Top Stories

Artificial intelligence is rapidly changing the modern workplace. From screening thousands of job applications to analysing employee performance, predicting attrition and even recommending disciplinary action, AI is increasingly being placed in positions once reserved for human managers and HR professionals.

The attraction is obvious: AI can process enormous quantities of information quickly, identify patterns and potentially reduce human inconsistency. But when an algorithm determines whether an individual should be hired, promoted, disciplined or dismissed, a fundamental question arises: can an employer allow AI to make decisions about employees without meaningful human review?

The answer is becoming increasingly complex. As AI moves deeper into employment decision-making, organisations must balance technological efficiency with fairness, transparency, privacy and accountability.

AI Recruitment: Efficient, But Not Necessarily Neutral

AI recruitment systems can screen CVs, rank candidates, analyse applications and identify individuals who appear suitable for a particular role. For employers handling large volumes of applications, this can significantly reduce recruitment time and administrative costs.

However, an algorithm is only as objective as the data and assumptions behind it. If an AI system is trained on historical hiring data reflecting existing workplace inequalities, it may reproduce or even amplify those patterns. A system could unintentionally disadvantage candidates based on factors such as gender, age, disability, nationality, educational background or career history.

This creates a difficult legal question: who is responsible when an algorithm discriminates? The employer cannot simply argue that “the AI made the decision”. Organisations remain responsible for the systems they deploy and the employment decisions made through them.

Performance Scoring and the Problem of the “Invisible Manager”

AI is also being used to monitor productivity, attendance, communication patterns, sales performance and other workplace indicators. In principle, data-driven performance management can help employers identify genuine performance issues. Yet employee performance cannot always be reduced to measurable statistics.

An employee may spend more time dealing with a difficult client, mentor colleagues, solve problems that do not appear in performance metrics or work in circumstances that an automated system cannot understand. An algorithm may therefore identify a numerical “underperformer” without understanding the circumstances behind that performance.

This is particularly concerning where an AI-generated score influences promotion, compensation or continued employment. Employees should have an opportunity to understand how significant decisions affecting their careers were reached and to challenge inaccurate or incomplete information.

Automated Disciplinary Decisions: Where Human Judgment Matters Most

The most controversial use of AI may be automated disciplinary action. Imagine an employee being flagged by an algorithm for alleged misconduct based on attendance records, communications, productivity data or workplace monitoring. If the system automatically recommends suspension, reduces a performance rating or contributes to termination, the consequences can be substantial.

Employment decisions frequently involve context, intent and proportionality. A late arrival may constitute misconduct, or it may have resulted from an exceptional circumstance. A communication may appear inappropriate to an algorithm while having an entirely legitimate explanation.

For this reason, human review should not merely be a procedural formality. A manager or HR professional should have the ability to examine the underlying facts, consider explanations provided by the employee and exercise independent judgment before serious employment action is taken.

Employee Data: How Much is Too Much?

AI systems require data. The more sophisticated the system, the greater the potential demand for employee information. Employers may collect information relating to attendance, performance, communications, location, productivity and behavioural patterns. While some data may be necessary for legitimate business purposes, the existence of technology capable of collecting information does not automatically justify its collection or use.

Organisations must consider fundamental data-protection principles such as transparency, purpose limitation, data minimisation, security and appropriate retention. Employees should know, where legally required, what information is being collected, why it is being processed and how it may influence decisions concerning them.

The challenge becomes even greater when employee data is fed into third-party AI platforms. Employers must understand where the data goes, who can access it, how it is stored and whether it may be used to train other systems.

Discrimination and Accountability: The Central Legal Challenge

The greatest legal concern surrounding workplace AI is not necessarily the technology itself, but the possibility of automating unfairness at scale. Traditional human decision-making can be discriminatory, but AI can potentially reproduce the same problem across thousands of decisions in a remarkably short period.

This makes governance essential. Employers deploying AI in employment decisions should consider conducting appropriate impact assessments, testing systems for discriminatory outcomes, maintaining audit trails and establishing clear internal responsibility for AI-assisted decisions.

Most importantly, accountability should remain with identifiable human decision-makers. An employee should not be left in the position of challenging an opaque algorithm with no explanation and no person willing to take responsibility for its outcome.

The Future: AI-Assisted, Not AI-Absolved

The debate should not necessarily be framed as AI versus humans. AI can be an extraordinarily useful decision-support tool. It can identify patterns that humans may overlook, reduce administrative burdens and help HR teams make more informed decisions.

The problem arises when efficiency replaces judgment. A sensible approach is therefore to establish a principle of meaningful human oversight for decisions that have significant consequences for an employee’s rights, livelihood or career.

Human review should involve more than clicking “approve”. The reviewer should understand the basis of the AI recommendation, have access to relevant information, be capable of questioning the system and possess genuine authority to reject its recommendation.

The future workplace will almost certainly involve more artificial intelligence. The real question is not whether AI will participate in employment decisions, but how much authority we are prepared to give it.

Conclusion

Technology may make decisions faster. It does not necessarily make them fairer. Ultimately, an algorithm cannot carry moral responsibility, understand every human circumstance or stand accountable before an employee whose career has been affected. That responsibility remains with the organisation and the people who govern it.

AI may assist in making employment decisions. But where livelihoods are at stake, human accountability should never become automated.

Employees in the UAE may establish a business or become a partner or shareholder in another entity while continuing to work for their existing employer, but they must consider several legal restrictions before doing so. For employees of mainland companies in Dubai, the UAE employment framework, together with its implementing regulations, governs issues including employer consent, conflicts of interest and non-competition.

An employee who wishes to establish a new business or acquire an interest in an existing UAE entity should first establish whether an No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the current employer is required and obtain the necessary approval before proceeding. The employee must also review the employment contract for any provisions that could restrict competing activities.

Employer Approval Can Be Important

An employee may establish a new entity or become a partner or shareholder in an existing business, but an employer's NOC may be required for the employee to undertake such an activity while remaining employed.

The NOC can be particularly important where the proposed business has activities that overlap with those of the existing employer. An employer may have legitimate concerns if an employee intends to operate a separate business that could compete for the same customers, use confidential information or otherwise create a conflict with the employee's duties.

Employees should therefore not assume that owning a separate business automatically falls outside their employment obligations. The proposed activity, the terms of the employment contract and the employee's actual responsibilities should all be considered before the business is established.

Non-Compete Clauses Remain Relevant

The UAE's Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 on the Regulation of Employment Relations permits employers, in certain circumstances, to include a non-competition clause in an employment contract.

Article 10 provides that where an employee's work gives access to the employer's customers or business secrets, the employer may require the employee not to compete with the employer or participate in a competing project in the same sector after the employment relationship ends.

However, such a restriction is not unlimited. The clause must specify the geographical area, duration and type of work covered, and only to the extent necessary to protect the employer's legitimate business interests. The non-competition period cannot exceed two years from the expiry of the employment contract.

