Technology

Qatar’s Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is set to launch a new website for the Official Gazette and the Al Meezan Legal Portal on Sunday, introducing what it describes as the country’s first comprehensive, artificial intelligence-powered national legal knowledge system.

The platform will provide legal information in Arabic and English, with enhanced search and categorisation features designed to make legislation easier to find, access and understand. The ministry emphasised, however, that AI-generated information is indicative and does not replace official legal texts, which remain the sole authoritative reference.

The portal will also promote transparency and public participation in the legislative process. Developed in coordination with the General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers, it will allow visitors, including legal professionals and other specialists, to comment on draft legislation open for public consultation and submit recommendations. The initiative aims to support the development of laws that respond to changing social and economic needs.

The ministry said the platform would also contribute to improving Qatar’s business and investment environment by making reliable legal information more accessible to domestic and international investors. Easier access to clear legal guidance is expected to reduce the time and effort required to navigate the country’s legal framework, strengthen investor confidence and enhance Qatar’s appeal as an investment destination.

The project brings together several government institutions, including the Ministry of Justice, the Supreme Judicial Council, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, the National Planning Council, the Civil Service and Government Development Bureau, and the General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers.

The launch forms part of the Ministry of Justice’s Strategic Plan for 2025-2030 and supports Qatar’s broader digital transformation agenda under Qatar National Vision 2030.

Lawyers at leading artificial intelligence companies warned on Thursday that malicious actors could exploit the capabilities of open-source AI models, raising concerns about cybersecurity threats and the need for stronger safeguards.

Alex Iftimie, deputy general counsel at OpenAI, said the potential use of open-source models by ransomware groups, hostile nation-state actors and intelligence services was an urgent concern.

“That is a problem that will manifest in serious ways, likely over the next few months,” he said at an American Bar Association conference on national security law in Washington, DC.

Will Hudson, associate general counsel at Anthropic PBC, said the open-source nature of AI models made it significantly easier to remove their safeguards. If models without such protections were available to anyone, cyber-defenders should also have access to the most capable systems, he added.

“Certainly cyber-defenders should have access to the most capable models,” Hudson said.

The discussion comes as AI has assumed a prominent role in Washington, with the US midterm election season under way and government leaders grappling with how best to regulate and manage the technology.

Concerns about the potential threat AI poses to humanity intensified last month after an Anthropic researcher resigned, warning that Anthropic and OpenAI “are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives”.

Several executives who met US President Donald Trump last week pledged to introduce “robust internal controls” to monitor AI models during training and deployment.

Phil Carter, senior counsel at Alphabet Inc.'s Google, said at Thursday's conference that the government needed to invest in the infrastructure required to identify and address vulnerabilities in open-source systems.

“Without that, I think there’s just enormous latent vulnerability in the global information system,” he said.

Carter also called on Congress to develop a single, large appropriations measure to “supercharge the research enterprise” in the US.

Hudson said the largest AI laboratories should be required to test their systems for “catastrophic risk”. They should publish the results, he said, with an independent evaluator subsequently assessing their findings.

Hamdan Bin Mohammed Smart University (HBMSU) and the Supreme Legislation Committee in the Emirate of Dubai (SLC) have signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to strengthen cooperation in legal and institutional affairs, knowledge management and the development of national talent.

The agreement was signed by Mansoor Al Awar, Chancellor of HBMSU, and Ahmad Saeed bin Meshar Al Muhairi, Secretary-General of SLC, during a ceremony at the university’s Dubai campus.

The MoU establishes a framework for cooperation in developing the legislative process, supporting the effective implementation of legislation, conducting legal research and studies, and exchanging expertise, knowledge and publications.

The partnership will also facilitate joint training programmes, conferences, seminars and workshops, as well as development projects and initiatives of mutual interest. It will encourage collaboration in research, knowledge production and the sharing of expertise in legal and legislative fields.

Al Awar said the partnership reflects Dubai’s vision of developing a proactive and agile legislative ecosystem driven by knowledge, innovation and advanced technologies, while enhancing the future readiness of national talent.

