Case Studies

Meta Platforms has prevailed in a major US antitrust case after a federal judge rejected government efforts to force the company to divest Instagram and WhatsApp, ruling that Meta does not hold a monopoly in social media.

The decision marks the first clear win for Big Tech since US antitrust scrutiny intensified during Donald Trump’s presidency, and represents a major blow to the Federal Trade Commission, which is also pursuing a high-profile monopoly case against Amazon. The FTC had sought to compel Meta to restructure or sell Instagram and WhatsApp, arguing the multibillion-dollar purchases were designed to neutralise emerging rivals.

Following the ruling, Meta’s shares trimmed earlier losses and were down just 0.3% at $599.95 in late afternoon trading. “Our products are beneficial for people and businesses and exemplify American innovation,” a Meta spokesperson said, adding that the company would continue to work with the U.S. administration.

The FTC expressed disappointment, with spokesperson Joe Simonson stating the agency was “reviewing all our options.”

Facebook acquired Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014. Although the FTC did not challenge the deals at the time, it sued in 2020, claiming the company—then known as Facebook -- held a monopoly over platforms used for sharing content among friends and family. It argued Meta’s closest competitors were Snapchat and smaller app MeWe, distinguishing them from platforms such as X, TikTok, YouTube and Reddit, where users broadcast to wider audiences.

During an April trial, the FTC cited internal comments including a 2008 email in which CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote that “it is better to buy than compete.” Meta countered that the agency had ignored strong competitive pressure from TikTok, YouTube and Apple’s messaging ecosystem, and defended acquisitions as a legitimate business strategy.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg sided largely with Meta, finding the FTC had defined the market too narrowly and failed to account for major shifts in social media usage. He noted evidence showing users frequently switch between TikTok, YouTube and Meta’s platforms, especially during service outages. TikTok, he said, posed such a threat that Meta invested $4 billion last year in developing Reels.

Boasberg ruled that excluding TikTok from the FTC’s market definition weakened the case to the point of collapse. “Even if YouTube is out, including TikTok alone defeats the FTC’s case,” he said.

The FTC criticised the ruling, pointing out that Boasberg is currently facing calls for impeachment -- an effort backed by some Republican lawmakers after criticism from former President Trump.

The Meta case forms part of a wider US crackdown on Big Tech, including Department of Justice actions against Google and a separate case against Apple.

If you’ve heard that your boss is giving preference to employees with families when scheduling leave -- especially during school holiday periods -- you may wonder whether that is legally allowed in the UAE. The short answer is: yes, to an extent. But there are important legal limits and protections. Let’s unpack what the UAE labour law says, what rights employees have, and what you can do.

What Does UAE Law Say About Annual Leave?

1. Minimum Annual Leave Entitlement
   
   Under Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 (the UAE Employment Law), an employee working in the private sector is entitled to at least 30 calendar days of paid annual leave once they have completed one year of service.
   
   Employer’s Right to Fix Leave Dates
   
   The same law grants employers the flexibility to decide when employees take their annual leave. According to Article 29(4): the employer may fix leave dates “in accordance with work requirements,” in agreement with the employee, or by rotating leave among staff to ensure the business runs smoothly.
   • Importantly, the employer must notify the employee of the leave dates at least one month in advance.
   • If business needs demand it, an employer can postpone or shift when people take leave -- but within the boundaries of legal protections.
      
2. Carry-Over or Encashment of Unused Leave
    
   • Employees may carry forward a portion of their unused annual leave, but only up to 50% of the entitlement, based on Cabinet Resolution No. 1 of 2022.
   • Alternatively, an employee and employer may agree that the employee receives a cash allowance in lieu of that carried-over leave.
   • There’s another important rule: the employer cannot prevent an employee from using their accrued leave for more than two years, unless the employee agrees to carry it forward or take cash instead. This is under Article 29(8).
   • On termination, any unused annual leave must be paid out based on the employee’s basic salary.
      

So, Is It Legal for Employers to Give Priority to Employees with Families?
 