This means an employee planning to establish a business in the same sector should carefully examine the wording of the employment contract. Similarity between the proposed business and the employer's activities may create legal risks, particularly where the employee has access to customers, confidential information or business secrets.

Written Agreement Can Remove the Restriction

The implementing regulations provide an important possibility for employees and employers. Under Article 12 of Cabinet Resolution No. 1 of 2022, the parties may agree in writing that the non-competition clause will not apply after the employment contract ends.

This provides a potential route for an employee and employer to resolve the issue before the employment relationship comes to an end. A written agreement can make the position clearer and reduce uncertainty over whether the employee will be able to enter a competing business after leaving the company.

The regulations also provide circumstances in which an employee may be exempted from a non-compete obligation. These include an arrangement under which the employee or the new employer pays the former employer compensation of up to three months of the employee's last contractual wage, subject to the former employer's written consent.

Other Exemptions May Apply

The regulations also provide for exemption from the non-competition restriction where the employment contract is terminated during the probationary period. Certain professional categories may also be exempted where they are identified as being in demand in the UAE labour market under the applicable ministerial decisions.

Employees should therefore consider the circumstances surrounding the termination of employment as well as the wording of the non-compete clause itself.

Importantly, where a dispute arises over the application of a non-competition clause and cannot be resolved amicably, the matter may be referred to the judiciary. Under the implementing regulations, the burden of proving the alleged damage rests with the employer.

Conflict of Interest is a Key Consideration

Even where an employee receives permission to establish a business, the employee must continue to comply with contractual duties owed to the existing employer. Running a separate company should not result in the misuse of confidential information, customer lists, trade secrets or other proprietary material belonging to the employer.

The employee should also ensure that the new business does not interfere with existing employment responsibilities. An NOC should therefore not be treated as a blanket waiver of every contractual obligation. Its terms, together with the employment contract and applicable law, remain important.

For employees considering a business venture while remaining in full-time employment, the safest approach is to examine the proposed business activity, obtain any required employer approval in writing and review the employment contract for non-compete and confidentiality provisions before taking steps to establish the new entity.

The UAE legal framework therefore allows employees to pursue business ownership while maintaining employment, but that freedom is subject to contractual obligations and safeguards designed to protect legitimate employer interests.

The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to allow the US Postal Service to enforce a rule targeting mail-in ballots, dealing a setback to efforts by President Donald Trump’s administration to restrict voting by mail ahead of November’s midterm elections, which will determine control of Congress.

The justices denied the Justice Department’s request to lift a ruling by Boston-based US District Judge Indira Talwani, who blocked the Postal Service from enforcing the measure while legal challenges brought by states and voting-rights groups proceed. The agency adopted the measure after Trump issued a March executive order aimed at tightening rules governing mail voting.

“The government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court’s preliminary injunction,” the court said in its brief, one-paragraph order.

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented from Monday’s decision. No other justice publicly dissented. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority.

Trump’s fellow Republicans are locked in a close battle to retain control of Congress in the midterms. Restricting mail-in ballots could benefit Republicans because Democratic voters disproportionately use mail-in voting, according to various surveys.

Under the rule, states would have to provide lists of mail-ballot recipients to the Postal Service and use agency-approved outbound and return ballot envelopes equipped with unique barcodes. The Postal Service could then refuse to send ballots that did not comply with the new standards or were associated with voters who did not appear on the lists.

Critics have said the plan could disrupt the delivery of thousands of legitimate ballots as the November 3 vote approaches and create chaos because many states were preparing to send mail ballots to eligible voters. The administration has said the new rule would help prevent voter fraud, although evidence of widespread such fraud is rare.

Talwani imposed an injunction on September 4 blocking the rule, finding that it likely violated the US Constitution, under which states administer elections. She also said it would be impossible for states to comply with the requirements given the rapidly approaching midterm elections.

Another federal judge, Washington, D.C.-based US District Judge Carl Nichols, also ruled against the rule on Sunday.

'Testing the Limits'

Sophia Lin Lakin, voting rights project director at the American Civil Liberties Union, which helped represent some of the challengers to the USPS rule, welcomed Monday’s decision.

“This administration keeps testing the limits of its power, as if the rules governing our elections are merely suggestions to ignore when they don’t suit the president’s agenda. But the Constitution gives states and Congress the power to set the rules for federal elections — not the president, and not the Postal Service,” she said.

“Today is a good day for democracy, the rule of law and the American people looking to exercise their constitutional right to vote,” said California Governor Gavin Newsom, whose state led one of the lawsuits challenging the rule.

“Trump’s attacks on democracy these last 20 months have been nothing short of un-American,” Newsom added.

Trump signed his executive order targeting mail-in ballots after years of casting doubt on their security, although he often votes by mail himself. Trump has also made false claims of widespread fraud in US elections, including his 2020 loss to former Democratic President Joe Biden.

In an emergency request filed on September 6, the administration urged the Supreme Court to allow it to implement what it called an “important federal policy to protect the mails from being used to commit voter fraud”.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring statement on Monday, said there was a “fair prospect” that the rule fell within the Postal Service’s authority. However, he said state and local election officials did not have sufficient time to reasonably implement it before the 2026 elections.

In his dissent, Alito likened some of the challengers’ claims to a “Hail Mary pass” that was “unlikely to be successfully completed”, using a football analogy.

“The Postal Service has broad authority to regulate the mail,” Alito added.

States Challenged the Rule

A coalition of states, most of them governed by Democrats, along with Washington, D.C., and several voting-rights groups challenged the new USPS rule.

The Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals refused last Thursday to put Talwani’s order on hold. The 1st Circuit said the rule “will likely result in the disenfranchisement of millions of voters across the country while providing minimal — if any — gains in combating voter fraud”.

The dispute over mail ballots is part of a broader series of efforts by the administration to increase federal involvement in voting ahead of the midterms. On August 24, the Supreme Court lifted an earlier injunction imposed by Talwani in June that had blocked Trump’s executive order, including the USPS rule before it had been finalised.

Getting a company licence is important, but it does not by itself make a new business operational. Once the entity exists, there are still records to create, authorities to assign, tax registrations to consider and documents to put in place before the company starts signing contracts, hiring staff or receiving money.

That is why the company formation process should not be treated as finished on the day the licence is issued. For an international investor, the more important question is whether the new company is properly prepared to function from day one, with its ownership, management, tax and commercial arrangements clearly documented.

Get the Ownership Records Right From the Start

A new UAE company needs accurate information about its shareholders and beneficial owners. Under Cabinet Decision No. 109 of 2023, legal persons within its scope are required to maintain a beneficial owner record and a register of partners or shareholders. Relevant changes generally have to be recorded within the prescribed period after the company becomes aware of them.

This can become particularly important where the shareholder is another company, a family holding vehicle or part of a wider corporate group. The legal shareholder and the individual who ultimately owns or controls the business may not be the same person. International law firms are often involved where ownership needs to be traced through entities in more than one country, making accurate corporate records essential from the outset.

