Technology

When the University of North Carolina School of Law held one of the first simulated trials featuring AI jurors last year, the bots achieved only moderate success in replicating their human counterparts.

In its latest experiment, the law school tested whether artificial intelligence could reproduce the reasoning of US Supreme Court justices, with similarly mixed results.

Students and faculty staged a simulated Supreme Court hearing on October 22, based on an actual case heard by the country's highest court in 2025. Three AI justices delivered a ruling during a campus conference focused on artificial intelligence.

“We weren't asking the question of, ‘Can AI replace the justices?’ because we don't think that's very likely,” said Nicole Downing, the law school's assistant dean for AI. “We were really interested in seeing if AI can reason in a way that's similar to what we see from published Supreme Court opinions.”

In terms of reaching a decision, the AI justices performed well, ruling in the same way as the actual court. However, the simulated oral arguments differed considerably from real-life proceedings, Downing said.

The AI justices posed questions and hypothetical scenarios to the law students arguing the case, but their interactions felt robotic. They did not interrupt or interject in the manner of real Supreme Court justices, she said.

The experiment comes as an increasing number of legal technology companies develop generative AI tools for judicial analytics and predicting case outcomes. Law students are also using the technology to prepare for moot court competitions and anticipate judicial questions, Downing noted.

The organisers of the event, titled “May It Please the Machine”, needed a Supreme Court case that was relatively straightforward and could be argued within a short period. They selected Monsalvo Velázquez v. Bondi.

The case concerned the 60-day deadline for voluntarily leaving the country when an individual faces removal proceedings, and whether the deadline should be extended to the following Monday if the 60th day falls on a Saturday.

Rather than attempting to replicate all nine Supreme Court justices, the organisers programmed three AI judges, each representing a distinct judicial philosophy. One represented the court's textualist or originalist wing, another its pragmatic approach, and the third its progressive perspective.

Rolando Rodriguez, a university data librarian, developed the three ChatGPT-based justices, which appeared on screens during the simulated oral arguments.

The AI judges were supplied with anonymised versions of the case's procedural history and legal briefs, along with relevant major court decisions, statutes, procedural rules and agency guidance. Each was also provided with opinions written by the Supreme Court justices whose judicial approaches they were designed to represent.

The actual case was decided by a 5-4 majority. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, holding that the deadline for voluntary removal should be extended to the next business day when it falls on a weekend or public holiday. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

The AI experiment produced a similar division. The progressive and pragmatic AI justices formed the majority, ruling that the deadline should be extended, while the textualist AI judge dissented.

Downing said the experiment demonstrated the potential value of artificial intelligence for lawyers and law students preparing oral arguments and anticipating the questions judges might raise during hearings.

“The most interesting take away for me is that we can see that AI reasons in a way similar to humans, but it doesn't yet act in a way that is similar to humans,” she said. “There's still this huge gap in it actually feeling human.”

The publication of a photograph or video on social media may appear harmless to the person sharing it, particularly when the footage is recorded in a public place. However, under UAE law, filming another person and circulating the footage without permission can have serious legal consequences, especially when the publication intrudes on privacy, damages reputation or exposes the individual to ridicule or public contempt.

A recent ruling by the Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Cases Court illustrates the financial consequences of such conduct. The court ordered an individual to pay Dh20,000 in compensation after finding that he had filmed another person without consent and subsequently published the footage on TikTok and Snapchat, accompanied by comments that affected the complainant's reputation and personal and professional life.

The decision is significant because it demonstrates that the consequences of unauthorised filming and online publication are not necessarily confined to criminal punishment. A person responsible for violating another individual's privacy may also face a separate civil claim for compensation covering the harm caused by the conduct.

The complainant had sought Dh450,000, claiming material, moral, psychological and social damages, including loss of income. The court, however, awarded Dh20,000 after assessing the circumstances and the evidence presented. A previous criminal conviction, under which the defendant had been fined Dh50,000 and his mobile phone confiscated, had already established the criminal responsibility arising from the incident. The conviction was upheld on appeal.

The case brings into focus several important aspects of UAE legislation, particularly the provisions governing cybercrime, personal privacy, defamation and compensation for moral damage. It also raises a practical question for social media users: where does the freedom to record and share content end, and where does the legal right to privacy begin?

Unauthorised Filming Can Constitute a Criminal Offence

The principal legislation governing such conduct is Federal Decree-Law No. 34 of 2021 on Countering Rumours and Cybercrimes. The law, which came into effect on January 2, 2022, addresses the misuse of information technology to invade privacy, expose personal information and damage another person's reputation.

Article 44 is particularly relevant to unauthorised filming and publication. It criminalises the use of information networks, information technology or information systems with the intention of invading another person's privacy or the sanctity of their private or family life, without consent, except in circumstances authorised by law.