Yes -- with limitations. Because the employer has the legal right to fix annual leave dates (Article 29(4)), they can take into account “work requirements,” which often include higher leave demand during school holiday periods. In practice, this means they can give preference to employees who are more likely to want leave during those dates (for example, those with children on school break), provided they do so in a way that respects their legal obligations:

• They must notify leave dates at least one month in advance. They must ensure that each employee is able to take their full leave entitlement, or at least allow carry-over (up to the legal limit).
• They cannot indefinitely withhold leave beyond two years without either letting you take it, or offering cash in lieu (if agreed).
   

What Can You Do as an Employee If You’re Affected?
 

If you feel you are being unfairly denied leave or squeezed out because of “preference” to others:
 

1. Have a Conversation
   
   Try to speak with your manager or HR. Explain your need (for instance, you planned to travel home). Because the law requires mutual agreement (where possible) for leave dates, there is room to negotiate.
    
2. Refer to Company Policy
   
   Check your company’s internal policy or HR handbook. Many companies lay out their leave-approval process and rotation policy more explicitly, and these may be more favorable than the legal minimum.
    
3. Know Your Rights for Deferred Leave
   
   If you can’t take your leave when you want, you may carry forward up to 50%, or agree to take cash in lieu (depending on your employer) -- as per Cabinet Resolution No. 1 of 2022.
    
4. Seek Legal Advice or File a Complaint
   
   If you believe your employer is violating the law (for example, by not granting your leave for over two years without offering cash or carry-over), you can approach:
   • Your company’s HR or legal team; or
   • MoHRE (Ministry of Human Resources & Emiratisation), which enforces labour law in the UAE.
      

Why Such a Policy (“Priority to Families”) Is Not Automatically Illegal
 

• Business needs justify it: Many businesses experience high leave demand during peak holiday times (e.g., school breaks), so they plan leave schedules accordingly.
• Law already anticipates this: Article 29 explicitly gives the employer discretion to “rotate leaves” or schedule based on work needs.
  Protection exists: The law isn’t one-sided -- employees also have enforceable rights (monthly notice, carry-over, payment for unused leave, etc.).
   

Conclusion: Legally Permissible but Not Unbounded
 

• Prioritising leave for families is not inherently illegal under current UAE law -- employers have the discretion to set leave dates in line with business needs.
• However, there are important legal guardrails: automatic long-term postponement, ignoring leave entitlements, or failing to inform employees in time, may constitute a breach of the law.
• If you feel your leave request is being unfairly denied, use the law to support your discussion with your employer -- and, if needed, escalate through HR or regulatory channels.

Dubai’s real-estate landscape is being systematically reshaped by the Dubai Land Department’s (DLD) strategic shift towards a data-driven and intelligence-based regulatory framework. What began as an effort to streamline property transactions has evolved into a comprehensive strategy to redefine how an entire market functions. Platforms such as STRATGlobal, Smart Valuation, and Dubai REST have enabled DLD to integrate automation, blockchain, and AI directly into its regulatory processes, turning conventional documentation into verifiable and traceable systems.

In 2020 alone, more than 1.4 million digital services were processed through its smart channels, reflecting not only technological adoption but a reimagining of how government institutions can build efficiency and trust. This transformation, however, did not occur overnight. It represents a carefully structured evolution of policy, technology, and institutional foresight -- one that continues to reshape the way property governance operates in Dubai today.

Evolution of the DLD’s Digital Framework

The transformation of the Dubai Land Department (DLD) has been a deliberate process, closely aligned with Dubai’s broader ambition to establish a data-driven government and a globally competitive real-estate market. When the Smart Dubai initiative was launched in 2014, DLD was among the first entities to operationalise this digital vision. Its initial projects, notably Dubai REST, consolidated property-related data into a single accessible platform, allowing investors, tenants, and owners to verify ownership, track service charges, and manage contracts in real time.

This was followed by a landmark partnership with the Dubai Future Foundation to integrate blockchain technology into title registration -- making Dubai the first jurisdiction globally to record property transactions on an immutable digital ledger. By the end of 2020, DLD had processed over 1.4 million smart transactions, signalling both operational maturity and public confidence in its digital infrastructure.