Decide Who Can Sign Before Contracts Start Arriving

A company may have several shareholders but only one person handling its daily business. Before the first major contract is signed, everyone should understand who has authority to bind the company, approve payments, appoint staff or deal with banks and government bodies.

For a UAE LLC, one or more managers can be appointed, with their powers determined by the relevant company documents and appointment terms. A company lawyer can check whether those powers reflect the way the owners expect the business to operate. If internal approval is required for a large payment, major investment or long-term contract, that should be made clear before anyone commits the company.

Treat Tax Registration as Part of the Setup

Corporate Tax registration is separate from obtaining a trade licence. Persons subject to UAE Corporate Tax are required to register with the Federal Tax Authority and obtain a Corporate Tax Registration Number within the applicable timetable.

A new business should also consider whether VAT registration is relevant. For UAE-resident businesses, mandatory VAT registration generally applies when taxable supplies and imports exceed AED 375,000 over the previous 12 months or are expected to exceed that amount within the next 30 days. Voluntary registration may be available above AED 187,500 where the applicable conditions are met. A company below the threshold at launch should still monitor its turnover and taxable expenses.

Put the Basic Commercial Documents In Place

A newly registered company can start trading quickly, which is often when weak paperwork begins to create problems. Customer terms, supplier agreements, employment documents, confidentiality obligations and intellectual property arrangements should reflect the actual business rather than being copied from another company or adopted without considering the risks involved.

The same applies to assets on which the company relies. A domain, brand, design or software platform may have been created before incorporation or paid for personally by a founder. If the company is intended to own those assets, the transfer or ownership arrangement should be properly documented. A company law lawyer can also check whether the constitutional documents and any shareholder agreement are consistent with the commercial arrangements being entered into after formation.

Keep Company Records Current as the Business Changes

Formation documents can become outdated quickly. A new shareholder may join, a manager may change, the company may add a business activity or its ownership structure may be reorganised. Some of those changes can trigger filing or record-update requirements, making it important not to treat the original formation documents as permanent.

The beneficial ownership rules are one example. Changes in the beneficial owner record and shareholder register generally need to be reflected within the prescribed period. Treating corporate records as a live part of the business, rather than paperwork completed only during incorporation, can make future investments, restructuring, financing and other transactions much easier to manage.

Make the UAE Company Fit the Group Around It

For an overseas business establishing a company in Dubai, the new entity may receive funding from a parent company, licence intellectual property from another group entity or provide services to affiliates abroad. Those arrangements should be considered before money starts moving between companies, particularly where tax, transfer pricing, intellectual property or cross-border contractual issues may arise.

A global law firm may coordinate the wider group position where several jurisdictions are involved, while local counsel deals with UAE-specific requirements. The value of top law firms in this type of work is not simply in preparing formation documents. It is in identifying where corporate, contractual, tax and regulatory issues overlap before they become expensive or difficult to correct.

Know What Your Formation Provider is Handling

International investors often work with several advisers at the same time. A corporate services provider may handle the licence application, an accountant may take care of tax registrations and filings, and lawyers may be involved in shareholder arrangements, employment matters or commercial documents.

A legal service company may assist with administrative work, but investors should still be clear about who is providing legal advice, who is responsible for filings and who will monitor changes after incorporation. Confusion over those responsibilities can easily leave a new company believing that everything has been dealt with when important obligations or documents remain outstanding.

Be Ready to Operate, Not Just Registered

The real test of a company formation is not whether the licence was issued quickly. It is whether the company can sign contracts, hire employees, invoice customers, receive investment and meet its reporting obligations without having to stop and address basic corporate or regulatory gaps.

For company formation in Dubai, registration is only the first milestone. The stronger approach is to ensure that ownership records, management authority, tax registrations and core commercial contracts are ready at the same time. For an international investor, that preparation can make the difference between simply having a registered company and having a business that is genuinely ready to operate.

A company’s internal employment policy cannot generally be used to reduce the minimum rights guaranteed to workers under UAE labour law. At the same time, employers are permitted to introduce schemes, regulations and contractual terms that provide employees with benefits more favourable than those prescribed by law. Where such a policy is valid and applicable to an employee, the more beneficial terms may prevail.

This principle is particularly relevant when an employee leaves a company and disputes arise over the calculation of annual leave payments or end-of-service benefits. A manager whose employment has been terminated may therefore be able to claim enhanced benefits under a company policy, even where the statutory calculation under UAE Labour Law would produce a lower amount.

Statutory Entitlements Upon Termination

Under Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 on the Regulation of Labour Relations, workers are entitled to payment of their statutory employment dues when their contracts come to an end. These include salary and other amounts due under the law, together with payment for accrued annual leave and, where applicable, end-of-service gratuity. The employer is generally required to settle the worker’s outstanding entitlements within 14 days from the date the employment contract ends.

The law makes a distinction between the salary paid while an employee is actually taking annual leave and the cash payment due for unused leave when employment ends. Under Article 29, a worker is entitled to annual leave, while the cash equivalent of accrued statutory leave at termination is calculated according to the basic wage. The implementing regulations likewise provide that, when service ends, the worker is entitled to the cash equivalent of the legally due annual leave balance based on the basic salary.

End-of-service gratuity is similarly calculated on the basis of the worker’s last basic wage, subject to the conditions and formula prescribed by the Labour Law. This means that allowances and other components of the overall remuneration package would not ordinarily be included in the statutory gratuity calculation.

Company Policies Can Provide Greater Benefits

The position changes, however, where an employer has voluntarily adopted a policy or employment scheme that gives workers better benefits than the statutory minimum.

Article 65 of the Labour Law expressly establishes that the rights provided by the legislation are minimum rights. It also makes clear that the law does not prejudice rights granted to a worker under another law, agreement, acknowledgement, regulation or employment contract where those rights are more beneficial to the worker.

The same article specifically permits an employer to establish and implement organisational programmes or regulations that provide workers with benefits more favourable than those prescribed by the Labour Law and its implementing regulations. If such a programme conflicts with the statutory provisions, the conditions that are more beneficial to the worker are to be applied.

This provision is important because it prevents an employer from simply arguing that a benefit contained in its own policy cannot be honoured because the Labour Law does not require it. The law establishes a floor for employment rights, rather than necessarily preventing employers from offering better terms.

When a Policy Can Strengthen an Employee’s Claim

In a case involving a manager whose employment has been terminated, the precise wording and application of the company policy would therefore be critical.

If the company’s regulations clearly state that a manager’s final annual salary dues are to be calculated on the basis of total salary, or that an annual increase allowance is to be included when calculating end-of-service benefits, the employee may have grounds to seek those additional amounts.

The existence of a policy alone, however, does not automatically establish that every provision applies to every employee or every situation. The employee may need to demonstrate that the policy was officially adopted, that it applied to the employee’s position and employment relationship, and that the relevant conditions were satisfied when the employment ended.

