises to 37 per cent among 17-year-olds.

This sense of self-blame and embarrassment is thought to be preventing many from seeking help. For example, nearly half (47 per cent) of young people in the research said they believe embarrassment is the biggest barrier to reporting scams, while 41 per cent worry they would be blamed, and 40 per cent fear getting into trouble, such as having their devices taken away.

What Can Be Done?

The research appears to highlight an urgent need for better education about online scams. Encouragingly, 74 per cent of young people want to learn more about spotting and avoiding scams. Schools and parents must play a key role in this education, equipping children with the knowledge and tools to stay safe online.

For parents and carers, open conversations about online safety may also be essential in tackling this issue. For example, the study found that 72 per cent of young people would turn to a parent or carer if they were worried about an online scam, and 40 per cent of parents reported that their child had taught them how to recognise scams.

To help young people protect themselves, some steps that experts often recommend include:

– Think before you click. Avoid clicking on links from unknown sources, especially if they promise prizes or seem urgent.

– Verify sources. Check if a website or message is genuine before sharing any personal information.

– Protect personal data. Be cautious about sharing personal details online.

– Use security features. Enable two-factor authentication and use strong passwords.

– Recognise red flags. Poor spelling, urgent demands, and ‘too good to be true’ offers are common signs of a scam.

Government Action and Industry Responsibility

With online scams becoming more sophisticated, particularly with advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), there is growing concern that fraudsters will find it even easier to deceive young people. The study found that 32 per cent of young people worry that AI will make scams harder to spot.

Will The Online Safety Act Help?

The UK government has taken some steps to combat the rise in online fraud. For example, from next month, the Online Safety Act will require tech companies to take proactive measures to remove illegal content, including scams. As Tech Minister Baroness Jones says: “The normalisation of scams online is a shocking trend. Fraudsters are clearly targeting vulnerable young people who should be able to connect with friends and family without being subject to a barrage of scams.”

Technology companies also have a responsibility under the Act to ensure their platforms do not provide a hiding place for fraudsters. Scam job offers are a growing issue, with fraudsters impersonating TikTok employees and offering fake roles that promise high earnings in exchange for engaging with content.

The Importance of Intergenerational Learning

The study, which was focused on children in Wales, also highlighted the value of intergenerational learning when it comes to online scams. It seems that young people are not just learning from parents and carers but are also educating them. For example, a significant 40 per cent of parents admitted that their child had taught them how to spot scams. This exchange of knowledge may be crucial in strengthening online safety for all age groups.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The findings of this study paint a pretty stark picture of the digital landscape for young people, where online scams are no longer an occasional nuisance but a persistent and deeply embedded threat. With nearly half of young internet users having fallen victim to fraud, and a substantial proportion experiencing distress as a result, it’s clear that online safety must be given greater priority.

Much of the public discourse around scams tends to focus on older people being the primary victims, with news reports frequently highlighting cases of pensioners losing their life savings to fraudsters. While these concerns are entirely valid, this research sheds light on an overlooked reality, i.e. young people are also being targeted and, in many cases, successfully deceived. Their relative inexperience, combined with the digital environments they frequent (particularly social media and gaming platforms) make them attractive targets for scammers. This should serve as a wake-up call that online fraud is not just an issue for the elderly but one that affects all age groups.

Beyond the personal impact on victims, the prevalence of scams among young people may also carry wider implications for UK businesses. As the next generation of digital consumers, young people are forming habits and attitudes towards online transactions that could shape the future of e-commerce. If scams continue to erode trust in online platforms, businesses (particularly those reliant on digital sales) could face challenges in attracting and retaining younger customers. Companies that fail to create secure and transparent online experiences may find themselves losing out to competitors that prioritise fraud prevention and user safety. Also, with AI making scams more sophisticated, businesses will need to stay ahead by investing in stronger verification processes and customer education initiatives to protect their brand reputation.

It’s been reported that international law firm Hill Dickinson has introduced new restrictions on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools following a sharp increase in staff engagement with the technology.

What Happened?

The development was first reported by the BBC after it allegedly obtained an internal email from Hill Dickinson’s senior management. The email reportedly revealed that the firm had identified a “significant increase in usage” of AI tools by employees, prompting a review of its policies and subsequent restrictions on access. It seems that the move may have been prompted by growing industry concerns over data security, compliance, and the ethical implications of AI in legal work.

The Email

According to reports about the data cited in the email, in just one week between January and February 2024, Hill Dickinson staff recorded over 32,000 interactions with the AI chatbot ChatGPT, 3,000 with the Chinese AI service DeepSeek, and nearly 50,000 with the writing assistance tool Grammarly. While these figures may illustrate widespread engagement, they don’t clarify how many individuals were actually using the tools or how frequently they returned, as each use could generate multiple interactions.