The provision specifically covers recording, transmitting, broadcasting or disclosing conversations and audio or visual material. It also includes taking photographs of third parties in public or private places, transferring or publishing electronic photographs, and publishing news, images, scenes, comments or information, even when the material is true and genuine, if this is done with the intention of harming the individual.

A person convicted under Article 44 can face imprisonment for at least six months and a fine ranging from Dh150,000 to Dh500,000, or either of these penalties.

An important feature of this provision is that the protection is not restricted to private premises. The law expressly refers to photographs taken in both public and private places. Consequently, the argument that an individual was filmed in a public setting does not, by itself, provide a defence against an allegation of unlawful recording or publication.

However, the circumstances and intention behind the conduct remain important. Not every incidental appearance in a photograph or video automatically amounts to a criminal offence. The statutory requirements, including the intention to invade privacy or harm the individual, must be considered in the context of the evidence.

The distinction is particularly important for people who regularly record and upload videos of public encounters, workplace incidents, disputes or interactions with strangers. The fact that a recording can be made using a mobile phone does not mean that it can lawfully be circulated without regard to the rights of the people appearing in it.

Online Insults and Defamation Carry Separate Legal Consequences

Privacy violations are not the only legal risks associated with publishing videos on social media. The comments, captions and descriptions accompanying the footage can independently attract criminal liability if they amount to insult, defamation or slander.

Article 43 of the Cybercrimes Law addresses the use of information networks and information technology to insult another person or attribute a characteristic to them that could expose them to punishment or public contempt.

The prescribed punishment is imprisonment and/or a fine ranging from Dh250,000 to Dh500,000. The law also provides for an aggravated offence when the conduct is directed against a public official or a person entrusted with a public service in connection with the performance of their duties.

This provision is particularly relevant to social media publications because a statement does not have to appear in a newspaper or conventional media outlet to attract legal scrutiny. A TikTok video, Snapchat story, Instagram post, online comment or other electronic publication can become the subject of criminal proceedings if its content satisfies the legal requirements.

The Crimes and Penalties Law, Federal Decree-Law No. 31 of 2021, also contains provisions dealing with defamation, slander and violations of private and family life. Article 431 addresses the unlawful recording of private conversations, photographing individuals in private places and publishing information, photographs or comments concerning their private or family lives, even where the information is true.

These provisions demonstrate an important distinction in UAE law: the truth of published material does not automatically make its disclosure lawful. An individual may still face legal consequences if the manner of obtaining or publishing the information violates another person's protected privacy.

At the same time, not every negative comment amounts to criminal defamation. The nature of the statement, its context, the person against whom it is directed and the applicable statutory requirements are relevant when determining whether an offence has occurred.

Civil Liability Extends Beyond Criminal Punishment

A criminal conviction does not necessarily bring an online privacy dispute to an end. The affected individual may pursue a separate civil claim seeking compensation for the harm caused by the unlawful conduct.

The UAE's Civil Transactions Law provides the legal foundation for such claims. Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025 promulgating the new Civil Transactions Law came into force on June 1, 2026, replacing the previous Civil Transactions Law of 1985.

Article 246 establishes the general principle that a person who causes harm to another is obliged to compensate the injured party. The provisions also clarify that civil liability does not prejudice criminal liability when the conditions for both are satisfied.

This means that an individual responsible for unlawfully recording and circulating another person's video may face criminal proceedings as well as a civil claim for damages.

Article 254 is particularly significant because it expressly recognises moral harm as a basis for civil liability. It identifies infringements of another person's freedom, honour, reputation, social standing or financial status as forms of moral damage.

This recognition is important in cases involving online humiliation and reputational injury. An individual does not necessarily have to demonstrate a direct financial loss to establish that a legally recognisable injury has occurred. Damage to dignity, reputation and social standing can itself justify compensation.

Article 255 further provides that compensation must be assessed according to the extent of the loss suffered and the loss of profit, provided that the loss of profit is a natural consequence of the harmful act.

The court therefore has to consider both the nature of the injury and the evidence supporting the amount claimed.

Why the Court Awarded Dh20,000 Instead of Dh450,000

The Abu Dhabi ruling illustrates the difference between establishing liability and proving the amount of compensation.

The complainant sought Dh450,000, claiming that the unauthorised recording and publication had caused material, moral, psychological and social harm. He also alleged that the incident had affected his professional activities and income.

However, the court awarded Dh20,000 after considering the circumstances of the case and the nature of the damage established before it.

A significant factor was the earlier criminal conviction against the defendant. The criminal court had imposed a Dh50,000 fine and ordered the confiscation of his mobile phone. The conviction was subsequently upheld on appeal.

