Trade
Oman Relaxes Residency Rules to Attract More Foreign Property Investors
The Royal Oman Police has introduced sweeping amendments to the Executive Regulations of the Foreigners Residence Law, easing residency requirements for foreign property owners and investors in the Sultanate.
Issued under Decision No. 87/2026 by Lt Gen Hassan bin Mohsin Al Shuraiqi on Sunday, the changes will take effect once published in the Official Gazette.
A key amendment introduces residency permits for foreign nationals who own land earmarked for construction or residential units that have not yet completed registration procedures. These permits can now be granted without the need for a local sponsor, subject to certification by the relevant authority.
The revised rules also extend residency eligibility to first-degree family members of property owners, as well as legal representatives of corporate entities holding property in Oman.
Under the new framework, residency permits linked to unregistered properties will be valid for six months to one year, with the option of renewal for similar periods. Permit holders will be allowed to enter and remain in Oman for up to three months per visit.
The amendments further clarify the process for obtaining property-owner residency visas, allowing foreign nationals who own residential units in Oman to secure residency, provided they enter the country within three months of the visa being issued.
The updated regulations also expand the list of individuals eligible to sponsor family members, including Omani citizens, GCC nationals, licensed foreign investors, residential property owners and expatriates employed by government entities.
Residency tied to property ownership will remain valid as long as the ownership is retained. However, the permit — including those issued to accompanying family members — will automatically lapse once the property is transferred through any legal transaction.
The move is expected to strengthen Oman’s appeal as a real estate investment destination by offering greater certainty and flexibility to foreign investors seeking long-term residency.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
US Judge Grants Approval to Visa and Mastercard’s Revised $38 Billion Swipe Fee Settlement in Landmark Antitrust Case
A US judge on Tuesday granted preliminary approval to Visa and Mastercard’s revised $38 billion settlement with merchants who had accused the card networks of charging excessive fees to process credit card payments.
US District Judge Brian Cogan in Brooklyn, New York, said the settlement was “fair, reasonable and adequate”, and indicated he was likely to grant final approval at a later stage.
The ruling came nearly two years after another judge rejected an earlier $30 billion version of the deal, describing it as insufficient.
The settlement, announced in November, is intended to bring an end to litigation that began in 2005, when merchants alleged that Visa, Mastercard and several banks conspired to breach US antitrust laws through the imposition of so-called “swipe fees”.
Under the revised agreement, Visa and Mastercard have committed to reducing swipe fees—also known as interchange fees — by 0.1 percentage point over five years. Standard consumer rates would also be capped at no more than 1.25 per cent for eight years.
Merchants will also be given greater flexibility to impose surcharges on customers and to decide whether to accept cards across different categories, including commercial cards, premium consumer cards (many of which include rewards programmes) and standard consumer cards.
The changes would effectively end the long-standing “Honour All Cards” rule, which required merchants to accept all Visa and Mastercard cards or none.
Visa shares rose 1.7 per cent on Tuesday, while Mastercard shares gained 2 per cent.
Judge Rejects Trade Groups’ Opposition
Several trade bodies, including the National Retail Federation, the Merchants Payments Coalition and the National Association of Convenience Stores, had objected to the revised settlement.
They argued that it would force merchants into an unfavourable choice between accepting high-cost rewards cards — which dominate the market — or losing sales by refusing them.
Objectors also said retailers would still be bound by an “honour all issuers” requirement within each network, preventing them from accepting cards from one bank while rejecting another.
Walmart was among those opposing the deal, arguing it would allow Visa and Mastercard to entrench anti-competitive practices that have persisted for more than 30 years.
Judge Cogan acknowledged that several objections had merit but said the settlement did not need to be perfect.
“The objectors identify several things that they want to do but can’t… and things that they theoretically can do but won’t,” he said. “But the question is not whether the amended settlement constitutes the best possible recovery… it is whether it constitutes a reasonable resolution in light of what may be gained or lost at trial.”
Neither the trade groups nor Walmart immediately commented on the ruling.
Visa described the settlement as an important step towards giving merchants greater flexibility in accepting payments, while Mastercard said it struck a balance between the interests of all parties.
Swipe fees totalled $118.8 billion in the United States in 2025, up from $111.2 billion in 2024 and $25.6 billion in 2009, according to the Merchants Payments Coalition, with the average fee standing at 2.36 per cent.
Economists Say Settlement Could Benefit Consumers
Supporters of the agreement include the Electronic Payments Coalition, whose members include major issuers such as Bank of America, Capital One, Chase and Citibank.
