Lead Story
Judge Blocks Bid to Access ChatGPT Records, Ruling AI Logs Are Protected Legal Work Product in Litigation
A New York state judge has quashed a subpoena seeking an OpenAI user's ChatGPT records as evidence in a private lawsuit, ruling that the chat logs constituted protected legal research and litigation work product.
Justice Rhonda Fischer of the Nassau County Supreme Court issued the decision, which was made public last week. The ruling is among the first to address when artificial intelligence companies may be required to disclose users' records in civil litigation.
The lawsuit, filed in 2024 by Alpha Tech Lending, its founder and other plaintiffs, accuses former company president John Recchio III and others of breach of contract, unfair competition and related claims connected to a competing venture. Recchio denies the allegations.
Rick Ostrove of Leeds Brown Law, representing Alpha Tech Lending, said the plaintiffs disagree with the ruling and intend to appeal.
Recchio welcomed the decision, stating: “Civil discovery should not become a back door into private AI records, business information or account materials absent legitimate legal grounds and court scrutiny.”
OpenAI, which is not a party to the litigation, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Alpha Tech Lending had subpoenaed OpenAI for a broad range of data relating to Recchio's use of ChatGPT, including prompts, uploaded materials and outputs used in generating court filings or communications connected to the case. The plaintiffs argued that the information was relevant to examining the “basis, accuracy and authenticity” of Recchio's claims and defences.
Recchio, who is representing himself, asked the court to block the subpoena, describing it as a “fishing expedition” seeking “every imaginable piece of private information”. He argued that compliance would expose his private litigation workspace, including legal research, draft documents, case strategy and other materials prepared in anticipation of litigation.
In a decision dated June 4, Justice Fischer agreed, finding that work-product protections applicable to litigation-related materials extended to Recchio's interactions with AI tools.
The judge also referred to a Colorado federal court ruling which found that a self-represented litigant's use of AI can amount to “confidential, strategy-laden iterative work product”. While AI platforms may collect user data, the Colorado court observed that this “does not eliminate all expectations of privacy or automatically waive protections”.
Justice Fischer distinguished the case from a February ruling issued by a federal court in New York, noting that the earlier decision arose in a criminal matter rather than a civil dispute. The distinction, she suggested, was significant in determining the scope of discovery and the protections available to litigants using AI-assisted legal research tools.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
FIFA World Cup Prediction Markets Trigger Fresh Legal Battle Over Gambling and Financial Regulation
The 2026 FIFA World Cup could become a major testing ground for gambling and financial market regulation, according to a Bloomberg Law report. As millions of fans travel to the United States for the tournament, regulators are expected to closely monitor sports prediction markets, which sit at the centre of an ongoing legal debate over whether they should be regulated as gambling products or financial instruments.
The debate has gained fresh momentum following FIFA's partnership with ADI Predictstreet and Fanatics Inc., a move that brings prediction markets further into the mainstream. Legal experts say the tournament's global reach and massive betting interest are likely to intensify scrutiny of the rapidly growing industry and the regulatory framework governing it.
The dispute lies at the heart of a broader jurisdictional conflict in the United States. Several states argue that sports event contracts offered by prediction market operators are effectively gambling products and should therefore fall under state gaming laws. Prediction market companies, including Kalshi and Polymarket, maintain that their offerings are derivatives contracts traded on federally regulated exchanges, placing them under the exclusive authority of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
The World Cup is likely to bring that debate into sharper focus. With millions of international fans expected to travel to the US, regulators will closely monitor trading activity for signs of insider trading, market manipulation, fraud, and other potential abuses.
Legal practitioners say the tournament's global profile makes it a particularly sensitive event from an enforcement perspective. Regulators and law enforcement agencies are expected to pay close attention to trading patterns and unusual activity linked to World Cup matches, given the enormous volume of transactions and public interest the tournament is likely to generate.
The regulatory uncertainty extends beyond US borders. While American authorities continue to debate the legal classification of prediction markets, many foreign jurisdictions have already reached a clearer conclusion.
Countries such as the United Kingdom and several European Union member states generally require operators to obtain gambling licences before offering sports-related prediction products. Similar approaches are followed in Japan, Singapore, and Hong Kong, where such platforms are commonly regulated as online gambling services. China, where gambling is largely prohibited, has effectively barred these markets altogether.