The criminal judgment provided an important evidential foundation for the civil proceedings. Under the applicable principles governing the relationship between criminal and civil cases, a final criminal judgment establishing the commission of an offence and its attribution to the accused can have binding effect on the civil court in respect of those established matters.

This does not mean that the civil court must automatically accept every amount claimed by the injured party. The existence of wrongdoing and the extent of compensable damage are separate questions.

In this case, the court recognised the harm caused to the complainant's privacy, reputation and psychological well-being but did not accept the full compensation sought.

The distinction is important for anyone considering a civil claim arising from online abuse. A criminal conviction may establish the defendant's responsibility for the underlying act, but the claimant must still provide an adequate basis for the compensation sought.

For example, a claim for lost income may require financial records, evidence of cancelled contracts, loss of business opportunities or other documentation demonstrating a direct connection between the publication and the alleged financial consequences.

A general assertion that a person's reputation or professional activities have suffered may not, by itself, establish the amount of financial loss claimed.

The ruling therefore reinforces the principle that compensation is determined by the harm proved before the court rather than simply by the figure requested in the lawsuit.

One of the important legal aspects of the Abu Dhabi case is the relationship between criminal proceedings and civil compensation claims.

Where the same conduct gives rise to both criminal and civil liability, the two proceedings serve different purposes. Criminal proceedings determine whether an offence has been committed and what punishment should follow. Civil proceedings focus on compensating the person who has suffered legally recognised harm.

A final criminal judgment can therefore play a decisive role in subsequent civil litigation. Where it establishes that the defendant committed the act and identifies the person responsible, the civil court is generally bound by those findings within their legally defined scope.

However, the civil court retains the responsibility of determining the extent of the damage and the appropriate compensation.

This distinction is particularly relevant in online privacy cases, where the victim may suffer several forms of harm. These could include embarrassment, emotional distress, damage to professional standing, loss of business opportunities and disruption to family or social relationships.

Evidence such as screenshots, recordings, publication dates, comments, messages, witness statements and financial records may help establish the nature and extent of the damage.

Does Filming Someone in Public Automatically Require Consent?

The question of consent is particularly relevant in an age when mobile phones and social media have made recording public encounters commonplace.

People routinely film events, public gatherings, road incidents, workplace interactions and disputes. However, the legal position is more complicated than simply determining whether the recording took place in a public or private location.

Article 44 of the Cybercrimes Law expressly includes photographing third parties in public as well as private places. The provision must nevertheless be read as a whole, including its requirement concerning the intention to invade privacy or the sanctity of private or family life.

There are also legally recognised circumstances in which photography or publication may be permitted, including certain forms of public-interest activity and authorised coverage.

The Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Law, Federal Decree-Law No. 38 of 2021, contains additional provisions relevant to the use of photographs and recordings. Article 45 generally restricts the retention, display or publication of photographs and audio or video recordings made under an agreement without the person's authorisation, subject to specified exceptions.

These include certain publicly occurring incidents, government events and activities organised for the public in public places, and publication permitted by competent authorities in the public interest. The provision also requires consideration of whether publication would offend the person's honour or reputation.

The practical implication is that being visible in a public place does not automatically give another person unrestricted permission to record, manipulate or publish footage in any context. Equally, consent requirements and exceptions must be assessed according to the circumstances rather than treated as an absolute prohibition on public photography.

What Should Individuals Do When Their Videos are Published Without Permission?

People who discover that their photographs or videos have been circulated online without authorisation should preserve the available evidence before taking steps to have the material removed.

Screenshots of the original publication, the account details of the person responsible, links to the content, accompanying comments and any subsequent circulation may be relevant to a complaint or legal claim.

Where the publication contains insulting or defamatory material, evidence of its impact may also be important. This could include communications from employers, clients or business associates, records of cancelled commercial arrangements and other documents demonstrating reputational or financial consequences.

An affected individual may consider reporting the matter to the competent authorities and seeking legal advice on the appropriate criminal and civil remedies. The circumstances will determine which provisions apply and whether a separate compensation claim is justified.

It is also important to recognise that deleting an original post does not necessarily eliminate legal responsibility for its earlier publication. Copies may have circulated, and the conduct may already have caused damage.

Social Media Users Cannot Ignore Their Legal Responsibilities

The Abu Dhabi ruling comes at a time when social media platforms have become powerful tools for communication, public commentary and the sharing of information. However, the ability to record and distribute content instantly also creates significant responsibilities for users.

The UAE's legal framework approaches online privacy violations through several complementary areas of law. The Cybercrimes Law addresses the unlawful use of digital platforms to invade privacy and damage reputations, the Crimes and Penalties Law provides additional protection against defamation and violations of private life, while the Civil Transactions Law establishes the basis for compensation when another person suffers harm.