He said combining SLC’s legal and institutional expertise with HBMSU’s experience in smart learning and innovation would create opportunities to strengthen professional capabilities and promote knowledge exchange across the legal and legislative sectors.

The partnership will also explore the use of artificial intelligence and other advanced technologies in learning, training and legislative knowledge management, Al Awar said.

Al Muhairi said the MoU provides a framework for bringing together institutional expertise and supporting the continued development of Dubai’s legislative system, with a focus on agility, inclusiveness, future readiness and legislative compliance.

He said the cooperation would extend to research and studies, training programmes, development projects and knowledge initiatives, creating opportunities for innovative projects and platforms to support the academic and professional development of legal practitioners.

Under the agreement, SLC employees will also be able to benefit from HBMSU’s academic programmes, professional development offerings and lifelong learning opportunities tailored to their professional requirements.

The partnership is intended to turn institutional cooperation into practical initiatives that support human capital development, innovation and knowledge management across Dubai’s legal and legislative sector.

Florida has asked a state judge to order changes to Instagram and Facebook to better protect young users, pressing ahead with a lawsuit accusing Meta Platforms of harming teenagers after most states resolved similar claims through a sweeping settlement.

In a filing in a Pasco County court on Wednesday, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier asked for a temporary injunction requiring Meta to identify and remove users under the age of 14 from the platforms in the state, limit teenagers to two hours a day across its apps and disable features such as autoplay and infinite scrolling for them.

The filing seeks to have the changes implemented immediately and remain in place while the lawsuit proceeds.

A Meta spokesperson said that, following the company’s settlement with nearly every other state, Florida should focus on persuading other platforms to take action.

“The attorney general should be using taxpayer resources to get YouTube and TikTok to empower parents and protect teens in Florida. We regret that he has chosen instead to pursue a meritless preliminary injunction years into the litigation,” the spokesperson said.

Florida’s lawsuit against Meta, which accuses the company of knowingly designing its platforms to be addictive for young users and misleading consumers about their safety, was one of dozens of similar lawsuits filed by states across the country.

In August, Meta reached settlements with 48 other states and Washington, DC, agreeing to pay up to $18 billion and make changes to the way teenagers use its platforms.

Meta has said it works hard to keep teenagers safe on its platforms and denied wrongdoing in agreeing to settle. The total payout represents about three to four months of profit and roughly one month of revenue for the company.Uthmeier, a Republican, chose not to join the settlement and instead continued with Florida’s lawsuit.

Florida said in the filing that the settlement amounted to a “mere slap on the wrist” that would be viewed cynically as the cost of doing business and, in any event, would not prevent similar conduct in the future.

The measures sought by Uthmeier are more stringent than those Meta agreed to as part of the settlement. They would cut off teenagers’ access to messaging once their daily time limits are reached and prevent the company from showing them advertisements.

Uthmeier’s office argued that the changes Meta agreed to under the settlement demonstrate that the measures sought by Florida are technically and operationally possible.

The complex facts underlying billions of dollars in antitrust claims that publishers can now pursue against Alphabet Inc.’s Google make a jury trial risky and suggest that a settlement could be on the horizon.

Google’s potential damages exposure is now substantial after Judge P. Kevin Castel of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York said in a September 30 opinion that there was sufficient evidence to support claims by USA Today Co., formerly Gannett, the Daily Mail and a class of about 5,000 other publishers. They allege that Google overcharged them through its advertising technology platform, AdX.

Castel referred in his opinion to more than $1.7 billion in damages for the publishers’ class, before trebling. The Daily Mail and USA Today allegedly incurred damages of roughly $600 million and more than $900 million, respectively.

“They are facing a big bill now and in front of a jury,” said Harry First, a professor emeritus at New York University School of Law who specialises in antitrust. “At some point, Google might have to do with one less data centre.”

The company’s track record with juries, including a major loss to Fortnite maker Epic Games in 2023, may influence Google’s approach, he added.

“Going before a jury is always rolling the dice a little bit,” First said. “My instinct is you want to look for a number to settle.”

Google, he added, also is not in the strongest litigating position amid an economic downturn and with a jury pool that knows the technology giant spends billions of dollars on data centres.

Companies such as Google “are not exactly struggling for cash”, First said.