Having established the foundations for digital governance, DLD has progressively shifted from process automation to policy intelligence. Under its STRATGlobal framework and the Dubai Real Estate Sector Strategy 2033, the department now employs predictive analytics, AI-driven valuation, and automated compliance systems to monitor and manage market behaviour with precision. These tools convert data into actionable policy, allowing DLD to anticipate market fluctuations, regulate more efficiently, and sustain investor confidence in an increasingly complex property environment.

In essence, DLD’s evolution demonstrates how regulation can mature into foresight -- transforming a supervisory authority into a dynamic intelligence hub that shapes both market conduct and the global perception of Dubai’s real-estate ecosystem.

Empowering Stakeholders: Digital Transformation and Market Efficiency

The institutional sophistication of DLD’s digital framework has had tangible repercussions across the market. The integration of blockchain, predictive analytics, and artificial intelligence has not only modernised internal operations but also redefined how stakeholders engage with Dubai’s property ecosystem.

For buyers, the introduction of smart digital platforms such as Dubai REST and Smart Valuation has bridged a long-standing trust gap. Investors can now verify ownership, review property histories, and obtain fair value assessments in real time. This shift from opaque documentation to transparent data has empowered buyers to make informed, evidence-based decisions and has aligned the market more closely with international due-diligence standards.

Sellers and landlords have benefited from faster, more efficient processes. Title registration, leasing, and property transfers that once required several physical visits can now be completed through a single authenticated digital interface. This has not only reduced administrative friction but also expanded accessibility -- allowing owners to transact from anywhere in the world, thereby enhancing liquidity and cross-border investment.

For developers, DLD’s platforms such as STRAT Global have become indispensable strategic tools. Real-time market analytics enable them to assess demand cycles, tailor project delivery, and manage pricing more effectively. Predictive data modelling is reducing overbuilding risks and aligning new developments with the city’s sustainability and diversification goals under Dubai Vision 2033.

From a regulatory standpoint, the integration of blockchain and AI has strengthened the integrity of property documentation. The immutability of records and automated verification systems have curtailed fraud, mitigated ownership disputes, and reinforced investor confidence. These frameworks not only protect stakeholders but elevate Dubai’s position as one of the most transparent real-estate markets globally.

In sum, DLD’s digital transformation has converted a once paper-heavy sector into an intelligent, seamless marketplace -- one where every transaction is traceable, efficient, and trusted.

Conclusion

Dubai’s approach to real-estate regulation reflects a paradigm shift from reactive oversight to predictive governance. The Dubai Land Department’s success lies in its ability to merge innovation with institutional discipline, using technology not as an accessory but as the foundation of regulatory credibility. By embedding transparency into every transaction and data point, DLD has set a global precedent for how real-estate authorities can evolve into smart regulators of the future.

As markets worldwide grapple with data privacy, regulatory lag, and investor protection, Dubai’s model demonstrates that effective governance need not compromise innovation. Instead, it can harness technology to safeguard stability, enhance trust, and shape a market that grows with intelligence, not speculation.

Through its strategic foresight and technological resolve, DLD has not merely digitised property regulation -- it has redefined the very architecture of trust in real estate.

Legal artificial intelligence company Clio has raised $500 million in a funding round led by New Enterprise Associates (NEA), valuing the company at $5 billion. The investment reflects the growing appetite for AI-driven tools that automate professional and administrative tasks, helping firms cut costs and improve efficiency.

The latest funding round also saw participation from existing investors including TCV, Goldman Sachs Asset Management, Sixth Street Growth and JMI Equity. In addition, Clio secured a $350 million debt facility led by Blackstone and funds managed by Blue Owl Capital.

Founded in 2008 by Jack Newton and Rian Gauvreau, Clio offers cloud-based tools that help legal professionals manage cases, research, and workflows. The platform now serves firms in more than 130 countries, catering to practices of all sizes.

Clio said the new capital will support the development of its AI products and fund strategic acquisitions to expand its global reach. The announcement follows last year’s $900 million fundraising, which valued the company at $3 billion, and its $1 billion acquisition of the global legal research platform vLex.

The move highlights how venture capital firms are ramping up investment in AI technologies designed to transform traditional industries such as law.

Employees in the UAE suffering from depression or other mental health disorders are entitled to take sick leave, provided the condition is certified by a licensed medical practitioner. The UAE’s employment laws recognise mental health conditions as legitimate medical grounds for leave, granting workers the same rights and protections afforded to those with physical illnesses.