The Dh20,000 award is not a standard compensation amount for every unauthorised video or photograph. Each dispute will depend on its own facts, the nature of the publication, the evidence of wrongdoing and the damage established before the court.

Nevertheless, the ruling sends an important message: recording someone without consent and sharing the footage in a manner that infringes their privacy or damages their reputation can have consequences beyond the removal of a social media post.

For individuals, influencers, content creators and businesses operating in the UAE, understanding these legal boundaries is increasingly important. What may begin as an ordinary social media upload can develop into a criminal case and a substantial civil liability claim.

Meta Platforms has reached settlements with two plaintiffs whose social media addiction claims were due to go to trial in Los Angeles next week, avoiding a potentially high-profile courtroom battle involving the company’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg.

Judge Carolyn Kuhl of the California Superior Court in Los Angeles County said the court had been informed the previous night that a settlement had been reached with the plaintiff identified in court documents as K.D.B. Meta had earlier settled with the other plaintiff scheduled to face trial, referred to as S.J.

The agreements mean Zuckerberg will no longer be required to testify in the proceedings.

“We will continue to defend ourselves in court, and we stand by our record,” a Meta spokesperson said in a statement, referring to the safeguards the company has introduced to protect teenagers using its platforms.

Emily Jeffcott, a trial counsel for K.D.B. representing Morgan & Morgan, said the firm remained committed to improving child safety on social media platforms and holding technology companies accountable.

“We remain committed to improving safety for kids on social media apps and holding tech companies accountable, and we are pleased to have brought this matter to a just resolution on behalf of our client,” Jeffcott said.

Following the settlements, Snap Inc. is the only defendant remaining in the trial.

Opening arguments are scheduled to begin next week unless Snap reaches an agreement with the plaintiffs. S.J. is a resident of Dolton, Illinois, while K.D.B. is from Richland, Mississippi.

The settlement with Meta represents the latest development in a growing wave of litigation over alleged social media addiction in California. The lawsuits accuse technology companies of designing platforms and features that encourage excessive use, particularly among children and teenagers, and contribute to mental health problems.

In August, Meta agreed to pay up to $18 billion to resolve claims brought by state attorneys general in proceedings before the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The agreement required the company to introduce additional safeguards governing the operation of platforms including Facebook and Instagram.

Meta had avoided another trial in July after R.K.C. dropped his case against the company following settlements with Google and TikTok. P.M-Y also dismissed her case in August, two months before her scheduled trial, after reaching a settlement with TikTok.

The litigation has already produced a significant jury verdict. In the first bellwether trial, K.G.M. secured a $4.2 million judgment against Meta and a further $1.8 million judgment against Google.

The cases form part of coordinated proceedings known as Social Media Cases JCCP, California Superior Court, case number 5255.

Social media and messaging platforms have made it easier than ever to express opinions, share experiences and raise complaints. A disagreement that might once have remained a private conversation can now reach hundreds or thousands of people within minutes. But cross the line from legitimate criticism into a criminal offence? In the UAE, the answer depends on the language used, the context and the provisions of the applicable law.

The UAE takes offences involving personal dignity and reputation seriously. A communication does not escape legal scrutiny simply because it was made during a personal disagreement, sent through a messaging application or published as part of a commercial complaint. The central question is whether the words and circumstances satisfy the requirements of an offence under the applicable legislation. Understanding that distinction is essential before making or forwarding potentially damaging statements.

The Legal Framework Governing Online Defamation

The principal legislation dealing with digital insult and defamation is Federal Decree-Law No. 34 of 2021 on Countering Rumours and Cybercrimes. Article 43 addresses the use of an information network, information technology means or an information system to insult another person or attribute a quality to them that could expose them to punishment or public contempt.

The prescribed penalty is imprisonment and/or a fine ranging from AED 250,000 to AED 500,000. The law also identifies an aggravating circumstance where the offence is committed against a public official or a person entrusted with a public service during, or because of, the performance of their duties.

Other provisions of the Crimes and Penalties Law may also be relevant. Articles 425 and 426 of Federal Law by Decree No. 31 of 2021 deal with libel and slander, while Article 427 sets out penalties for specified circumstances involving telephone communications, direct statements and written communications. The precise provision depends on the nature of the alleged conduct and the circumstances in which it occurred. These offences have distinct statutory elements and should not be treated as interchangeable.

What Conduct May Create Criminal Exposure?

A critical comment, disagreement or expression of dissatisfaction does not automatically amount to a criminal offence. The assessment depends on the language used, the context in which it appears, the method of communication and whether the legal requirements of the relevant offence are satisfied.