He also noted that the publishers’ lawyers are “very sophisticated” firms that have evaluated the case closely, reducing the likelihood of an easy resolution.

“We are pleased that the Court has denied Google’s motion for summary judgment on the AdX publisher class’s claims,” said Philip Korologos, a partner at Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, which, along with Korein Tillery LLC and Berger Montague PC, serves as co-lead counsel for the AdX class. “We look forward to presenting the remaining issues at trial, where the class will seek to recover overcharges.”

Settlement Considerations

Statistically, most antitrust cases do settle, particularly after a summary judgment ruling of this nature that represents a “serious blow” to Google, said Christine Bartholomew, a law professor at the University at Buffalo who focuses on antitrust issues.

She said the plaintiffs might also prefer to settle because of the complex nature of the case. The class of publishers alleges that Google coerced them into using AdX if they used Google’s publisher ad server, DoubleClick for Publishers.

“The more confusing and complicated a case is, the more that helps the defendants,” Bartholomew said. “Plaintiffs like clean, straightforward stories.”

Losing at trial would also create a precedent for other pending cases against Google, said Alicia Batts, a former attorney adviser at the Federal Trade Commission and founding partner of Batts Legal LLP, a boutique antitrust firm in Washington, DC.

She predicts Google will pursue parallel strategies, with a team of lawyers preparing for trial while also seeking a settlement. “They will be prepared on all fronts,” Batts said.

The ruling marks a significant milestone in the publishers’ litigation, which comprises follow-on actions to a 2023 Justice Department lawsuit accusing Google of unlawfully monopolising the digital advertising market.

Last year, a federal judge in Virginia ruled that Google violated antitrust law in markets for advertising exchanges.

However, the judge in September denied the Justice Department’s request to force a breakup of Google’s ad-tech business, keeping a major part of its ecosystem intact.

Trial Still Possible

The possibility of a trial is not off the table, said Wyatt Fore, a partner at Shinder Cantor Lerner LLP who specialises in antitrust law. One person on a jury who acts as a wild card could sway the decision in either direction, he said.

“If you’re the defendant, you might think, ‘We’ve got decent arguments, and all we need is one juror to lock up the jury,’” Fore said. In the best-case scenario, Google wins entirely and does not have to pay, he added.

In the worst case, Google pays the damages but has the financial means to absorb them, he said. “It seems like a lot to normal people, but, you know, to Google, this isn’t exactly going to drive it out of business,” Fore said. Ultimately, it amounts to a business decision for Google, rather than a legal one, Fore added.

“Are they willing to pay the money? Are they willing to deal with the bad press?” Fore said. If the answer is yes, “you can roll the dice and see what happens.”

The UAE is moving towards a more structured use of artificial intelligence across its judicial systems, with Abu Dhabi and Sharjah introducing initiatives aimed at improving the efficiency, consistency and reliability of court and prosecution services while maintaining human oversight over legal and judicial decision-making.

In Abu Dhabi, the Abu Dhabi Judicial Department, in cooperation with the Department of Government Enablement, has launched the first phase of a Judicial AI Platform designed to support case analysis, legal research and other judicial processes. In Sharjah, the Judicial Council has approved a governance framework setting out rules for the controlled and secure use of AI across judicial and administrative work.

The developments reflect a broader shift towards integrating advanced technology into justice systems, while recognising that AI-generated analysis and recommendations cannot replace the professional judgment of judges and prosecutors.

Abu Dhabi Introduces Judicial AI Platform

The first phase of Abu Dhabi’s Judicial AI Platform includes a Judicial Assistant designed to support members of the Public Prosecution and criminal courts. The system can analyse selected cases, identify relevant legislation and judicial precedents, recommend possible decisions and assist in drafting judgments.

AI-generated recommendations remain advisory and non-binding. Judicial officials retain responsibility for reviewing the outputs and making final decisions based on the law and their professional judgment.

Human verification is required for all outputs generated by the platform, with the system intended to support rather than replace judicial decision-making. The approach is designed to improve accuracy and consistency while reducing processing times and supporting judicial teams in handling complex volumes of information.