Experts for the plaintiffs, including Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and University of Washington professor Keith Leffler, said the reforms could save merchants $38 billion by 2031 and generate $224 billion in total benefits, including gains for consumers.
The earlier $30 billion settlement would have reduced swipe fees by 0.07 percentage point over five years and also allowed more surcharging flexibility.
In rejecting that version in June 2024, US District Judge Margo Brodie said fees would still have remained above competitive levels absent antitrust violations, and that merchants would have remained constrained by the “Honour All Cards” rule.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
OpenAI Expands Roster of Top Law Firms for High-stakes Lawsuits, Deals
AI start-up OpenAI, most recently valued at $852 billion, has expanded its network of external counsel to include more than a dozen of the largest US law firms as it contends with multiple lawsuits and a looming initial public offering (IPO).
The company, its CEO Sam Altman, and their lawyers at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz and Morrison Foerster on Monday secured a major victory in defeating a lawsuit by Elon Musk, who alleged that OpenAI had strayed from its original non-profit mission. The win cleared a potential hurdle to an OpenAI IPO that sources have told Reuters could come as soon as September.
Wachtell has represented OpenAI in a string of significant deals since the release of ChatGPT in 2022, including billions of dollars in fundraising from Microsoft, Nvidia and other investors. The Information reported in March that OpenAI had tapped New York-based Wachtell for its IPO, along with Cooley, a firm with Silicon Valley roots.
Spokespersons at Wachtell and Cooley did not immediately respond to requests for comment. OpenAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment on its work with external law firms, including how much the company is spending on legal services.
Wachtell and its partner William Savitt are also defending OpenAI in a lawsuit filed by Musk’s xAI Corp last year, alleging that the ChatGPT maker and Apple monopolise markets for smartphones and generative AI chatbots.
Musk’s xAI separately sued OpenAI last year for allegedly stealing trade secrets to gain an unfair advantage in developing AI technology. OpenAI has engaged lawyers from Munger, Tolles & Olson to defend it in that dispute.
OpenAI has denied xAI’s claims in both cases and has accused Musk of harassing the company through litigation.
Wachtell is not the only major firm representing OpenAI in both deals and litigation. Latham & Watkins has handled several transactions for the company, including securing a new $4 billion revolving credit line in 2024, and is one of several firms defending OpenAI in a series of high-stakes copyright infringement lawsuits filed by authors, comedians and news agencies, which allege the company used their material without permission to train AI systems.
Morrison Foerster and Keker, Van Nest & Peters are also representing OpenAI, which argues that its use of such material is protected under the copyright fair use doctrine.
OpenAI has also turned to Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati in a case brought by Nippon Life Insurance Company, which alleges that ChatGPT practised law without a US licence by helping a former disability claimant flood a federal court docket with meritless filings. OpenAI this week asked a federal judge in Chicago to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that ChatGPT is not a lawyer and does not practise law.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Judge Allows Gun, Notebook Evidence in Mangione CEO Murder Trial
Luigi Mangione on Monday failed to persuade a New York judge to exclude a possible murder weapon from evidence in his upcoming trial over the killing of a UnitedHealthcare CEO, although prosecutors were barred from introducing some other items found in his backpack.
Mangione, 28, is accused of fatally shooting health insurance executive Brian Thompson on a Manhattan pavement in December 2024.
The killing was widely condemned by public officials but also became symbolic of growing public anger in the United States over health insurance industry practices and rising healthcare costs.
Mangione has pleaded not guilty to murder, weapons and forgery charges. His trial is scheduled to begin on September 8 and is expected to last six weeks.
The ruling by Justice Gregory Carro allows prosecutors to introduce evidence including a possible murder weapon and a notebook containing potentially incriminating writings, while also handing Mangione a partial legal victory by excluding certain other evidence.
A spokesman for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said prosecutors looked forward to presenting their case. A representative for Mangione declined to comment.
Carro suppressed some evidence recovered from Mangione’s backpack during his arrest in Pennsylvania, ruling that police had unlawfully searched the bag without a warrant. The excluded items included a loaded handgun magazine, a mobile phone and a computer chip.
However, the judge approved a second search of the backpack conducted later at a police station and ruled that items recovered during that search were admissible. Those items included a gun that prosecutors say matches the murder weapon, along with a notebook containing writings about wanting to “whack” an insurance executive.