Employment contracts, employee handbooks, internal regulations, salary structures and written company policies can therefore become important evidence in determining whether an enhanced benefit was actually promised or granted.

The Difference Between Law and Company Policy

The distinction between statutory entitlement and enhanced contractual or policy-based benefits is important. For example, if the Labour Law provides that unused annual leave at termination is calculated using the basic wage, an employer cannot ordinarily reduce that statutory entitlement further. But if the employer has voluntarily undertaken to calculate the payment using a higher salary figure, that undertaking may provide the worker with a contractual or policy-based entitlement above the statutory minimum.

The same reasoning can apply to end-of-service benefits. Although the statutory gratuity is generally calculated using the basic wage, an employer may establish a more generous scheme under which additional salary components are taken into account.

The key question is therefore not simply whether the Labour Law requires the company to make the additional payment. It is whether the employer has created a binding obligation to provide a benefit that is more favourable to the worker.

Courts Can Determine Whether the Benefit is Enforceable

Where an employer rejects such a claim, the dispute may ultimately have to be determined through the UAE labour dispute resolution process and, where necessary, by the competent court.

A court can examine the employment contract, internal regulations, company policies and other evidence to determine whether the employee was entitled to the enhanced benefit and whether the policy was applicable at the time of termination.

An employee should therefore preserve copies of the relevant company policy, employment contract, salary records, written communications and any other documents showing how the benefit was applied to employees in the same category.

For a manager facing a final-settlement dispute, the fact that a benefit is not expressly required by the Labour Law does not by itself defeat the claim. Article 65 recognises the validity of more favourable employment arrangements, provided they can be established and are applicable to the worker’s circumstances.

Accordingly, a manager whose company policy provides for calculation of termination benefits on a more favourable basis than the statutory minimum may have the right to pursue the additional amount. Whether the company is legally bound by the particular policy, however, will depend on its wording, how it was adopted and applied, and whether its conditions cover the employee’s circumstances. Ultimately, the competent labour authorities or court can determine whether the policy creates an enforceable entitlement and whether the employee qualifies for the benefits claimed.

A landmark New York law requiring advertisers to disclose their use of synthetic performers is generating the first consumer complaints, putting policymakers’ latest efforts to mitigate some of the potential negative effects of AI to an early test, Bloomberg Law reported.

The measure, known as the synthetic performer disclosure law, took effect in June and requires companies to state explicitly when AI-generated “synthetic performers” are used in advertising.

Consumers cannot sue companies directly and must rely on the state attorney general to enforce the law against offenders who use models that look human but were created using AI. The office said it is already hearing complaints from citizens.

The law is one of the first attempts to counter what lawmakers see as consumer deception surrounding the use of AI in marketing. How New York enforces the law will likely inform how other states looking to move forward with similar measures proceed.

The disclosure law was passed alongside another measure, the Fashion Workers Act, which requires advertisers and modelling agencies to obtain written consent for computer-generated or AI-enhanced representations of a model’s likeness, said Barry Benjamin, a partner at Venable LLP. That law aims in part to protect models’ right of publicity — their ability to control the use of their image and likeness, he said.

But attorneys for the advertising industry question the synthetic performer disclosure law’s scope and purpose, as well as whether it can effectively combat consumer deception given its notable exceptions.

“It’s not immediately obvious that there’s harm or the possibility of being deceived in a way that matters simply based on the fact that somebody appears real when they’re not,” said Robert Freund of Robert Freund Law APC. “I’m not sure that just the disclosure that ‘hey, this is an AI person’ or not gives the consumer additional information about whether or not something is an ad.”

Still, as AI marketing tools proliferate in the influencer marketing ecosystem, such regulations may take on greater urgency as entirely AI-generated personas rack up followers.

Human influencers already create an illusion of authenticity because many advertisements appear to show a person giving customers their honest thoughts when, in reality, they are reading from a script, Freund noted.

AI-generated user content is “another way to fake authenticity, it’s just much easier to do now at scale,” he said.

AI-Driven Deception

There is a longstanding tradition of “making sure consumers have the right to know when they’re being advertised to,” Benjamin said.

Advertisers will use AI tools because they make creating material much less expensive, he said. New York simply requires them to say explicitly whether people appearing in advertisements are AI-generated.

“There are real risks around deception and misinformation that AI really exacerbates,” said Samantha Rothaus, a partner at Davis + Gilbert LLP. “But I don’t know that AI is unique necessarily when we’re talking about advertising that’s not 100% authentic.”

Rothaus also sees several weaknesses in the New York law that appear to undercut its purpose, including carve-outs for audio and AI-generated voices.

“That’s really weird, especially for an interest in trying to help protect the jobs of performers, because voice-over performers are performers too,” she said.

The law also does not specify at what point an image needs a disclosure, making compliance tricky, she said. If an advertisement shows a person’s leg but not their full body, or an image contains a crowd in the background, it is not clear whether a disclosure is required.

“There’s so much questioning I get from clients about at what point does it matter, at what point is it material,” Rothaus said.

Rise of Influencers

Despite these difficulties, synthetic performer disclosure laws could become especially salient as AI tools drive a proliferation of content in the influencer marketing sector.

As image and video generation software improves, AI influencer personas are emerging online and stoking fears over political influence. Concerns over how AI can blur the line between fiction and reality are probably also driving synthetic disclosure laws, Rothaus said.

Social media influencer marketing is already rife with advertisements that do not comply with state advertising laws and Federal Trade Commission requirements, Freund said.

“You can go on any social media platform right now and do a little bit of scrolling and you will probably find one or more undisclosed ads,” he said. “What these new tools allow is the creation of a much higher volume of content more cheaply, and so by virtue of that, you can expect there will be more noncompliance.”

Marketers now have many tools enabling them to create synthetic performers inexpensively and at greater scale, Freund said.

Rothaus said influencers are always supposed to disclose if they are being paid to promote something.

But now, “if you’re an influencer and you’re not even a real person, that’s even more material,” she said. “When the whole thing is fictional, and you’re not aware that it’s fictional, that’s where people really can get misled and taken down the wrong path.”

Further Regulation

Other states and jurisdictions are still moving ahead with their own AI disclosure laws despite the potential limitations.

Hawaii enacted a measure nearly identical to New York’s in July, while California’s legislature passed a synthetic performer disclosure law at the end of August that is now on Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk.

The EU AI Act’s transparency requirements, which include watermarks on AI-generated or altered content so synthetic content can be detected, as well as disclosures that media may have been artificially generated or manipulated, also took effect in August.

“The writing is on the wall in terms of more of these regulations leaning toward disclose, disclose, disclose,” Rothaus said.

A franchise relationship can appear commercially successful for years before disagreements over payments, operational standards, territorial rights, marketing, intellectual property or business strategy begin to undermine the relationship. Once the relationship deteriorates, termination of the franchise agreement can become one of the most legally sensitive stages of the entire arrangement.