Counsellor Yousef Saeed Al Abri, Undersecretary of the Abu Dhabi Judicial Department, said the platform represented a further step in the department’s digital transformation and adoption of advanced technologies in judicial services.

The first phase forms part of an 18-month roadmap to complete the platform and expand its application across a wider range of judicial workflows.

Future phases are expected to introduce additional capabilities and connect the platform with criminal, civil and other relevant judicial systems. Planned functions include real-time translation, automated recording of hearings and tools capable of identifying potentially forged documents.

The expansion is intended to support faster case processing, improve the documentation of proceedings and strengthen the use of digital tools across the judicial system.

Sharjah Establishes AI Governance Framework

Sharjah has taken a different but complementary step by establishing a governance framework for the use of AI throughout its judicial system.

Approved by the Sharjah Judicial Council, the new guide provides a unified framework for the controlled and secure deployment of AI in judicial and administrative activities. It addresses areas including permitted AI use cases, risk management, data protection, cybersecurity and human oversight.

The framework also establishes controls covering the lifecycle of AI systems, including procedures for monitoring and auditing their performance and use.

By introducing formal safeguards around AI deployment, Sharjah aims to ensure that technological advances do not compromise legal rights, judicial safeguards or the reliability of justice services.

The framework is intended to support the quality and efficiency of judicial and administrative services as the emirate expands its use of emerging technologies.

The Sharjah Judicial Council also approved the establishment of a specialised public prosecution and court dealing with municipal and environmental affairs. The move is intended to strengthen the handling of cases involving these areas as part of the emirate’s wider judicial development.

The Council further approved new attire for members of the judiciary, aimed at reinforcing institutional identity and providing a unified professional appearance.

Human Oversight Remains Central

The initiatives in Abu Dhabi and Sharjah underline a common approach to AI adoption in the UAE justice sector: technology is being introduced as a tool to support legal professionals rather than as a substitute for judicial authority.

While AI can assist with analysing large volumes of legal material, identifying relevant precedents, preparing documents and speeding up administrative processes, final responsibility remains with judges and other authorised legal officials.

The emphasis on verification, cybersecurity, data protection and system monitoring also reflects the particular risks associated with applying AI to sensitive judicial information and decision-making.

As UAE courts increasingly adopt digital systems, the focus is therefore shifting from whether AI can be used in the justice system to how it can be deployed responsibly, securely and consistently while preserving the principles that underpin judicial independence and due process.

A US federal judge has dismissed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Disney and filmmaker James Cameron, rejecting claims that the Avatar sequels copied elements of a science-fiction story created by a 3-D animator.

The case, brought by animator Eric Ryder, alleged that Cameron and Disney copied his original work, known as KRZ, in developing Avatar: The Way of Water and Avatar: Fire and Ash.

The ruling by the US District Court for the Central District of California gives Disney and Cameron a legal victory in the dispute over the blockbuster film franchise.

Ryder had argued that the two sequels contained similarities to his work that amounted to copyright infringement. The court, however, found that the alleged similarities were either based on material that predated Ryder's work, carried forward from the original Avatar film, or involved ideas that were not protected by copyright.

Cameron had developed a detailed treatment for the original Avatar film in 1995, before Ryder presented his KRZ project to Lightstorm Entertainment in 2000.

The court also noted that an earlier case had already found that the original Avatar was not substantially similar to Ryder's work. It therefore excluded elements carried forward from the first film when assessing the allegations concerning the sequels.

Among the similarities highlighted by Ryder was the depiction of underwater harvesting of organic material said to have life-extending properties. The judge found that the alleged similarities, when examined in context, were not sufficient to establish copyright infringement.

The court also rejected the argument that expert testimony or further discovery was required to determine whether the works were substantially similar. It said the remaining issues could be assessed without specialised knowledge because the works were intended for general audiences and dealt with readily understandable subject matter.

Ryder's copyright claim included allegations of direct, contributory and vicarious infringement. The court dismissed those claims, finding that secondary copyright liability could not stand without an underlying finding of direct infringement.

The judge also dismissed Ryder's related state-law claims without prejudice after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. The court had previously allowed Ryder an opportunity to amend his complaint, but he chose to stand on his existing filing.