Examples of conduct that may attract legal scrutiny include publishing allegations that could expose an identifiable person to punishment or public contempt, posting insulting or degrading remarks about an individual on social media, sending abusive electronic messages, or circulating potentially defamatory allegations in online groups and digital communities.

The distinction becomes clearer when considered in everyday situations. A customer who describes a delayed delivery or unsatisfactory service is not necessarily committing an offence. The position may be different if the same person makes unsupported allegations of criminal conduct against a named employee or uses language intended to personally degrade them. Similarly, raising a workplace grievance through an employer's established procedures is different from publicly targeting a manager or colleague with insulting remarks.

Can a Private WhatsApp Message Lead to Criminal Liability?

One common misunderstanding is that a statement can amount to defamation only if it is published publicly. Article 43, however, refers broadly to the use of information networks, information technology means and information systems. Its wording does not expressly restrict the offence to material accessible to the general public.

A private WhatsApp message, direct message or communication shared within a closed group should not, therefore, be assumed to fall outside the law. The number of recipients and the circumstances of the communication may be relevant when assessing the allegation, but privacy alone does not settle the question of criminal liability. The applicable legal provision must be considered alongside the actual content and context of the exchange.

Online Reviews and Business Complaints

The issue has particular relevance for businesses, franchise operators, hospitality companies and service providers, for whom online reviews can influence customer confidence and commercial reputation. Customers must be able to describe their experiences and raise genuine concerns, and a negative review is not, by itself, a criminal offence.

The legal distinction lies between reporting an unsatisfactory experience and publishing personal insults or allegations that may expose an individual to criminal liability. Describing a delayed delivery or poor customer service is materially different from making an unsupported accusation of criminal behaviour against an identifiable employee.

Businesses also need to exercise restraint when responding to online criticism. Threatening customers or engaging in personal attacks can turn a manageable complaint into a more complicated dispute. A better approach is to preserve the relevant communication, examine the substance of the complaint and respond through appropriate commercial or legal channels.

The Importance of Digital Evidence

In cases involving online communications, the available electronic material may play an important role in establishing what was said, how it was communicated and who was involved. Relevant evidence may include screenshots of posts, comments and reviews, complete WhatsApp conversations and other electronic messages, email correspondence, website publications and available account or publication records.

A screenshot, however, may not tell the whole story. Its authenticity, completeness, source and surrounding context can all become relevant. Wherever possible, the original communication and the complete conversation should be preserved, together with relevant account and publication details. Both complainants and those responding to allegations should avoid selectively editing, deleting or altering material that may later be required.

Removing a post or message does not necessarily eliminate evidence that has already been preserved. Nor does deletion, by itself, remove potential criminal liability arising from the original communication.

What Should a Person Do After a Complaint?

Anyone who receives notice of a criminal complaint relating to an online communication should first establish precisely what is being alleged. This includes identifying the disputed post or message, the date and circumstances of publication, the person concerned and the legal provision being invoked. Relevant messages, emails and publication records should be preserved rather than deleted or modified.

A proper legal assessment should then examine whether the alleged conduct falls within the relevant offence, whether the content meets the statutory requirements and whether the electronic evidence is authentic and complete. Any applicable legal exceptions or defences, together with the appropriate procedural steps during an investigation or subsequent proceedings, must also be considered.

Responding emotionally, making further accusations or attempting to remove relevant material without understanding the legal implications can complicate matters. Seeking legal advice at an early stage can help establish the nature of the allegation, protect relevant evidence and determine an appropriate course of action.

Conclusion

The UAE's legal framework places considerable importance on protecting personal dignity and reputation, including in the digital environment. Article 43 of the Cybercrime Law provides for substantial criminal penalties for specified forms of online insult and damaging attribution. Depending on the circumstances, provisions of the Crimes and Penalties Law may also apply.

Individuals should consider the legal implications before publishing or forwarding statements that could damage another person's reputation. Businesses, meanwhile, need clear procedures for handling customer complaints and responding to online criticism. In an environment where a message can be circulated widely within seconds, responsible digital communication is not simply a matter of professional courtesy. It is an important part of managing legal and reputational risk in the UAE.

The Al Ain Civil, Commercial and Administrative Cases Court has ordered a woman to pay Dh10,000 in compensation to another woman for insulting her on social media and damaging her reputation.

The court found that the insults had caused moral harm by undermining the victim’s dignity, social standing and professional reputation, as well as exposing her to psychological distress and embarrassment in front of others.

The plaintiff had initially filed a civil lawsuit seeking Dh35,000 in compensation for material and moral damages, in addition to legal fees and expenses. She alleged that the defendant had used offensive language on social media that harmed her dignity and reputation.