Unlike an ordinary commercial contract, a franchise agreement typically governs much more than the exchange of goods or services. It may regulate the use of trademarks, business systems, confidential information, premises, suppliers, technology, employee training, marketing materials and customer-facing standards. Ending the agreement therefore requires more than simply stopping operations. The parties must determine whether termination is permitted, whether contractual procedures have been followed and what obligations survive after the relationship ends.

The starting point is normally the franchise agreement itself. The contract will set out the circumstances in which the franchisor can terminate, whether the franchisee has corresponding rights, how much notice must be given and whether the party in breach must be given an opportunity to remedy the problem.

The Grounds That Can Lead to Termination

Most franchise agreements identify specific events that can justify termination. Common grounds include failure to pay royalties, fees or other amounts when due; serious or repeated breaches of operating standards; unauthorised use of intellectual property; insolvency or bankruptcy; abandonment of the franchised business; unauthorised transfer of the franchise; misuse of confidential information; and conduct that damages the franchisor's brand or reputation.

Not every breach will necessarily justify immediate termination. Agreements often distinguish between material breaches and less serious defaults. A franchisee that misses a payment or fails to comply with a particular operating requirement may be given an opportunity to correct the problem. By contrast, serious misconduct, fraud, deliberate misuse of trademarks or abandonment of the business may trigger immediate termination if the agreement and applicable law permit it.

Franchisors also need to consider whether their reasons for termination are properly documented. A dispute can become significantly more complicated if the franchisee argues that the stated reason was merely a pretext for ending the relationship for another purpose, such as restructuring a territory or replacing the franchisee.

Notice and the Opportunity to Cure

Notice provisions are among the most important procedural protections in a franchise agreement. Where a breach is capable of being corrected, the contract may require the franchisor to issue a written notice describing the default and allowing a specified cure period.

The length of the cure period varies according to the agreement and the nature of the breach. A franchisee might be given a defined number of days to pay outstanding amounts, correct operational deficiencies or address reporting failures. Certain breaches may be subject to shorter periods because of their potential impact on the brand.

The notice should generally identify the contractual provision that has been breached, explain the conduct giving rise to the alleged breach and state what corrective action is required. Failure to comply with contractual notice requirements can create an additional dispute over whether termination itself was valid.

A franchisee receiving such a notice should not assume that the matter is merely administrative. The notice may be the first formal step towards termination and, potentially, litigation or arbitration. The franchisee may need to examine the agreement, identify whether the alleged breach occurred and determine whether it can realistically be cured within the prescribed period.

When Immediate Termination May Apply

Some breaches are considered sufficiently serious that a franchise agreement may permit termination without a conventional cure period. These provisions are commonly associated with conduct that presents an immediate threat to the franchisor, its intellectual property, customers or reputation.

Examples can include fraud, serious criminal conduct, deliberate disclosure of confidential information, unauthorised use of trademarks after warnings, insolvency events or abandonment of the franchised business. However, the precise circumstances depend on the contract and the law governing the agreement.

Even where immediate termination is contractually permitted, the franchisor must consider applicable legal requirements. A contractual termination clause does not necessarily operate in isolation from mandatory provisions of the jurisdiction in which the franchise operates.

For franchisees, an allegation of a non-curable breach can therefore have significant consequences. A disagreement that might otherwise have been resolved through a cure period can quickly become a dispute over whether the franchisor had the legal right to terminate immediately.

What Happens After Termination

Termination does not necessarily bring every obligation under the franchise relationship to an end. Franchise agreements commonly contain extensive post-termination provisions designed to protect the franchisor's brand and business system.

The franchisee may be required to stop using the franchisor's trademarks, return confidential manuals and materials, disable access to proprietary systems, remove branded signs and cease representing itself as part of the franchise network. The agreement may also require the franchisee to transfer certain telephone numbers, domain names, social-media accounts or other business assets associated with the brand, depending on the contractual terms.

Confidentiality obligations can survive termination, meaning that the former franchisee may remain prohibited from using or disclosing information obtained during the franchise relationship. Similarly, obligations relating to intellectual property, outstanding payments, dispute resolution and indemnities may continue after the agreement has ended.

De-Branding is More Than Removing a Sign

One of the most visible consequences of termination is de-branding. A former franchisee normally cannot continue operating in a manner that suggests it remains authorised to use the franchisor's identity.

De-branding may involve removing exterior and interior signage, replacing branded packaging and uniforms, taking down promotional material, changing websites and digital profiles, and removing trademarks from advertising and business communications. Depending on the business, vehicles, equipment, premises and technology systems may also need to be rebranded or disconnected.

This process can create practical disputes. A franchisee may argue that certain equipment or materials were purchased with its own money and should remain its property. The franchisor may contend that continued display of branded materials creates a risk of consumer confusion. The agreement should therefore establish, as clearly as possible, what must be returned, destroyed, transferred or modified.

Inventory Can Become a Major Dispute

Unsold inventory is another common problem when a franchise ends. Food, beverages, clothing, cosmetics and other products may carry the franchisor's trademarks or be approved only for sale through the franchise network.

The agreement may determine whether the franchisor has an obligation or option to repurchase qualifying inventory. It may also establish the price, condition and timing of any buy-back. Where no such mechanism exists, the parties can face disputes over whether the franchisee may sell remaining stock during a wind-down period.

The issue becomes particularly sensitive where products are perishable or have limited shelf lives. A franchisee seeking to recover its investment may want additional time to sell stock, while a franchisor may insist that branded products stop being sold immediately after termination.

Financial and Other Liabilities May Survive

Ending the franchise does not automatically eliminate outstanding financial obligations. Royalties, advertising contributions, supplier debts, rent, taxes, employee-related liabilities and other amounts may remain payable depending on the circumstances.

The agreement may also contain indemnification provisions under which one party remains responsible for losses arising from events that occurred during the franchise term. Guarantees given by shareholders or directors may likewise survive termination if they were drafted to cover continuing obligations.

There can also be liabilities relating to customers, employees and third-party contracts. A franchisee may have entered into leases, employment arrangements, equipment finance agreements or supplier contracts that continue even after the franchise agreement has ended. Termination of the franchise therefore does not necessarily terminate these separate legal relationships.

Disputes Can Continue After the Business Closes

Termination can sometimes be the beginning rather than the end of a legal dispute. A franchisee may challenge the validity of termination, claim damages for wrongful termination or argue that the franchisor failed to comply with contractual procedures. A franchisor may seek unpaid fees, damages, injunctive relief or enforcement of post-termination restrictions.

The agreement's dispute-resolution clause can become particularly important at this stage. It may require disputes to be resolved through courts, arbitration or another agreed mechanism. The governing-law provision will also influence how contractual rights are interpreted and enforced.

Courts and arbitral tribunals may examine the precise wording of the termination clause, the nature of the alleged breach, the notices exchanged and the parties' conduct before and after termination. For that reason, both sides have an interest in maintaining clear records of warnings, correspondence, payments, inspections and attempts to resolve disagreements.