The lawsuit is Ryder v. Cameron, No. 2:25-cv-11854, in the US District Court for the Central District of California. Reuters identified Daniel Saunders of Kasowitz LLP as representing Ryder and Kelly Klaus of Munger Tolles & Olson as representing Disney.

A federal judge has warned that law firms’ growing use of artificial intelligence could create risks for clients and hinder the training of junior lawyers, even as he declined to sanction attorneys over AI-generated errors in a court filing.

Manhattan-based US District Judge Arun Subramanian said in an order this week that the episode should serve as a “wake-up call” for lawyers, cautioning that AI-generated legal work must be carefully checked for accuracy.

“While clients may demand the use of AI to save money, there is a risk of adverse consequences when things go wrong,” Subramanian wrote. “For this reason, it might make sense to clients to think hard before requiring counsel to use AI for tasks such as the drafting of briefs.” The judge did not say the client in this case had asked its lawyers to use AI.

State and federal judges are increasingly weighing whether and how to sanction lawyers over misuse of AI as the technology becomes more widespread.

In the New York case, Subramanian questioned in an order last month whether the “unchecked” use of AI had led to citation errors in a copyright infringement case he was overseeing.

The judge this week declined to impose sanctions on the lawyers after Cynthia Arato, an attorney for defendant Foundation Media, apologised and said the errors stemmed from another lawyer at her firm who was responsible for preparing the initial draft and finalising it before it was filed.

Arato said in a declaration this week that the lawyer, who was not named, had acted “contrary to the firm’s policies and training” and that the failure to check AI-generated citations was “an isolated error and not any bad faith or intent to mislead or deceive the court”.

Foundation Media declined to comment. There was no indication in court filings that the company had directed its outside lawyers to use AI.

Arato said her firm, Shapiro Arato Bach, was implementing additional safeguards against AI misuse.

In a filin, Arato disclosed that the firm had used AI tools developed by technology company Harvey to help prepare the filing, which contained the improperly vetted citations.

Subramanian said in his order that the legal profession should “think about ways to ensure that junior lawyers are getting the training they need, even as reliance on these technological tools increases”. He suggested that firms could require initial drafts of briefs to be prepared without AI assistance.

“The use of AI may be unavoidable, but mentoring young lawyers is a joint responsibility that we all share,” Subramanian wrote.

Qatar has introduced a new set of regulations governing the legal profession, covering lawyer registration examinations, the licensing of non-Qatari lawyers to represent Qatari law firms and the use of websites and social media by legal practitioners.

The measures, issued by the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Cabinet Affairs and Chairman of the Lawyers’ Admission Committee, HE Ibrahim bin Ali Al Mohannadi, form part of efforts to strengthen the regulatory framework for the profession and raise standards of legal practice.

The decisions were published in the latest issue of the Official Gazette and will take effect 30 days after publication.

New Rules For Lawyer Examinations

Under Decision No. 116 of 2026, new rules have been established for examinations required for registration in the practising lawyers’ register.

The examinations will be held every three months at the Ministry of Justice’s Centre for Legal and Judicial Studies. The Lawyers’ Admission Committee, working with the centre, will oversee the preparation of the examination system, organise and conduct the tests, assess candidates and announce the results.

Candidates must achieve at least 50% to pass. Examination results will remain valid for one year from the date they are announced.

The decision also sets out procedures for candidates who fail the examination, including the opportunity to retake the test, measures applicable following a second unsuccessful attempt and the period within which a fresh registration application may be submitted.

Licensing Of Non-Qatari Lawyers

Decision No. 117 of 2026 establishes requirements for licensing non-Qatari lawyers to appear on behalf of Qatari law firms before the authorities covered by the Law of Advocacy.

Applicants must have a law degree from a recognised university and meet the prescribed professional experience requirements. They must also demonstrate good conduct and reputation and must not have a final conviction for a felony or an offence involving dishonesty or breach of trust.

Applicants will be required to undergo a personal interview and pass examinations prescribed by the Lawyers’ Admission Committee.

The decision also establishes procedures for submitting and assessing licence applications, appealing rejected applications and taking the professional oath before the committee or an authorised representative.