The differing regulatory frameworks raise significant cross-border compliance risks for operators and users alike. Lawyers warn that companies offering services across jurisdictions may face investigations, licensing requirements, enforcement action, or restrictions imposed by local authorities.
For users, the legal risks may be equally complex. A platform that is lawful in one jurisdiction may be restricted or prohibited in another. Travellers attending the World Cup could find that prediction market products available in the US are subject to different rules in their home countries, creating potential regulatory exposure depending on where transactions are conducted.
The World Cup may also provide states seeking tighter controls over prediction markets with a new opportunity to strengthen their legal arguments. States with established gambling industries, including New Jersey and Pennsylvania, are expected to highlight increased betting activity during the tournament as evidence that prediction markets operate in substance as gambling products rather than financial instruments.
Beyond domestic disputes, legal experts anticipate heightened scrutiny from foreign regulators. Authorities may seek to investigate or enforce local gambling laws against activities involving their citizens or national teams, even where the relevant trades occur through platforms operating from the United States.
As prediction markets continue their rapid expansion, the 2026 FIFA World Cup is shaping up not only as the world's biggest football tournament but also as a major legal battleground. The event could influence future regulatory approaches to sports prediction markets, while testing the limits of gambling laws, financial market regulations, and international enforcement cooperation.
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 Supreme Court Curbs Private Lawsuits Under Investment Company Act
The US Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a group of investment funds affiliated with BlackRock and other asset managers in their effort to block certain lawsuits brought by private plaintiffs under a key federal securities law.
In a 6-3 decision driven by its conservative majority, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that had allowed hedge fund Saba Capital Master Fund to sue under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (ICA) to invalidate fund bylaws restricting the voting power of activist shareholders.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who authored the ruling, wrote that the Investment Company Act does not authorise private parties to bring lawsuits seeking the rescission of bylaws or other contractual provisions.
"In sum, nothing in the text or structure of the ICA indicates that Congress authorised private parties to enforce virtually every provision in the statute," Barrett wrote in the opinion, which was joined by the court's five other conservative justices.
The court's three liberal justices dissented.
President Donald Trump's administration backed BlackRock, FS Credit Opportunities and other funds involved in the case, including Adams Diversified Equity Fund, Adams Natural Resources Fund and Royce Global Trust.
The investment funds at the centre of the dispute are known as closed-end funds, which issue a fixed number of shares and often trade below the value of their underlying holdings. The funds, organised under Maryland law, adopted bylaw provisions restricting the voting power of large shareholders.
Saba, a hedge fund managed by activist investor Boaz Weinstein that owns shares in the investment funds, brought legal challenges against 11 such funds.
The hedge fund alleged that the disputed bylaw provisions violated a section of the Investment Company Act requiring each share to carry equal voting rights. It also argued that the law permits private parties – and not just the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) – to seek court orders invalidating corporate bylaws or other contractual terms that breach the Act.
A federal judge in New York sided with Saba in 2024, ruling that the so-called "control-share bylaws" violated the Investment Company Act and had to be removed. The New York-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently upheld that decision.
The funds then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Investment Company Act does not provide a "private right of action" allowing investors to bring such claims.
Stephen Sypherd, general counsel of Future Standard, the parent asset manager of one of the funds that prevailed in the case, said the ruling represented "a clear win for investors", allowing closed-end funds "to continue operating in the best interests of long-term shareholders".
Weinstein, of Saba Capital, said the ruling "puts the burden squarely on the SEC" to take action against control-share provisions that he argues violate the Investment Company Act.
"The evidence of shareholder harm is overwhelming," Weinstein said. "The SEC has no excuse not to act."
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Bill Gates Tells Congress Epstein Used Knowledge of His Affairs to Apply Pressure
Bill Gates told members of the US Congress on Wednesday that he “did not fully understand the extent” of the crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein when he associated with the late financier to raise funds for his philanthropic work.
The testimony from Bill Gates forms part of an ongoing congressional inquiry into Epstein’s network of contacts and the handling of related investigations by the US government.
Gates said he never witnessed any criminal conduct by Epstein. However, he accused the financier of attempting to blackmail him by exploiting knowledge of his extramarital affairs.
“These affairs had nothing to do with my interactions with Epstein, but they were painful for my family,” Gates said in a prepared statement. “Epstein was working to use information about my infidelities — in addition to many lies that he layered on top — to pressure me to re-engage with him.”