A Planned Exit Can Reduce the Risk

The safest termination is often one that is anticipated before the relationship reaches crisis point. A well-drafted franchise agreement should establish clear termination triggers, notice procedures, cure periods and consequences, while also addressing de-branding, inventory, confidential information, intellectual property and continuing liabilities.

Franchisors should avoid treating termination as a purely operational decision. Franchisees, similarly, should not assume that continuing to trade after receiving a termination notice is harmless. Each step can affect contractual rights and potential claims.

Ultimately, the end of a franchise relationship is a legal and commercial transition that needs to be managed with the same care as its beginning. Clear contractual language, proper notice, documented breaches and an orderly post-termination process can reduce uncertainty and help prevent a failed business relationship from becoming a prolonged legal battle.

Hiring a domestic worker from India to work in the UAE involves requirements in both countries, from checking the worker’s passport status and completing the Indian government’s e-Migrate procedures to obtaining a UAE work permit, entry permit, insurance and residence documentation.

The employment of domestic workers in the UAE is governed principally by Federal Decree-Law No. 9 of 2022 Concerning Domestic Workers, which establishes the rights and obligations of domestic workers, employers and recruitment agencies. The law applies to domestic workers employed in occupations including housekeepers, cooks, private drivers, gardeners and other recognised domestic service roles.

For an expatriate resident wishing to recruit a domestic worker from outside the UAE, the process involves meeting MoHRE eligibility requirements as well as completing the necessary Indian emigration procedures.

Employer Obligations Under UAE Domestic Worker Law

The UAE Domestic Workers Law places a number of responsibilities on employers. These include providing suitable accommodation and the facilities necessary for the worker to perform the agreed duties, supplying appropriate food and clothing where required, paying wages on time and providing necessary medical care.

Employers must also treat domestic workers with respect and courtesy and must not subject them to violence or degrading treatment. The employer is generally responsible for the cost of returning the worker to the worker’s home country when the employment relationship ends in circumstances where repatriation is required under the law.

The law also regulates recruitment agencies and requires them to comply with approved contractual arrangements and recruitment procedures. Recruitment agencies are prohibited from charging domestic workers commissions or recruitment-related expenses and must ensure that workers receive information about the nature and conditions of the proposed employment before recruitment.

The employment relationship must be documented through the prescribed contract. The contract should clearly establish the nature of the work, remuneration and the respective rights and obligations of the employer and domestic worker.

Working Hours, Weekly Rest and Annual Leave

The law provides important protections concerning working time and leave. A domestic worker is entitled to a daily rest period of at least 12 hours, including at least eight consecutive hours of rest.

The worker is also entitled to a paid weekly rest day. Where the worker is required to work on the weekly rest day, an alternative day of rest or cash compensation must be provided in accordance with the applicable rules.

Annual leave is another statutory entitlement. Domestic workers are entitled to at least 30 days of paid annual leave for each completed year of service. The law also provides for leave entitlements where the period of employment is more than six months but less than one year.

The employer cannot treat a domestic worker simply as an informal household employee outside the protection of UAE law. The statutory rights provided by the Domestic Workers Law represent minimum protections, and a contract or other applicable arrangement may provide greater benefits.

Requirements For Recruiting a Domestic Worker From India

Indian nationals holding passports with ECR, or Emigration Check Required, status are subject to additional emigration procedures before travelling abroad for employment. The Indian Consulate in Dubai currently provides specific procedures for recruitment of Indian workers holding ECR passports through the e-Migrate system.

For domestic workers recruited from India, the UAE sponsor must complete the prescribed employment visa attestation process. The attested employment documents are then used for obtaining emigration clearance from the Protector of Emigrants in India.

The employer should therefore begin the Indian-side process before making arrangements for the worker to travel to the UAE. The employer must register through the e-Migrate system and provide the required information and documentation for foreign-employer registration. The registration process includes submitting the appropriate request to the Indian mission in the UAE.

Once the foreign-employer registration process is completed, the employer can proceed with the recruitment and UAE visa procedures. The Indian Consulate's current guidance states that recruitment of Indian female workers holding ECR passports and other eligible workers is to be processed through e-Migrate.

UAE Visa and MoHRE Requirements

The UAE-side application begins with obtaining a domestic worker work permit and entry permit through MoHRE's approved channels. The employer must satisfy the applicable eligibility requirements before the application can be approved.

For an expatriate employer or investor, the employer must hold a valid UAE residence permit. The proposed domestic worker must generally be at least 18 years old, while MoHRE's current work-permit service specifies an age limit of 60 for domestic workers, subject to stated exceptions.

For resident employers, MoHRE currently requires proof of accommodation through a valid tenancy contract or title deed. The current service requirements also state that an expatriate employer must provide a recent salary certificate confirming family income of at least Dh25,000. An investor or self-employed sponsor may instead be required to provide a bank statement demonstrating the applicable monthly income.

Other documents can include the employer's passport and Emirates ID, the domestic worker's passport and photograph, proof of marital status and the spouse's residence documentation where applicable. The employer may also be required to provide other documents depending on the nature of the application and the service channel used.

The domestic worker's passport must have the required validity, and the worker must not already hold an incompatible UAE work permit. Adequate insurance coverage is also required as part of the domestic worker work-permit process.

Entry Permit, Attestation and Emigration Clearance

Once the UAE application has been approved, an entry permit is issued through the relevant immigration authority. For a worker travelling from India on an ECR passport, the employment documents must then go through the required Indian mission attestation process.

The Indian Consulate's current guidance states that an employment visa for a housemaid recruited from India must be duly attested by the Embassy or Consulate. The attested employment documents can then be used by the worker to approach the relevant Protector of Emigrants office in India for emigration clearance.

This stage is particularly important because an ECR passport holder cannot simply travel to the UAE for employment without completing the prescribed clearance process. Employers should therefore avoid making travel arrangements until the required documentation and clearance have been obtained.

After the Domestic Worker Arrives in The UAE

The process does not end when the worker arrives in the UAE. The employer must complete the remaining immigration, employment and health-related formalities.

The domestic worker is required to undergo the applicable medical fitness examination. The employer must also arrange the required health insurance and complete the Emirates ID and residence procedures.

The final MoHRE employment contract must be completed in the prescribed format and should reflect the agreed employment terms. MoHRE's current service requirements include a signed domestic worker employment contract and medical insurance documentation, with adequate medical insurance specifically required for domestic workers in Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

Employers should also ensure that the worker's actual duties, salary, working arrangements and other conditions correspond with the terms agreed in the official employment documents. Recruitment arrangements should not be altered informally after arrival in a manner that undermines the worker's statutory rights.

Use Licensed Recruitment Channels

Employers who do not wish to undertake direct recruitment can use licensed domestic worker recruitment offices and approved service channels. The UAE has a regulated system for domestic worker recruitment, and MoHRE has taken enforcement action against unlicensed recruitment activities.