The incident had previously resulted in criminal proceedings, in which the defendant was sentenced to one month in prison, with the sentence suspended for three years, and fined Dh10,000.

The defendant appealed against the criminal judgment. Although the Court of Appeal accepted the appeal on procedural grounds, it rejected the challenge on its merits and upheld the original ruling. The judgment subsequently became final after no further challenge was filed.

In the civil proceedings, the plaintiff maintained that the defendant’s conduct had damaged her personal dignity, social standing and professional reputation, while also causing psychological distress and embarrassment in the presence of others.

After considering the harm suffered, the court assessed the appropriate compensation for the plaintiff’s moral damages at Dh10,000.

Cyber attacks on law firms and other legal industry entities have doubled since 2023, according to research published by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike on Wednesday, amid growing concerns that threat actors are using agentic artificial intelligence (AI) to carry out increasingly sophisticated and efficient attacks.

CrowdStrike’s 2026 Legal Threat Landscape Report, covering the 12 months to August 2026, said cyber adversaries had named 455 legal entities on websites used to publish stolen data, a 39% increase from the previous year.

Law firms hold sensitive corporate communications, merger and acquisition details, intellectual property, government-related information and financial records, making them attractive targets for criminals seeking financial gain and strategic intelligence.

“What we’re seeing across the broader threat landscape, more and more threat actors are using agentic technology to democratise hacking,” said Adam Meyers, CrowdStrike’s senior vice-president for counter-adversary operations. “It’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better.”

Reuters has reported that a growing number of law firms have suffered cyber breaches in recent months, including Quinn Emanuel, WilmerHale and Seyfarth. CrowdStrike’s report did not identify any specific law firm, in-house legal department or legal industry vendor that had been compromised.

CrowdStrike, based in Austin, Texas, provides cybersecurity software to help businesses protect their computers, cloud systems, accounts and data from cyber attacks.

The report said threats came from a range of sources, including financially motivated cybercrime groups and state-sponsored adversaries. It warned that China-linked groups were likely to remain the biggest intelligence-gathering threat to the legal sector.

For the first time, the report identified an entity targeting software specifically designed for the legal industry. In that incident, hackers exploited a vulnerability in software used by law firms for timekeeping and billing.

In another incident in November, cybercriminals hired a Russian national to enter a US law firm while posing as an internal IT employee.

Several major law firms targeted in recent cyber attacks said they had been victims of social engineering, a form of attack in which criminals manipulate individuals into disclosing sensitive information or granting access to secure systems.

CrowdStrike recommended that law firms and other organisations in the sector strengthen multi-factor authentication and tighten controls over remote-access tools.

The report also called for stronger data-access governance, closer monitoring for unusual access to information and better preparation for data theft, extortion and disruptive cyber operations.

Two teenage plaintiffs who say social media caused serious mental health problems will take Meta Platforms and Snap to trial in Los Angeles on Wednesday, in the latest test of claims raised in thousands of US lawsuits over the impact of social media on young people.

The case is only the second involving individual plaintiffs to reach trial over allegations that social media companies deliberately designed their platforms to be addictive. The companies lost the first such trial in March, when a jury awarded $6 million in damages.

The plaintiffs, identified in court documents as S.J., a 16-year-old girl from Illinois, and K.D.B., an 18-year-old woman from Mississippi, said they began using YouTube at the age of three or four and other platforms at around nine. They allege that features such as autoplay and infinite scrolling encouraged compulsive use, contributing to depression, anxiety and eating disorders.

The trial begins with jury selection and is expected to last several weeks. Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, Instagram head Adam Mosseri and Snap chief executive Evan Spiegel are expected to testify.

The plaintiffs initially sued TikTok and YouTube, owned by Alphabet, alongside Meta and Snap. Both companies reached settlements with the plaintiffs before the trial. The Illinois plaintiff also settled her claims against Meta. The proceedings will therefore cover both plaintiffs' claims against Snap and the Mississippi plaintiff's claims against Meta.

Meta and Snap have asked Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl to separate the cases, arguing that a joint trial would risk confusing jurors by combining different sets of evidence. The judge has yet to rule on the request.

A Young Person's Mental Health

A Meta spokesperson said the company disagreed with the allegations and had spent a decade developing protections across its platforms, including Instagram and Facebook.

"A young person's mental health is shaped by many factors, as the evidence in this trial will show," the spokesperson said in a statement. "The plaintiff used TikTok far more than Instagram or Facebook, and her personal circumstances were a substantial factor in her struggles."

A Snap spokesperson argued that Snapchat differed from conventional social media platforms because it did not open with a feed or a ranking of other people's posts. The company had also introduced safeguards to protect users, the spokesperson said.