Congress has been examining the US Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein case, including its earlier prosecutions and subsequent decisions. Epstein had been accused of exploiting women and girls from vulnerable backgrounds.
Gates gave his testimony privately to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is investigating possible federal mismanagement in the cases against Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell.
Committee chairman James Comer had previously asked Gates to appear for a transcribed interview.
Gates also hired lawyer Jake Greenberg to assist in preparing for his appearance, according to reports.
Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 to a state prostitution-related offence in Florida and served 13 months in jail. He was later charged federally in 2019 with sex trafficking of minors but died by suicide that year before trial.
Documents released by the US Justice Department indicated that Gates and Epstein met repeatedly after Epstein’s release from prison, primarily to discuss philanthropic initiatives. Some materials also included photographs of Gates with women whose faces were redacted.
Gates has previously said his contact with Epstein was limited to philanthropy-related discussions and has acknowledged it was a mistake to meet him. A spokesperson for the Gates Foundation said Gates had “taken responsibility for his actions” in internal discussions.
The inquiry also covers broader issues including prosecutorial decisions, plea deals, Epstein’s death, and delays in releasing government files. The US Justice Department’s handling of the case remains under scrutiny.
The case has drawn renewed attention to Epstein’s extensive social and professional connections, which included figures across politics, finance, academia and business, among them Donald Trump.
Former attorney general Pam Bondi also faced criticism over aspects of the handling of the case.
The Justice Department has released millions of documents relating to Epstein in recent years, intensifying political debate over transparency and accountability in one of the most high-profile criminal cases in recent US history.
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.
US Judge Strikes Down Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee as Unlawful
A federal judge on Monday struck down a $100,000 fee imposed by US President Donald Trump on new H-1B visas for highly skilled foreign workers, ruling that it amounted to an unlawful tax that Congress had never authorised.
US District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston issued the ruling in a lawsuit filed by 20 Democratic state attorneys general challenging the fee, which Trump announced in September and which dramatically increased the cost of obtaining H-1B visas. The programme is heavily relied upon by technology companies and other employers seeking to recruit foreign talent.
The administration argued that the fee was a lawful monetary penalty that the president was authorised to impose under federal immigration law, which grants him the power to restrict the entry of certain foreign nationals when he considers their admission “detrimental to the interests of the United States”.
However, Sorokin concluded that the fee was not a penalty but a tax, which the Republican president lacked congressional authority to impose. He further ruled that the US State Department and US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) could not implement the measure.
“Here, the substance and application of the $100,000 payment reveal that it is a tax, regardless of what the payment is called,” wrote Sorokin, who was appointed by former Democratic President Barack Obama.
The judge cited a US Supreme Court ruling from February that struck down Trump’s sweeping tariffs, which had been introduced under a law intended for use during national emergencies. Applying the same reasoning, Sorokin said Trump similarly lacked authority under immigration law to levy a tax.
White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said in a statement that the Trump administration was confident the ruling would be overturned on appeal.
“President Trump has clear legal authority to restrict the entry of any class of aliens he determines is not in America’s best interests, and that is exactly what he did,” she said.
The H-1B programme provides 65,000 visas annually, with an additional 20,000 visas available for workers holding advanced degrees. These visas are typically granted for periods ranging from three to six years. Before Trump’s proclamation, employers seeking H-1B visas generally paid between $2,000 and $5,000 in fees, depending on various factors.
In announcing the new fee, Trump said the H-1B programme “has been deliberately exploited to replace, rather than supplement, American workers with lower-paid, lower-skilled labour”.
The fee does not apply to visas granted to foreign nationals already in the United States on student visas, a group that typically accounts for a significant proportion of new H-1B recipients.
Few employers have paid the fee since its introduction. As of 15 February, USCIS had received only 85 payments of the $100,000 charge, according to an agency official in a March court filing.
The Trump administration has also ordered enhanced vetting of H-1B applicants and proposed a new visa selection process that would favour higher-skilled and better-paid workers.
The fee has prompted at least three separate lawsuits challenging its implementation, including a case brought by the US Chamber of Commerce. The organisation is appealing a December ruling by a judge in Washington, DC, who rejected its argument that Trump lacked authority to impose the fee.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat who led the multi-state coalition that brought the case before Sorokin, welcomed the ruling and described the measure as an “unlawful and costly $100,000 tax”.