Carro also rejected Mangione’s request to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officers, dismissing claims that he had been illegally interrogated.
The judge delivered his ruling during a brief hearing at a Manhattan state court, attended by Mangione.
Mangione’s lawyers argued that the contents of his backpack and statements made during his arrest in Pennsylvania should be ruled inadmissible because he had been unlawfully searched and was not informed of his legal rights.
Prosecutors denied those claims.
Court filings from prosecutors describe a broad body of evidence allegedly linking Mangione to the killing, including DNA, fingerprints, hundreds of hours of video footage, mobile phone data and another backpack he allegedly discarded while fleeing New York.
Thompson, who headed the health insurance division of UnitedHealth Group, was shot dead on December 4, 2024, outside the Hilton hotel where the company was holding an investors’ meeting.
Mangione was arrested in Pennsylvania following a five-day manhunt and has remained in custody since then.
State prosecutors had initially charged him with terrorism, but Carro later dismissed that charge after finding insufficient evidence that the alleged actions were intended to influence public policy.
Federal prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York separately filed murder, weapons and stalking charges against Mangione.
The judge presiding over the federal case dismissed the murder and weapons charges on a legal technicality in January, removing the possibility of the death penalty.
Mangione has pleaded not guilty to the remaining stalking charges and could face life imprisonment if convicted.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Dubai Motorist Told to Pay Dh7,500 After Court Rejects Traffic Fines Dispute
Dubai civil court has ordered a motorist to pay Dh7,500 to a vehicle owner after holding him responsible for traffic fines and Salik toll charges accumulated while the car was in his possession.
The court also directed the defendant to bear court fees and expenses. However, it rejected the vehicle owner’s separate claim seeking Dh15,000 in compensation for the alleged reduction in the car’s market value and dismissed a request to transfer 35 black traffic points to the defendant’s traffic record.
According to court documents, the dispute stemmed from an alleged verbal agreement between the registered owner and the defendant for the sale of the vehicle. Under the arrangement, the defendant was reportedly expected to clear all traffic fines linked to the car and transfer ownership of a damaged vehicle wreck in return for receiving ownership of the vehicle.
The owner told the court that he handed over the car based on mutual trust and a personal relationship between the parties. The defendant subsequently took possession of the vehicle and used it regularly. However, the claimant alleged that the defendant failed to fulfil his obligations by neither settling the fines nor transferring the wrecked vehicle as agreed.
Court records showed that despite repeated efforts by the owner to complete the official ownership transfer, the defendant allegedly refused to cooperate. During the period the vehicle remained under the defendant’s control, additional traffic fines and Salik toll charges amounting to Dh16,050, along with 35 black points, were recorded against the vehicle.
The claimant argued that because the car remained registered in his name, he suffered direct financial losses arising from traffic violations and alleged accidents committed while the defendant was driving the vehicle. He also sought compensation for what he claimed was a decline in the car’s resale value.
To support his case, the owner submitted copies of the vehicle registration, traffic violation records, and WhatsApp conversations exchanged between the parties.
The defendant failed to appear before the court despite being legally notified, prompting the court to issue its ruling in absentia.
In its judgment, the court referred to provisions of the UAE Civil Transactions Law, which state that any person causing harm to another is liable for compensation. The court noted that civil liability requires proof of fault, damage, and a direct causal connection between them.
The court found that the defendant had actual possession of the vehicle and had acknowledged in WhatsApp messages that he would settle the violations. It considered this sufficient evidence to establish liability for the traffic fines and Salik charges incurred during that period.
However, after assessing the evidence, the court ruled that the proven financial loss amounted to Dh7,500 and ordered the defendant to pay that amount to the claimant.
The court rejected the separate Dh15,000 compensation claim, ruling that the claimant had failed to provide sufficient proof of the alleged accidents or the claimed depreciation in the vehicle’s value.
It also dismissed the request to transfer the traffic violations and black points to the defendant’s traffic file, explaining that such violations remain legally attached to the registered owner recorded with the licensing authority at the time the offences are committed and cannot be reassigned retroactively.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Relief for Trump as US Appeals Court Pauses Ruling Against 10% Global Tariff
US President Donald Trump secured a significant legal reprieve on Tuesday after a federal appeals court temporarily paused a lower court ruling that had declared his sweeping 10% global tariff unlawful.
The decision allows the contested duties to remain in effect while the case moves through the judiciary.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an unsigned administrative stay of last week’s ruling by the Court of International Trade, effectively placing the matter on hold to give an appeals panel time to weigh arguments from both sides before deciding whether to suspend the tariffs during the full appeal.