"We believe the evidence will support that we have put our community first, and that these allegations fundamentally misrepresent their experiences on Snapchat and how our platform was designed," the spokesperson added.

Emily Jeffcott, a lawyer representing the Mississippi plaintiff, said before the trial that she looked forward to explaining to the jury the risks associated with features such as endless feeds, autoplay and streaks, which encourage users to maintain consecutive days of activity.

She alleged that Meta, and Snap as well, had implemented and promoted such features in ways that contributed to the plaintiffs' experiences.

A Test Case For Thousands Of Claims

S.J. and K.D.B. filed their lawsuits in 2023. Both described spending hours scrolling through social media late at night, struggling to concentrate in class and engaging in self-harm using methods they had seen in social media videos. They are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

Their cases form part of a wider group of more than 3,000 lawsuits brought by individuals and others that have been consolidated in Los Angeles Superior Court. The cases have been selected as bellwethers, or test cases, meaning their outcomes could influence negotiations and the resolution of other claims.

Social media companies have denied designing their platforms to addict young users, maintaining that they have taken steps to improve safety for children and teenagers. They have also argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 federal law that generally shields online platforms from liability for user-generated content, protects them from the claims.

The trial judge rejected the argument that Section 230 automatically bars claims concerning platform design, allowing the two cases to proceed.

In the March trial, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and YouTube negligent in a case brought by a young woman identified in court documents as Kaley G.M. Several other cases have been scheduled for trial since then, but companies have settled some claims, while plaintiffs have withdrawn others.

School Districts And States Join Legal Fight

More than 3,800 lawsuits brought by states, school districts and individuals over similar allegations remain pending in federal court in California, according to court records.

In August, Meta reached settlements worth up to $18 billion to resolve claims brought by nearly every US state and territory concerning the impact of its platforms on teenagers' mental health. As part of the agreement, the company committed to changing how teenagers can access Instagram and Facebook.

Following the settlement, members of Meta's senior legal team told reporters that the company considered individual and school district lawsuits more difficult to defend against at trial than cases brought by states. The former require plaintiffs to establish a direct link between particular harm and the company's social media platforms, they said.

Meta is appealing the March verdict, arguing that Section 230 should have prevented the claims brought by Kaley G.M. from proceeding.

A ruling in Meta's favour on that issue could undermine thousands of lawsuits concerning young people's mental health and protect the company from billions of dollars in potential liability. Experts have warned that the financial exposure identified by the company could pose a serious threat to its future.

The latest trial will test whether plaintiffs can persuade a jury that the design of social media platforms contributed directly to their mental health problems, despite the companies' arguments that individual circumstances and other factors must also be considered. Its outcome could help determine the legal and financial stakes of a growing challenge to the technology industry's approach to young users.

Qatar’s new digital legal platforms will strengthen the country’s legal framework, improve access to legal services and support investment by enhancing transparency and legal certainty, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has said.

Speaking on the sidelines of the recent launch of the new Official Gazette website and the Al Meezan legal portal, the ministry’s Undersecretary, HE Saeed bin Abdullah Al Suwaidi, described the initiative as a strategic step towards building an integrated national system for legal knowledge.

The project supports Qatar’s Third National Development Plan and the objectives of Qatar National Vision 2030, while advancing the country’s wider digital transformation agenda.

Al Suwaidi said the initiative, implemented under the ministry’s 2025–2030 strategic plan, went beyond digital publishing. The two platforms are intended to form an integrated and accessible legal information system, bringing together legislation, judicial rulings, legal opinions and agreements.

The new Official Gazette website will make legislative texts more accessible, while Al Meezan will provide comprehensive legal information to help researchers, legal professionals and members of the public understand legislation, its context and practical application.

According to Al Suwaidi, the platforms are expected to improve the efficiency of Qatar’s legislative and regulatory environment, strengthen transparency and legal certainty, and facilitate the conduct of business.

These improvements could also reinforce investor confidence and enhance Qatar’s appeal as a destination for high-quality investment.

Al Suwaidi said the ministry hoped the initiative would integrate legal knowledge more closely into the country’s broader digital ecosystem and establish a national model for cooperation among legal and judicial institutions.

The ultimate objective, he added, is to deliver legal services that are more accessible, transparent and efficient.

A group of companies and other entities holding copyrights to songs recorded by Elvis Presley has sued artificial intelligence company Anthropic in a California federal court, alleging that it used the singer’s work without permission to train its Claude chatbot.

The plaintiffs, including Authentic Brands Group, filed the lawsuit on Friday, claiming that Anthropic’s alleged unauthorised use of Presley’s lyrics and musical compositions infringed their copyrights. They are seeking $41.1 million in damages.

“We disagree with the claims and intend to defend this case fully,” an Anthropic spokesperson said on Monday.