Limited General Access To The Tools

In response, it’s been reported that the firm has now limited general access to such tools, introducing a request-based approval system to monitor and regulate AI usage more closely. It seems that the internal communication may have highlighted that much of the AI use may not have been in line with the firm’s AI policy, thereby perhaps necessitating stricter oversight.

Why Impose These Restrictions?

It seems that the firm’s AI policy (implemented back in September 2024) actually prohibits employees from uploading client information to AI platforms and requires them to verify the accuracy of AI-generated content. The recent spike in AI engagement may have, therefore, raised concerns that these guidelines were not being strictly followed, potentially exposing the firm to regulatory and security risks.

A spokesperson for Hill Dickinson has been quoted clarifying its stance, stating: “Like many law firms, we are aiming to positively embrace the use of AI tools to enhance our capabilities while always ensuring safe and proper use by our people and for our clients.”

Not An Outright Ban

The firm maintains that it is not banning AI outright but ensuring its application is controlled and compliant. It has already received and approved some individual AI usage requests under the new system.

Broader Industry Implications

The legal profession does appear to be facing a bit of an increasing dilemma over AI adoption. For example, while AI has the potential to streamline tasks such as legal research, contract analysis, and document drafting, it also presents risks related to data security, accuracy, and ethical considerations.

Enter The ICO

Now the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has weighed in on the debate, warning against excessive restrictions. A spokesperson for the ICO stated: “With AI offering people countless ways to work more efficiently and effectively, the answer cannot be for organisations to outlaw the use of AI and drive staff to use it under the radar. Instead, companies need to offer their staff AI tools that meet their organisational policies and data protection obligations.”

AI Can Help, But Needs Oversight

The Law Society of England and Wales has emphasised its view that AI has potential benefits, with its chief executive, Ian Jeffery, saying: “AI could improve the way we do things a great deal.” However, he also stressed that AI tools require human oversight and that legal professionals must adapt to their responsible use.

Concerns About A Lack of Expertise

Meanwhile, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has expressed concerns about an apparent general lack of digital expertise in the legal sector. For example, a spokesperson was recently quoted as warning that “despite this increased interest in new technology, there remains a lack of digital skills across all sectors in the UK. This could present a risk for firms and consumers if legal practitioners do not fully understand the new technology that is implemented.”

This highlights a broader challenge for the legal industry, i.e. embracing AI innovation while ensuring legal professionals are adequately trained and aware of the risks.

Mixed Reactions

Reports of Hill Dickinson’s approach have drawn mixed reactions. Some industry figures argue that overly strict AI regulations could stifle innovation and slow the adoption of technologies that could make legal work more efficient.

Others point out that firms must proceed with caution, particularly regarding data privacy and regulatory compliance. High-profile cases of data breaches linked to AI use have reinforced concerns about inadvertently exposing confidential client information to external platforms.

Not An Isolated Case

It should be noted here that the reported move by Hill Dickinson is certainly not an isolated case. For example, other major corporations (including Samsung, Accenture, and Amazon) have also implemented restrictions on AI tools over concerns about data security and the potential for AI-generated content to be unreliable or misleading.

The Legal Sector Needs To Find A Balance

AI’s increasing presence in the legal world is undeniable, and firms may now be tasked with finding the right balance between harnessing its benefits and mitigating its risks. Hill Dickinson’s decision highlights a broader industry trend of cautious AI integration, ensuring that its use remains secure, ethical, and compliant with professional standards.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The reported move by Hill Dickinson to restrict general AI access highlights a growing tension within the legal sector between technological advancement and regulatory caution. AI undoubtedly holds transformative potential, offering efficiencies in legal research, contract analysis, and document drafting. However, its use comes with inherent risks, particularly in an industry where confidentiality, accuracy, and compliance are paramount.

The firm’s reported decision to implement a request-based approval system reflects an industry-wide concern about data security, regulatory obligations, and ethical considerations. While this is not an outright ban, it does indicate that unregulated AI usage in professional settings remains a real concern. It seems that the spike in AI interactions may have signalled that existing policies were not being strictly adhered to, thereby prompting a need for greater oversight. Such caution is understandable, given the possible risks associated with AI-generated inaccuracies or inadvertent data leaks.

At the same time, broader industry voices, including the ICO and the Law Society, have warned against overly restrictive measures that could stifle innovation. Their position suggests that rather than banning AI, firms should focus on implementing clear, structured policies that allow for responsible usage while maintaining compliance with legal and data protection standards. The Solicitors Regulation Authority’s concerns about a lack of digital expertise in the sector further highlight that law firms must not only regulate AI usage but also ensure that legal professionals are adequately trained in its application.