The ruling marks the latest development in a turbulent legal battle over the administration’s trade agenda.
Trump introduced the 10% import levy after the Supreme Court struck down an earlier, broader set of tariffs he had justified under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). In that case, the court ruled that IEEPA does not authorise the president to impose blanket tariffs.
Undeterred, Trump turned to a different legal mechanism — Section 122 of the US Trade Act of 1974, a provision never previously used — to impose a 10% across-the-board surcharge set to expire on July 24. The law permits the president to impose temporary tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits.
However, the trade court found that such a deficit condition does not currently exist, noting that a balance-of-payments deficit is distinct from a trade deficit — a distinction acknowledged by the administration in court.
The appeals court emphasised that it has not ruled on the merits of Trump’s appeal and is still considering whether to grant a longer-term stay pending full proceedings. The administration argued that lifting the tariffs prematurely could trigger a surge in imports, leading to economic disruption.
Businesses and the state of Washington now have seven days to oppose any further extension of the stay granted in favour of the lower court’s ruling.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
US Trade Court Rules Trump Tariffs Unlawful, Limits Relief to Two Importers
A US trade court dealt another setback to President Donald Trump’s tariff strategy, ruling that his latest temporary 10 per cent global duties were unjustified under a 1970s trade law. However, the court limited its order to two private importers and the state of Washington.
The 2-1 ruling by the US Court of International Trade leaves the temporary tariffs in place for all other importers while any appeal by the Trump administration proceeds. The duties are expected to expire in July.
The court found that Trump’s decision to impose the tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 was misguided, although one judge said it was premature to hand victory entirely to the plaintiffs.
While the ruling concerns a set of levies due to expire in about two months, it marks another major obstacle to Trump’s global tariff ambitions. It also comes a week before he is expected to discuss trade tensions with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing.
The decision sets the stage for another prolonged legal battle over billions of dollars in potential tariff refunds, three months after the US Supreme Court struck down Trump’s sweeping global tariffs imposed under a national emergencies law.
Trump blamed the ruling on “two radical left judges”.
“So, nothing surprises me with the courts. Nothing surprises me,” he told reporters after viewing a reflecting pool renovation project in Washington. “We get one ruling and we do it a different way.”
The Trump administration still plans to revive broad tariffs on major trading partners by invoking a third law that has survived multiple legal challenges — Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which deals with unfair trade practices. Three Section 301 tariff investigations are currently underway and are due for completion in July.
Narrow Injunction
The New York-based Court of International Trade declined to issue an injunction blocking the tariffs for all importers, rejecting a request from a group of 24 states, most led by Democrats, on the grounds that those states lacked standing to seek such relief.
“Private plaintiffs make no specific arguments for a universal injunction. Costs to one plaintiff are not an appropriate basis for the imposition of a universal injunction. Accordingly, the court declines to enter a universal injunction,” the ruling stated.
The White House and the Office of the US Trade Representative did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
“The opinion undoubtedly will be appealed by the United States and thus sets the stage for further consideration by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court,” said Dave Townsend, a partner in Dorsey & Whitney’s international trade group. He added that other importers would likely seek a broader remedy covering more companies.
The court ruled that most of the states involved in the lawsuit, apart from Washington, were not importers that had paid or could have paid the Section 122 tariffs. Washington submitted evidence showing that tariffs had been paid through the University of Washington, a public research institution.
The two small businesses involved in the case — toy company Basic Fun! and spice importer Burlap & Barrel — argued that the new tariffs were an attempt to sidestep a landmark US Supreme Court ruling that struck down Trump’s 2025 tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Immediately after that ruling, Trump turned to Section 122, which permits duties of up to 15 per cent for a maximum of 150 days to address serious balance-of-payments deficits or prevent an imminent depreciation of the dollar.
Court Rejects Deficit Argument
Thursday’s ruling found that the law was not intended to address the type of trade deficits cited in Trump’s February order.
“This decision is an important win for American companies that rely on global manufacturing to deliver safe and affordable products. Unlawful tariffs make it harder for businesses like ours to compete and grow,” said Jay Foreman.
“We are encouraged by the court’s recognition that these tariffs exceeded the President’s authority. This ruling brings needed clarity and stability for companies navigating global supply chains,” he added.
Jeffrey Schwab, who represented the importers, said limiting the ruling to the plaintiffs “of course brings up a lot of questions about how this will play out”.