It sets a maximum number of licensed non-Qatari lawyers who may appear on behalf of a law firm, with the permitted number determined by the registration category of the Qatari lawyer.

A separate register for non-Qatari lawyers will also be established within the Department of Legal Affairs. Known as the Register of Non-Qatari Lawyers, it will record details of lawyers licensed to represent Qatari law firms, together with their licences and relevant decisions issued in relation to them.

Tighter Rules For Digital Practice

Decision No. 118 of 2026 introduces rules governing lawyers’ use of websites and social media accounts in connection with their legal practices.

Websites and accounts must carry names linked to the lawyer or law firm operating them, while their content must be confined to legal activities and services.

Lawyers will be responsible for ensuring that information and legal services published through their digital platforms are accurate and reliable. They must also comply with professional ethics and cybersecurity requirements prescribed by the relevant authorities.

The rules place particular emphasis on confidentiality and data protection. Lawyers must safeguard confidential information and personal data and may not publish material that could affect the course of legal proceedings or compromise their confidentiality.

Digital platforms must also not contain promotional content that could undermine the dignity of the legal profession or mislead the public.

The regulations prohibit lawyers from using websites or social media accounts to encourage or incite people to initiate legal proceedings. They also establish requirements for lawyers’ professional appearances on digital platforms, with the stated aim of protecting the dignity, integrity and standing of the profession.

Broader Regulatory Framework

Taken together, the three decisions create a more detailed framework governing entry into the legal profession, the participation of non-Qatari lawyers and lawyers’ use of digital technology.

The measures are intended to clarify professional procedures, strengthen compliance with ethical standards, protect client confidentiality and personal data, and support the development of legal services and the wider justice system in Qatar.

The Law Reporters (TLR) has been awarded the ‘Best AI-Powered Legal’ Platform title at the seventh Bespoke Global Legal (BGLS) IP & Litigation Summit in Dubai, in recognition of its use of technology to create legal news, insights and professional resources more accessible to the legal community.

Rakeshh Kumar SV, Director of Strategic and Alliance Ventures (Middle East & Africa) at The Law Reporters received the award on behalf of the organisation, which was presented by Janhavi Bhanushali of Impact Investment Exchange (IIX), Svetlana Ashchepkova of Clareum Labs and Henzie Healley, a corporate and commercial lawyer.

The award was presented during the two-day summit held on September 21 and 22 at the Millennium Plaza Downtown Hotel in Dubai, which had the theme “Innovation Meets Governance: Charting the Future of IP, AI & Dispute Resolution”. The event brought together more than 300 legal, corporate and technology professionals to discuss developments reshaping the legal sector.

The summit covered discussions on artificial intelligence and intellectual property ownership, legal technology in dispute resolution, machine-generated works, digital assets, regulatory compliance and the use of technology to improve legal operations.

TLR also played a role in the summit’s discussions on the changing skills required within the legal profession. Rakeshh Kumar was a panellist in the session on “Building Future-Ready Legal Teams: AI Training & Workforce Upskilling”, alongside legal and technology professionals from the UAE and international organisations.

The session focussed on how legal teams could respond to rapid technological change through training, new working methods and the development of skills suited to increasingly technology-driven legal services.

The summit’s speakers included Charles Shaban, Chief Representative Officer, MENA, at the International Trademark Association (INTA); Rita (Al Semaani) Jansen, Partner at WFW; Dr Amol Mahulkar, Head of Intellectual Property Services at Airbus; and Sanil Khatri, Principal at Baker & McKenzie Wong & Leow in Singapore.

Other sessions explored patent challenges in emerging technologies, litigation funding, legal technology for digital litigation practices, AI in dispute resolution, arbitration involving crypto and digital assets and technology-enabled management of construction claims and other disputes.

The conference also covered regulatory and compliance developments, workforce diversity and the changing legal responses to evolving family structures.

The recognition comes as legal publishing and professional information platforms increasingly adopt artificial intelligence and other digital technologies to improve how users access, navigate and engage with legal information.

For TLR, the award highlights its focus on combining legal journalism with technology-led presentation and access to information for professionals operating in the UAE, the wider Middle East and international markets.