“This tax was an attack on America’s ability to attract and retain the high-skilled talent that strengthens our economy and helps us meet critical workforce needs,” he said.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
UAE Tightens WPS Oversight to Speed Up Action on Delayed Salaries
The UAE’s latest updates to the Wage Protection System (WPS) are aimed at accelerating action on delayed salary payments and improving oversight procedures, the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation (MoHRE) has clarified.
The ministry said the revised framework, which came into effect on June 1, does not create any new substantive obligations for employers. Instead, it formalises and standardises wage monitoring procedures to provide greater clarity on salary payment timelines and compliance measures.
Under the updated system, salaries for MoHRE-regulated private sector companies are due on the first day of every month. Any payment made after that date will be classified as delayed.
MoHRE said the changes are designed to enable quicker intervention in delayed wage cases, helping to reduce potential disruption to employment relationships and business operations.
The ministry explained that WPS follows a gradual and balanced compliance approach. The process begins with electronic monitoring and notifications to employers, allowing companies time to rectify delays before administrative measures are enforced within approved timelines.
According to MoHRE, the framework is intended to encourage preventive compliance and resolve violations at an early stage while minimising the impact on labour market stability and business continuity.
The ministry added that establishments will be considered compliant if at least 85 per cent of total wages due are transferred within the specified timeframe. However, it stressed that the threshold is only a compliance benchmark and does not permit employers to underpay workers, who remain entitled to recover any outstanding dues.
MoHRE also said some monitoring measures are implemented using a risk-based approach, with particular focus on labour-intensive sectors where delayed salaries can have a greater impact on workers and operational stability.
The ministry noted that the approach supports the sustainability of key economic sectors while protecting the interests of both employers and employees.
With the WPS processing more than Dh37 billion in wages every month, MoHRE said the system continues to play a central role in maintaining labour market stability and strengthening business confidence in the UAE.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Abu Dhabi Freezes Rents to Ease Pressure on Tenants, Businesses
In a rare intervention in the property market, Abu Dhabi has temporarily frozen rent increases across residential, commercial and industrial properties, offering immediate relief to tenants and businesses amid growing regional uncertainty. The measure, announced by the Abu Dhabi Real Estate Centre (ADREC), comes as Gulf governments intensify efforts to shield residents from the economic impact of rising geopolitical tensions.
The announcement comes at a sensitive moment for the region. With escalating tensions following the US-Iran conflict and growing concerns over economic spillover effects, the emirate appears determined to prevent speculative rent hikes and protect residents and businesses from sudden financial pressure.
Under the temporary measure, all tenancy renewals across Abu Dhabi will be processed with a 0 per cent increase, overriding the existing framework that permitted landlords to raise rents by up to 5 per cent annually with prior notice. Even new tenancy contracts for previously rented units must retain the same rental value as the earlier agreement, effectively freezing price escalation across much of the market.
The decision reflects the UAE’s broader governance approach, which has often prioritised rapid administrative intervention during periods of crisis or economic uncertainty. Similar approaches were visible during the Covid-19 pandemic, when authorities across the UAE introduced fee waivers, rent support initiatives and financial relief packages to stabilise businesses and households.
The intervention also reflects a broader trend across the Gulf, where governments have increasingly stepped in to stabilise housing markets during periods of economic or geopolitical uncertainty. In recent years, rising rents and housing affordability concerns have emerged as key policy issues across major cities in the region, prompting authorities to balance market growth with social and economic stability.
Abu Dhabi’s latest decision appears to acknowledge that affordability pressures can directly affect economic confidence, workforce retention and consumer spending.
Unlike Dubai’s highly liberalised rental environment, Abu Dhabi has traditionally maintained a more regulated approach to tenancy governance. The emirate already operates under a structured framework through the Tawtheeq system, which records and authenticates tenancy agreements and provides enforceable legal protections for both landlords and tenants.
The introduction of Abu Dhabi’s official rental index in 2024 further reinforced the government’s intention to increase transparency and reduce arbitrary pricing practices. The index was designed not merely as a data tool, but also as a mechanism to create predictability in an increasingly competitive property market.
The latest rent freeze therefore does not emerge in isolation. Instead, it appears to form part of a broader policy direction aimed at balancing investor interests with social stability.