The lawsuit adds to a growing number of high-profile legal disputes between copyright owners and technology companies, including Anthropic, OpenAI and Meta Platforms, over the use of protected material to train artificial intelligence systems.

Anthropic reached a settlement last year in a copyright lawsuit brought by a group of authors who accused the company of using their books without permission to train its AI models. A judge granted final approval to the $1.5 billion settlement in July.

The company is also facing separate legal action from music publishers, including Universal Music Group, which allege that Anthropic misused song lyrics by Beyoncé, the Rolling Stones, the Beach Boys and other artists to train Claude.

Anthropic publicly announced its long-awaited application for an initial public offering in the United States on Monday.

The UAE has initiated legal action against an individual who published social media content involving the bullying of a child of determination, with authorities coordinating with the platform concerned to take action against the account and the person responsible for the material.

The National Media Authority (NMA) said the content included inappropriate insinuations that violated the country’s social values and standards of conduct. It confirmed that the relevant authorities had been notified to take the necessary legal measures in accordance with the law.

The authority reiterated its rejection of abuse and bullying in all forms, stressing the importance of protecting children and people of determination, preserving their dignity and upholding the values of UAE society.

The action highlights the legal responsibilities associated with publishing and circulating material online, particularly content that humiliates, harasses or exploits vulnerable individuals. Social media users may face consequences not only for creating offensive material but also where their conduct breaches applicable laws governing child protection, cybercrime, privacy or media content.

How UAE Law Protects Children From Bullying

The UAE has several legal safeguards that may apply to cases involving the bullying or mistreatment of children, including those with disabilities.

Federal Law No. 3 of 2016 on Child Rights, commonly known as Wadeema’s Law, establishes protections for children against abuse, neglect and exploitation. Its safeguards address different forms of harm, including physical and psychological abuse, and seek to preserve a child’s dignity and wellbeing.

Although every unpleasant or insulting online interaction does not automatically constitute a criminal offence, conduct that causes or threatens psychological harm may fall within the law’s protective framework. The circumstances, nature of the content, the child’s vulnerability and the evidence available are relevant to determining which provisions may apply.

The law also provides a framework for intervention by competent authorities where a child’s safety or welfare is at risk. The fact that the conduct occurs online does not, by itself, place it beyond the reach of child-protection measures.

Cybercrime Law And Online Abuse

Federal Decree-Law No. 34 of 2021 on Countering Rumours and Cybercrimes provides a further legal framework for offences committed through information networks and digital platforms.

Depending on the facts, online conduct involving insults, defamation, invasions of privacy or the unlawful publication of personal material may engage provisions of the cybercrime legislation or other applicable laws. The precise offence and penalty depend on the nature of the act and the provision under which a case is pursued.

The law should not be interpreted as making every instance of bullying an identical cybercrime offence. Investigators and prosecutors must assess the content, the manner in which it was published or circulated, the rights affected and the evidence establishing the alleged violation.

Where the publication of a video or image exposes a child to humiliation or violates privacy, additional legal considerations may arise. Sharing, reposting or commenting on such material can also prolong the harm and increase its audience, although legal liability depends on the conduct and the applicable provision.

Media Content Standards And Platform Action

The National Media Authority’s media content standards require respect for children’s rights, individual privacy, public morals and the values of UAE society. The standards also restrict the publication or circulation of material that offends public morals or harms young people.

These requirements form part of the wider framework governing media and digital content in the country. In the present case, the authority said it had coordinated with the relevant social media platform and notified the competent authorities. It did not publicly specify the precise legal provisions being invoked or announce a final judicial outcome.

Action against an account or the removal of a post is separate from any criminal investigation or prosecution. A platform may take steps under its own rules, while the competent authorities determine whether the conduct warrants further legal proceedings.

Protecting People Of Determination

The incident also draws attention to the importance of protecting people of determination from discrimination, exploitation and degrading treatment. Content that mocks a child’s disability can cause harm beyond the immediate publication, particularly when it is recorded, circulated and repeatedly viewed or shared.

The UAE’s wider legal framework includes Federal Law No. 29 of 2006 concerning the rights of people with special needs, as amended, alongside child-protection, cybercrime and media legislation. The relevance of any particular provision depends on the facts and the legal issues involved.

For parents and guardians, suspected online abuse can be reported to the competent authorities. Preserving relevant evidence, such as the original post, account details, publication dates and links, may assist an investigation. However, repeatedly forwarding or reposting humiliating material can expose the child to further distress and should be avoided.

The NMA’s response reinforces the principle that social media is not beyond the reach of the law. Online publication carries responsibilities, and content targeting a child or exploiting a person’s disability may prompt action under the UAE’s applicable legal safeguards.