The Trump administration had argued that a serious balance-of-payments deficit existed in the form of a $1.2 trillion annual US goods trade deficit and a current account deficit amounting to 4 per cent of GDP.
Several economists questioned that justification from the outset, including former International Monetary Fund First Deputy Managing Director Gita Gopinath, who told Reuters that the US was not facing a balance-of-payments crisis.
A former trade official said the administration would likely challenge the ruling and later impose permanent tariffs under a different authority.
“The administration will appeal this decision but it will continue collecting most of the 10 per cent tariffs under Section 122 until July 24, at which point we will likely have permanent Section 301 tariffs in place,” said Ryan Majerus, now with the King & Spalding law firm.
Schwab said other companies could also file lawsuits seeking refunds, although that may depend on whether the government appeals or allows the tariffs to expire on July 24 as scheduled.
US Supreme Court Refuses to Halt Apple Contempt Order in High-stakes Epic Games App Store Battle
The US Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected Apple’s request to temporarily block a judicial order that found the iPhone maker in violation of sweeping court-mandated changes to its lucrative App Store, imposed as part of an antitrust lawsuit brought by “Fortnite” maker Epic Games.
Justice Elena Kagan, acting on behalf of the court, declined to pause a ruling by the San Francisco-based United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that held Apple in contempt in the Epic Games lawsuit challenging App Store fees.
The Supreme Court’s decision means Apple will return to Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, to continue arguing over what commission the company can lawfully charge for certain app-related transactions. Apple’s application before the Supreme Court sought to avoid returning to the trial court while it pursued its broader legal challenge before the justices.
Epic Games chief executive Tim Sweeney said in a statement that “the Supreme Court has considered Apple’s delaying motion and found it unworthy.”
Apple and Epic Games have been locked in a years-long legal battle over the rules governing Apple’s App Store. The contempt ruling, and the scope of Apple’s court-ordered obligations, are the latest issues in the dispute to reach the Supreme Court. Apple has argued that the Ninth Circuit’s decision could affect how millions of app purchases are conducted.
Epic Games secured the contempt order last year as part of litigation it launched in 2020 seeking to loosen Apple’s control over transactions within applications using the company’s iOS operating system, as well as restrictions on how apps are distributed to consumers.
Although Apple largely defeated Epic’s original lawsuit, the judge’s 2021 injunction required the company to allow developers to include links within apps directing users to payment methods outside Apple’s ecosystem.
Apple subsequently permitted such links, but introduced new restrictions, including a 27 per cent commission on purchases made through external payment systems within seven days of a user clicking a link. Developers are typically charged a 30 per cent commission for purchases made directly through the App Store.
Epic argued that the 27 per cent commission violated the earlier injunction. In 2025, the judge found Apple in civil contempt for breaching the order.
The Ninth Circuit, in December, upheld the contempt finding, but allowed Apple to present new arguments regarding what commission it should be permitted to charge for digital goods purchased through apps distributed via the App Store but paid for using third-party payment systems.
In the district court proceedings, Sweeney said Apple must now disclose the costs involved in reviewing apps that use competing payment systems so developers can be charged accordingly.
Apple has denied violating the judge’s order and has argued that the injunction should not extend to millions of developers beyond Epic Games.
“Regulators around the world are watching this case to determine what commission rate Apple may charge on covered purchases in huge markets outside the United States,” Apple said in a Supreme Court filing.
Epic Games has argued that Apple should not be allowed to sidestep the judge’s original injunction, saying this would “give Apple more time to continue unfairly profiting at the expense of consumers and app developers.”
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Canada Mass Shooting Victims’ Families Sue OpenAI, CEO Altman in US Court
Family members of victims of one of Canada’s deadliest mass shootings have sued OpenAI and its chief executive Sam Altman in a US court, alleging the company knew months before the attack that the shooter was planning it on ChatGPT but failed to alert police.
Seven lawsuits, filed in federal court in San Francisco on Wednesday, accuse OpenAI’s leadership of not notifying authorities because doing so could have exposed the scale of violence-related interactions on ChatGPT and potentially jeopardised the company’s path to a nearly $1 trillion initial public offering.
The February shooting in Tumbler Ridge left nine people dead, many of them children.
An OpenAI spokesperson described the incident as “a tragedy” and said the company has a zero-tolerance policy on the use of its tools to facilitate violence. The spokesperson added that safeguards have since been strengthened, including improved responses to signs of distress, better links to mental health support, enhanced threat assessment and escalation, and stronger detection of repeat offenders.