In February 2026, MoHRE said it had closed 230 social media accounts during 2025 for promoting domestic worker recruitment services without the required licences or affiliation with licensed recruitment offices. Employers should therefore be cautious about dealing with individuals or online agents offering to arrange domestic workers outside the authorised system.

Licensed recruitment channels can assist with recruitment, visa processing, medical examination, insurance and other procedures depending on the package and service arrangement. However, the employer remains responsible for complying with the legal obligations applicable to the employment relationship.

Compliance is Important For Both Employer and Worker

Hiring a domestic worker from India requires coordination between the UAE's domestic worker regulations and India's emigration requirements. An employer should not assume that obtaining a UAE entry permit alone is sufficient for an ECR passport holder to travel for employment.

The safer approach is to complete the e-Migrate registration and Indian mission requirements, obtain the appropriate UAE work permit and entry permit through the authorised channels, complete the required attestation and emigration clearance before travel, and then finish the medical, insurance, Emirates ID, residence and employment-contract formalities after arrival.

The UAE Domestic Workers Law is designed to establish a regulated employment relationship and protect the rights of domestic workers while setting clear responsibilities for employers and recruitment agencies. Employers who follow the prescribed procedures from the beginning can avoid delays in recruitment and visa processing while ensuring that the domestic worker's employment is properly documented and compliant with UAE law.

OpenAI, Microsoft, The New York Times and a group of prominent authors have laid out sharply differing views on one of the highest-stakes questions in copyright law in their dispute over AI training.

The technology companies and copyright owners both asked US District Judge Sidney Stein in Manhattan on Friday to rule in their favour on the companies' "fair use" defence, a decision that is likely to determine which side wins the case.

The Times' lawsuit, first filed in 2023, accuses OpenAI and its largest financial backer, Microsoft, of using millions of newspaper articles without permission to train ChatGPT. A group of authors, including John Grisham, Jonathan Franzen and George R.R. Martin, separately sued the companies that same year for using their books to train OpenAI's popular chatbot.

Those cases and other related lawsuits were consolidated in New York last year. Dozens of other complaints have also been brought by copyright owners against technology companies over what they describe as the theft of their material to train AI systems.

The pending cases will likely turn on whether AI systems make fair use of copyrighted material by using it to create transformative new content. The first two judges to consider the issue issued diverging rulings last year.

US District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco called Anthropic's use of books for AI training "quintessentially transformative".

Judge Vince Chhabria, also in San Francisco, ruled for Meta in a similar case two days later and also called its use of copyrighted books transformative. Chhabria warned, however, that AI training would not be fair use "in many circumstances" and raised concerns that generative AI could "flood the market" with content that competes with human creators.

The authors echoed Chhabria in their filing on Friday, arguing that AI is "diluting the market for books across the board" and that fair use "does not countenance such catastrophic threats to the incentive to create".

In their brief, the news outlets said that ChatGPT diverts users from their websites and also displaces the market for their work.

"Defendants' competitive exploitation of Plaintiffs' expressive works cannot be excused" under court precedent, the outlets said.

Citing Alsup, OpenAI told the Manhattan court that the use of copyrighted works for AI training is "among the most transformative many of us will see in our lifetimes" and said its technology has not harmed writers.

"The purpose of OpenAI's pretraining process was to derive broad, unprotectable statistical patterns related to language that can be used to create new text, not reproduce protected expression," OpenAI said in a brief addressing the authors' case.

Microsoft also told Stein on Friday that fears that large language models would displace authors and journalists were unfounded.

"Plaintiffs began this case speculating that LLMs would destroy their very livelihoods," Microsoft said in a brief addressing the authors' case. "Years of discovery later, the record is clear: Neither LLM training nor the use of LLMs in products substitutes for copyrighted books."

The case is In re OpenAI Inc Copyright Infringement Litigation, US District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:25-md-03143.

Divorce is never merely the end of a marriage. It is also the deliberate untangling of years, and often decades, of intertwined finances: property held in two names, investments built from a single salary, businesses developed around the family, and financial obligations neither spouse fully remembers signing. For couples with international connections, substantial portfolios or assets spread across several jurisdictions, the financial dimension of separation can be even more complicated than the emotional one. Decisions made in the earliest stages of a settlement, sometimes during a single meeting or through a single signature, can shape a person's financial security for years to come.

In advising clients through complex domestic and cross-border family matters, one principle is repeatedly confirmed: a matrimonial settlement stands or falls on three fundamentals — complete transparency, accurate valuation and correct legal classification. Where any one of these is compromised, settlements can unravel, disputes can reignite years after they were thought to have been resolved, and wealth that took a lifetime to build can be consumed by the process of dividing it.

What follows is an examination of where matrimonial settlements most often go wrong and what spouses can do to protect their financial position before committing to an agreement.

Start With the Full Picture: Identifying and Valuing The Marital Pool

The foundation of any fair settlement is a complete and accurate picture of the marital asset pool. That may sound self-evident, but it is precisely where many disputes begin.

The pool can extend far beyond the family home. It may include second homes and holiday properties, commercial plots and rental investments, vehicles, artwork, jewellery, club memberships, insurance policies with a surrender value and, increasingly, digital assets and cryptocurrency holdings. Each asset needs to be identified, documented and appropriately valued as at the relevant date. The relevant figure is not necessarily what was originally paid for an asset, what one spouse believes it is worth or what a neighbouring property sold for two years ago. It is the fair market value established through an appropriate valuation process.

Outstanding mortgages, loans, tax liabilities and other encumbrances must then be taken into account to establish the true net equity available for division. The exercise is particularly important where assets have appreciated significantly or where liabilities associated with them have been overlooked.

Two issues deserve particular attention. First, the date of valuation can have a substantial impact on the eventual settlement. Markets move, businesses fluctuate and investment portfolios can change materially between separation and the conclusion of proceedings. The date that the law treats as decisive varies between jurisdictions, and the difference can be financially significant.

Second, valuation is not a formality to be rushed through on the way to negotiations. Spouses are often surprised to discover that the figure they have carried in their minds for the family home, investment portfolio or business bears little resemblance to the professionally assessed value. Establishing reliable valuations at an early stage can therefore make the difference between an agreement that withstands scrutiny and one that is subsequently challenged.

Bank Accounts and Investments: Where Complexity Often Begins

Liquid assets can present some of the most intricate challenges in a divorce, particularly where accounts are spread across different banks, currencies or jurisdictions.

Joint accounts may appear relatively straightforward, although their treatment can still depend on the applicable law and the circumstances in which the funds were accumulated. Individual accounts raise much more difficult questions. Was the balance accumulated before the marriage or during it? Were marital earnings, bonuses or proceeds from jointly owned property deposited into the account? Did funds move repeatedly between joint and individual accounts?

Where marital and separate funds have become mixed, the distinction between "yours" and "ours" can become difficult to establish. Reconstructing that history may require a forensic review of bank statements, transaction records and the origin of significant deposits and transfers, sometimes extending over a decade or more.