Under the Federal Decree Law No. 33 of 2021 on the Regulation of Employment Relations, any employee who falls ill -- whether physically or mentally -- must inform their employer or the employer’s representative within three working days of the onset of illness. They must also provide a medical report issued by a recognised medical entity confirming the diagnosis.

After completing the probation period, an employee is entitled to up to 90 days of sick leave per year, which may be taken continuously or intermittently. The leave is calculated as follows: the first 15 days are on full pay, the next 30 days on half pay, and the remaining period, if any, is unpaid.

The law does not restrict the definition of “illness” to physical conditions. Therefore, if an employee is diagnosed with a mental health disorder such as clinical depression, anxiety, or burnout by an approved medical professional, the diagnosis qualifies as a legitimate medical condition entitling them to sick leave. This interpretation aligns with the UAE’s broader legal approach that recognises psychological wellbeing as an essential component of overall health.

The country’s legal framework has been evolving to give greater recognition to mental health issues in the workplace. Recent developments in federal laws on mental health emphasise the need to safeguard the rights and dignity of individuals undergoing psychological treatment. Employers are thus expected to treat certified cases of depression or mental illness with the same seriousness as any other medical condition, allowing the employee adequate time to recover.

Employees seeking sick leave for mental health reasons should ensure they submit proper medical documentation from a licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, or hospital in the UAE. They are also required to comply with the three-day reporting rule. Employers, in turn, are obliged to process such requests according to the provisions of the Employment Law, without discrimination or stigma.

If an employer refuses to grant sick leave despite valid medical documentation, the employee has the right to file a complaint with the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation (MoHRE). The ministry can intervene to ensure compliance with labour regulations and protect the worker’s entitlements.

Two separate judgments in Al Ain have reinforced that parents can be held legally and financially accountable for their children’s bullying and violent behaviour at school. The Al Ain Court for Civil, Commercial and Administrative Claims ordered guardians to pay a total of Dh65,000 in compensation to victims injured in two separate incidents involving minors.

In the first case, the court directed a father to pay Dh30,000 after his two sons repeatedly bullied, assaulted, and filmed a classmate. The sustained abuse caused the victim significant emotional distress, including fear and mood disturbances. The minors had already been convicted in a related criminal case confirming the assault and the resulting physical and psychological harm.

In a separate incident, several guardians were ordered to jointly pay Dh35,000 after their children attacked a student with sharp tools, leaving the victim with multiple injuries. The court found the guardians negligent in supervision and held them responsible for the damages.

The rulings were based on Article 313 of the UAE Civil Transactions Law, which makes guardians liable for harm caused by minors under their care if proper supervision is lacking. The court stressed that this responsibility extends beyond the household — to schools and other public environments where children’s behaviour can cause harm.

A Sharjah woman has lost her attempt to secure a divorce on grounds of harm after alleging that her husband verbally abused her and sent insulting messages on WhatsApp.

Court documents revealed that the woman told the Sharjah Personal Status Court her marriage began harmoniously but later deteriorated due to repeated disputes and verbal abuse. She claimed her husband stopped providing financial support for her and their child and used offensive language both in person and over messaging apps.

To support her claims, she submitted screenshots of WhatsApp messages, saying the relationship had become intolerable. She sought a divorce, alimony, and financial support for housing, domestic help, and her child’s schooling and transport.

However, the court of first instance rejected her divorce petition, finding that the evidence was insufficient to establish harm. It nonetheless ordered the husband to pay Dh1,000 per month toward the child’s living, clothing, housing, and medical expenses, as well as Dh500 monthly for transport and school fees.

The woman appealed, arguing that the digital messages were enough proof of her suffering. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, ruling that electronic correspondence alone could not be treated as conclusive evidence without corroborating testimony or official documentation.

The court noted that occasional arguments and verbal insults between spouses do not amount to the kind of severe harm that warrants divorce, particularly where children are involved.

“Separation between spouses is granted only when the harm is proven to be real and substantial, making marital life impossible to continue,” the judgment said.