Hill Dickinson’s approach is not just a legal sector issue and, in fact, it has far-reaching implications for businesses of all sizes across the UK. Many large corporations, such as Samsung and Amazon, have already imposed AI restrictions, reflecting wider concerns about security, compliance, and the reliability of AI-generated content. However, for smaller businesses that lack dedicated legal or IT departments, these challenges could be even more pressing. Without clear guidance or internal expertise, SMEs risk either underutilising AI and missing out on its benefits or adopting it without proper safeguards, exposing themselves to potential legal and reputational risks.

This highlights the need for a balanced, industry-wide approach to AI governance. Government agencies and industry bodies may need to step in to provide clearer guidance. Hill Dickinson’s move is far from isolated, as many large corporations have taken similar steps to control AI’s integration into their workflows.

According to TechCrunch, it’s alleged that Italian spyware maker SIO has been distributing malicious Android apps designed to masquerade as WhatsApp and other widely used applications while covertly harvesting sensitive data from targeted devices.

The spyware, dubbed ‘Spyrtacus,’ has been operating undetected for years, raising fresh concerns about government-backed surveillance tools and the extent of their reach.

It’s been reported that the discovery was triggered late last year when a security researcher provided TechCrunch with three suspicious Android apps, believed to be government spyware used in Italy. Following independent analyses by Google and mobile security firm Lookout, it was confirmed that these apps contained spyware designed to infiltrate users’ devices. Spyrtacus has been found capable of stealing text messages, social media chats, and contact details, recording calls and ambient audio, and even taking images via a device’s cameras.

SIO, the company behind the spyware, is an Italian firm that sells surveillance tools to the Italian government. Lookout has reported that Spyrtacus samples were found to be embedded within apps mimicking popular services, including those belonging to Italian mobile providers TIM, Vodafone, and WINDTRE. It’s alleged that these fraudulent applications were distributed through malicious websites disguised as official sources. While Google confirmed that no versions of this malware exist on its Play Store, a 2024 report by Kaspersky suggests that earlier versions were available there in 2018 before moving to independent distribution channels.

The spyware appears to have been used in a highly targeted campaign, but the identities of those affected remain unclear. Given that the apps and distribution sites were in Italian, security analysts believe that law enforcement agencies in Italy were the likely operators of the campaign. The scandal comes amid separate allegations that Israeli spyware firm Paragon provided sophisticated surveillance tools used against journalists and NGO founders in Italy.

Kristina Balaam, a researcher at Lookout, revealed that 13 distinct Spyrtacus samples had been identified, with the earliest dating back to 2019 and the most recent traced to October 2024. The continued presence of these samples across multiple years highlights the persistence of state-sponsored spyware and its evolving distribution methods. Also, Kaspersky researchers report finding indications of a Windows version of Spyrtacus and possible variants for iOS and macOS, suggesting a broader cross-platform surveillance effort.

Despite multiple requests for comment, neither SIO nor its senior executives, including CEO Elio Cattaneo, CFO Claudio Pezzano, and CTO Alberto Fabbri, have responded to the allegations. Also, the Italian government and Ministry of Justice have remained silent on the issue, leaving major questions unanswered about the scope and legality of such surveillance operations. The case adds to growing concerns about the global spyware industry and the blurred lines between national security and invasive digital espionage.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The allegations against SIO and its Spyrtacus spyware highlight growing concerns over state-backed surveillance and the ethical boundaries of digital espionage. While governments often justify such tools for security purposes, the secrecy surrounding their use raises serious questions. The knowledge of the deployment of spyware disguised as legitimate apps undermines public trust and exposes broader cybersecurity risks.

For UK businesses, this case is a reminder of the dangers posed by sophisticated malware. While not direct targets, organisations handling sensitive data must remain vigilant against similar threats. The methods used, i.e. malicious websites and fake applications, demonstrate vulnerabilities that cybercriminals could exploit.

More widely, this case reflects the unchecked expansion of the spyware industry. With no accountability from SIO or the Italian government, concerns grow over how such tools can be used without oversight. Stronger international regulations are needed to balance security with the protection of civil liberties, or the lines between lawful surveillance and invasive digital monitoring will only continue to blur.

Cyber criminals are exploiting trusted services like Microsoft, Google, and DocuSign to deliver malware and phishing attacks.

Known as Living off Trusted Services (LOTS), this tactic allows them to evade detection by leveraging widely used platforms.

Mimecast’s H2 2024 Global Threat Intelligence Report flagged LOTS attacks as a growing concern, with over 5 billion threats detected. Attackers use CAPTCHAs to block security scans and host malicious payloads on cloud platforms.

By infiltrating third-party providers, cyber criminals gain deep access to networks, making detection difficult. Traditional security measures based on domain reputation and authentication often fail.

To defend against LOTS attacks, businesses should implement AI-driven threat detection, Zero Trust policies, enhanced email security, and user training to mitigate risks and prevent exploitation of trusted services.