The cases form part of a growing wave of lawsuits alleging that artificial intelligence companies have failed to prevent harmful chatbot interactions linked to self-harm, mental illness and violence. They are believed to be the first in the United States to claim that ChatGPT played a role in facilitating a mass shooting.
US lawyer Jay Edelson, who represents the plaintiffs, said he plans to file around two dozen additional lawsuits in the coming weeks on behalf of others affected by the attack.
Lawsuits Allege Safety Team Was Overruled
According to police, 18-year-old Jesse Van Rootselaar shot her mother and stepbrother at home before killing an educational assistant and five students aged 12 to 13 at her former school on 10 February. She later died by suicide.
The plaintiffs include the husband of the slain educational assistant, the parents of a 13-year-old boy who was killed, and the family of a 12-year-old girl who survived after being shot three times but remains in intensive care with severe brain injuries.
One complaint alleges that OpenAI’s automated systems flagged conversations in June 2025 in which the attacker described gun violence scenarios. Members of the company’s safety team reportedly recommended contacting law enforcement after concluding that she posed a credible and imminent threat.
However, the lawsuits claim that Altman and other senior leaders overruled that recommendation, and police were not alerted. Although the account was deactivated, the attacker allegedly created a new account and continued using the platform to plan the assault.
Following publication of reports about internal discussions, OpenAI said the flagged activity did not meet its internal threshold for reporting to law enforcement.
In an open letter published last week by a newspaper in Tumbler Ridge, Altman said he was “deeply sorry” that the account had not been reported.
In a blog post on Tuesday, OpenAI said its models are trained to refuse requests that could “meaningfully enable violence” and that it notifies law enforcement when there is an “imminent and credible risk of harm”, with mental health experts involved in assessing borderline cases.
The lawsuits seek unspecified damages as well as a court order requiring OpenAI to overhaul its safety practices, including mandatory protocols for referring credible threats to law enforcement.
A Vancouver-based law firm representing the plaintiffs in Canada said the cases were filed in California partly due to limits on damages for pain and suffering under Canadian law.
Growing Legal Pressure on AI Firms
The litigation follows a series of lawsuits filed against OpenAI in US courts in recent months, alleging that ChatGPT facilitated harmful behaviour, including suicide and, in at least one instance, a murder-suicide.
Although still at an early stage, the cases are expected to test the extent to which AI platforms can be held liable for user actions and their own safety decisions.
OpenAI has denied the allegations, arguing in one case that the perpetrator had a long history of mental illness.
Meanwhile, James Uthmeier recently announced a criminal investigation into ChatGPT’s alleged role in a separate 2025 shooting at Florida State University.
Canada’s minister responsible for artificial intelligence, Evan Solomon, said he is examining regulatory options for AI chatbots and is working with OpenAI to review its safety protocols.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Law firms Turn to SC Veteran Clement in Appeal Over Trump Executive Orders
Four US law firms targeted by President Donald Trump have turned to a leading Supreme Court advocate to persuade a federal appeals court not to reinstate executive orders that penalise them over past legal work, diversity policies and political links.
Paul Clement, the former US solicitor general under President George W. Bush, confirmed in a court filing on Thursday that he will represent Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey at a hearing on 14 May before the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The Trump administration is appealing after a lower court last year struck down the executive orders, ruling that they violated free speech protections and other provisions of the US Constitution. The three-judge panel includes two judges appointed by Democratic presidents and one appointed by a Republican.
Clement will argue against Justice Department lawyer Abhishek Kambli, who is leading the government’s defence of the orders. Neither party responded immediately to requests for comment.
Widely regarded as one of the country’s foremost appellate lawyers, Clement has argued more than 100 cases before the US Supreme Court. His clients have included Tesla and the Association of American Universities, which challenged the Trump administration over cuts to federal research funding. He has also recently represented Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook in a high-profile case involving Trump’s attempt to remove her.
Kambli joined the Justice Department last year from the Kansas Attorney General’s office, where he led its special litigation and constitutional issues division.
The executive orders sought to restrict lawyers from the four firms from accessing federal buildings and to terminate US government contracts held by their clients. The firms have denied any wrongdoing.
Nine other law firms, including Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps, previously reached settlements with the Trump administration to avoid similar measures.
Any ruling from the D.C. Circuit may be further appealed to the US Supreme Court.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.