The ruling upheld the lower court’s verdict, maintaining custody arrangements and child support payments while denying the wife’s request for divorce and other financial claims.

Three Arab nationals have been sentenced in Abu Dhabi for running a real estate scam that defrauded a couple of Dh800,000 through a bogus property financing company.

The victims were drawn in by a Facebook advertisement promoting an alleged real estate finance firm. After the wife contacted the number listed, she was introduced to a man posing as the company’s sales manager. Following several meetings, the couple were persuaded to buy a villa supposedly developed by a well-known property group.

To lend credibility to the deal, the scammers produced forged commercial licences, counterfeit sales agreements, and a fake contract bearing the name of a government body.

Believing the transaction to be genuine, the husband transferred Dh800,000 as a down payment. The fraudsters soon disappeared, prompting the couple to report the matter to police. Following investigations, the suspects were arrested and charged with fraud and forgery.

The Abu Dhabi Criminal Court sentenced each defendant to six months in prison, ordered them to return the defrauded amount, confiscated the forged documents, and directed their deportation after completing their sentences.

The victims later filed a civil lawsuit seeking recovery of their money and compensation for damages. The Civil Court upheld the criminal court’s findings, confirming the defendants’ guilt and their liability for both financial and emotional harm.

In its ruling, the court noted that the couple suffered financial disruption and distress from the fraudulent deal. It ordered the trio to jointly pay Dh900,000 -- including Dh800,000 in restitution and Dh100,000 in compensation -- with a 5 per cent legal interest from the date of the claim until full payment.

An Asian businessman has been convicted in the UAE for defrauding a man by falsely promising to arrange a golden residency visa in exchange for Dh6,000.

Court records show that the victim transferred Dh6,000 to the defendant’s company account after being assured that the visa would be processed through official channels. When no progress was made, he realised he had been deceived.

Upon confrontation, the fraudster returned only Dh1,500 and refused to repay the remaining Dh4,500, prompting the victim to file a police complaint.

The Public Prosecution charged the businessman with fraud, and the Misdemeanour Court initially sentenced him in absentia to one month in jail, fined him Dh6,000, and ordered his deportation.

After the victim withdrew the complaint following an out-of-court settlement, the defendant appealed. The court later cancelled the deportation order and suspended the prison term, upholding only the fine.

A Dubai court has ordered an Arab national to return Dh1.55 million to an Asian investor and his wife, who were defrauded in a cryptocurrency investment scam, reaffirming the judiciary’s firm stance against financial deception and unregulated digital schemes.

According to court documents, the accused persuaded the couple to invest in a cryptocurrency deal, promising lucrative returns. Convinced by the proposal, the victims handed over Dh1.5 million at the fraudster’s office to purchase 400,000 units of digital currency.

The man assured them that the coins would be transferred to the investor’s electronic wallet. However, no transfer occurred. When questioned about the delay, he gave evasive excuses and eventually stopped responding.

The couple reported the incident to the police. Investigations confirmed that the accused had received the money but failed to carry out the cryptocurrency purchase. He was prosecuted for fraudulent appropriation of funds and fined Dh10,000. While the criminal court addressed the element of intent, it did not cover the civil recovery of funds.

The case later reached the Civil, Commercial, and Administrative Court, where the investor sought repayment of Dh1.5 million along with Dh100,000 in damages for financial losses, missed investment opportunities, and legal expenses.

The defence argued that the civil case should be suspended pending appeal, claiming the accused did not misappropriate the funds and referencing his earlier acquittal.

However, the court ruled in favour of the couple, finding that the accused had indeed received the money for purchasing cryptocurrency but failed to fulfil the transaction. Judges clarified that the criminal acquittal negated intent, not the receipt of funds.
 

The court held that transferring the money to another party without completing the purchase constituted unjust enrichment under Article 318 of the UAE Civil Transactions Law, which mandates restitution of funds taken without legitimate cause.
 

In addition to ordering repayment of Dh1.5 million, the court awarded Dh50,000 in compensation for material and moral damages, bringing the total to Dh1.55 million.
 

Legal experts cautioned that the ruling serves as a reminder for investors to verify digital investment opportunities and report suspected fraud promptly to avoid similar losses.