The same discipline applies to investments. Mutual funds, listed shares, employee stock options, restricted share units and retirement savings accumulated during a marriage may all become relevant to the settlement. Each brings its own valuation, vesting and tax considerations. Stock options granted during the marriage but scheduled to vest after separation can become a particular source of disagreement, as can retirement accounts, which may represent one of the largest assets accumulated by a couple while nevertheless being overlooked during early negotiations.

The lesson is straightforward: assumptions about what is beyond the reach of a settlement are frequently wrong. Only a detailed legal and financial review can establish the nature and value of the assets and determine what may properly be claimed.

Separate Property and Marital Property: The Distinction That Can Decide The Outcome

One of the most consequential principles in matrimonial finance is the distinction between separate property and marital property. The precise rules differ considerably between jurisdictions, but the classification can determine whether an asset remains with one spouse or becomes relevant to the financial settlement.

As a general principle in many legal systems, assets acquired before marriage, or received individually during the marriage through inheritance or gift, may remain the property of the original owner. That protection, however, can be affected by what happens to the asset afterwards. Where separate assets become mixed with marital funds, their separate character can become harder to establish and, depending on the applicable law, may be lost or give rise to claims by the other spouse.

This is commonly described as commingling. It is one of the areas in which careful documentation can make an enormous difference.

Consider a property owned outright before the wedding. If it is substantially renovated using income earned during the marriage, if its mortgage is serviced from a joint account, or if it is refinanced and the proceeds are used for family expenses, the other spouse may potentially acquire an interest or a claim relating to the value contributed, depending on the governing law. The same issue can arise where an inheritance is deposited into a joint account or pre-marital investments are sold and the proceeds are reinvested alongside marital savings.

The difficulty is that these issues are often recognised only after a relationship has broken down, when it may be much harder to reconstruct the financial history. Spouses who understand the distinction early and preserve documentation showing the origin, movement and use of their assets are generally in a stronger position when negotiations begin.

When a Business is On The Table

For entrepreneurs, corporate executives and business-owning families, divorce introduces an entirely different category of financial risk. Shares in a private company or an interest in an operating business cannot simply be sold and divided in the same way as a bank balance. Their true value may also be difficult to determine from company accounts alone.

This is where specialist valuation and forensic accounting can become essential. A proper business valuation needs to look beyond management accounts and examine the company's actual earning capacity, recurring revenue, liabilities, contingent obligations, growth prospects and dependence on the personal goodwill or involvement of either spouse.

The central question is often whether the business was built principally from one spouse's pre-marital assets and individual efforts or whether its growth was supported by shared resources and contributions during the marriage. Contributions to a family can take many forms. A spouse who stepped away from a career to manage the household or care for children while the other built the company may have made a significant indirect contribution to the family's wealth, even without receiving a salary from the business.

The way in which the business interest is ultimately dealt with is equally important. In many circumstances, preserving the underlying enterprise is preferable to forcing a sale or disrupting its operations. Possible approaches can include one spouse buying out the other's interest, offsetting the value of the business against other assets such as property or investments, or agreeing to structured payments secured against future earnings or other assets.

Handled carefully, a business can emerge from divorce intact, allowing employees, clients and creditors to continue without unnecessary disruption. Handled poorly, it can become the most expensive casualty of the settlement.

The Costliest Mistake of All: Hiding Assets

If one principle overrides all others, it is this: full and frank financial disclosure is not optional. Depending on the jurisdiction and proceedings involved, parties may be required to disclose income, bank accounts, investments, corporate interests, trusts, beneficial ownership interests and liabilities, including those held outside the country. The temptation to conceal an offshore account, understate a bonus or quietly transfer an asset to a relative may arise during a contentious separation. Such conduct, however, can have serious legal and financial consequences.

Courts can have a range of remedies where assets have been concealed or disclosure obligations breached. These may include adverse inferences, additional costs, disclosure orders, freezing orders and other measures designed to prevent assets from being dissipated or hidden. In serious cases, a settlement believed to be final can potentially be revisited if material non-disclosure is subsequently uncovered.

Transparency is therefore not simply a legal obligation. It is also what gives a settlement durability. Consent orders, separation agreements and financial arrangements are far more likely to withstand future scrutiny when they have been negotiated on the basis of complete and verifiable financial information. A settlement built on incomplete disclosure may provide the appearance of finality while merely postponing the dispute.

Divorcing in the UAE? The Legal Landscape Requires Careful Analysis

For residents of the UAE, the legal framework governing divorce and financial arrangements can be particularly important where spouses have different nationalities, religious backgrounds or connections to other jurisdictions.

The traditional approach in many UAE family matters has generally placed significant emphasis on separate ownership, meaning that assets acquired or held by each spouse may not automatically be treated as a single community pool simply because they were accumulated during the marriage. The applicable rules, however, depend on factors including the parties' personal status, nationality, religion, the location and nature of the assets, and the court or legal framework dealing with the dispute.

The introduction of civil personal status frameworks for non-Muslim families has added another important dimension to the UAE's family-law landscape. In appropriate cases, agreements between spouses, property ownership arrangements and evidence of financial contributions can become highly relevant to the outcome. Abu Dhabi's civil family court framework and specialist jurisdictions such as the Abu Dhabi Global Market also provide important considerations for internationally connected families, although the precise legal treatment of an individual case must be assessed on its facts.

For families with assets in several countries, jurisdiction can therefore be critical. Where proceedings are commenced, which legal framework applies and whether an agreement or judgment can be recognised and enforced elsewhere may materially affect the final result. Offshore companies, trusts, foreign property, international investment portfolios and other cross-border structures can add further layers of complexity.

This is why international divorce should not be approached simply as a question of where a couple lives. The location of assets, domicile or habitual residence, nationality, existing agreements and the jurisdictions in which proceedings could potentially be brought can all become strategically important.

The Earlier You Act, the Stronger Your Position

No two marriages are alike, and no two financial settlements should be either. The appropriate outcome depends on early advice, complete information and a strategy built around the couple's assets, jurisdictions and objectives rather than a template borrowed from somebody else's divorce.

Whether you are planning ahead with a prenuptial agreement, negotiating a separation or facing a contested divorce involving assets in several countries, the principle is the same: seek legal advice before important financial decisions are made. Early advice can help identify assets, establish which assets belong to each spouse and ensure that any agreement reflects their legal rights. Once assets have been transferred, investments sold or a settlement signed, it can be difficult, costly and sometimes impossible to undo what has been done.

The most effective approach is therefore to understand the financial landscape before committing to a settlement. Identify the assets, establish their value, determine their legal classification, ensure full disclosure and understand the jurisdictional implications before signing away rights that may be difficult to recover.

A divorce settlement is not simply a document bringing a marriage to an end. It can determine financial security for many years afterwards. The decisions made before that document is signed can therefore be as important as the terms contained within it.