For tenants, the measure provides immediate financial breathing space. Residents in Abu Dhabi already face additional housing-linked costs, including the municipality’s 3 per cent housing fee applied annually on rented properties. A freeze on rental increases may help offset broader inflationary pressures and rising living costs across the region.
Businesses operating in commercial and industrial sectors are also expected to benefit. Small and medium enterprises, particularly those still recovering from post-pandemic economic adjustments, often face rent as one of their largest operational expenses. By limiting rental escalation, authorities may be attempting to prevent cost pressures from spilling into employment or consumer pricing.
However, the decision also raises questions for landlords and investors. Real estate in Abu Dhabi has long been promoted as a stable and attractive investment environment supported by predictable regulation. Temporary state intervention, even during extraordinary circumstances, may create concerns among some investors regarding pricing flexibility and returns.
Yet the UAE’s experience during previous crises suggests that authorities view market stability itself as an economic asset. During periods of uncertainty, governments in the Gulf have often prioritised occupancy rates, business continuity and long-term investor confidence over short-term profit expansion.
The timing of the decision is equally notable. Since regional tensions intensified earlier this year, the UAE has taken multiple community-focused measures aimed at minimising disruption to residents and visitors. Abu Dhabi’s Department of Culture and Tourism had earlier instructed hotels to accommodate stranded travellers affected by flight disruptions, with Dubai adopting similar directives shortly afterwards.
Viewed together, these measures indicate a coordinated policy approach centred on reassurance, continuity and social calm.
The rent freeze may ultimately prove temporary, but its broader significance lies elsewhere. It demonstrates how housing policy in the Gulf is no longer treated solely as a commercial matter. Increasingly, it is becoming a strategic governance tool — one tied to economic resilience, population stability and public confidence during volatile times.
For Abu Dhabi, the challenge ahead will be maintaining that balance: protecting tenants without discouraging investment, preserving affordability without weakening market momentum, and ensuring that emergency intervention does not evolve into long-term uncertainty for the property sector.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
UAE’s Sweeping New Civil Law Reforms Take Effect Today
A major overhaul of the UAE’s civil law framework comes into force today, introducing wide-ranging reforms that are expected to reshape how residents, businesses, families and young adults deal with contracts, financial obligations, property and legal responsibility.
Federal Law No. 25 of 2025 on Civil Transactions replaces the UAE’s 1985 Civil Code, bringing significant changes to contract rules, liability, compensation, negotiations and dispute resolution.
One of the most widely discussed amendments is the reduction of the legal age of adulthood from 21 to 18. In many civil matters, 18-year-olds will now be treated as adults and may be able to sign contracts, manage finances, establish businesses, participate in civil cases and deal with certain assets without parental or guardian approval.
However, the reforms go beyond the age change, introducing stricter standards for transparency, accountability and conduct in civil dealings.
The law strengthens obligations during pre-contract negotiations, requiring individuals and companies to act in good faith and disclose important information that could influence the other party’s decision. Concealing key facts or providing misleading assurances could carry legal consequences.
The provisions are expected to affect a wide range of everyday transactions, including property purchases, business partnerships, service agreements, investment deals and settlement negotiations.
Legal experts say the reforms aim to reduce disputes arising from hidden information, vague promises or sudden withdrawals from negotiations after one party has already relied on the proposed agreement.
The updated law also provides clearer guidance on compensation claims. Courts will consider the actual damage suffered, the link between the wrongful act and the loss, and whether the injured party contributed to the damage.
This means compensation may be reduced if a claimant’s actions worsened the loss. Courts will also have greater authority to review pre-agreed contractual penalties if they are found to be excessive or disproportionate to the actual harm caused.
The changes could impact contracts involving late-payment charges, cancellation fees, delay penalties, service penalties and compensation clauses.
The law further clarifies the time limits for filing civil claims, making record-keeping increasingly important for both residents and businesses. Emails, messages, invoices, contracts, payment records and written notices may become crucial evidence in disputes.
The reforms also reinforce enforcement of civil judgments. Once a court ruling becomes final, enforcement may involve bank accounts, movable assets, receivables or property, depending on the case and applicable procedures.
Another key aspect concerns contracts involving multiple legal systems. While the UAE follows mainland civil law, financial free zones such as DIFC and ADGM operate under separate legal frameworks.
Under the new law, contracts must clearly specify the applicable law and dispute resolution forum, particularly in cross-border or free-zone-related agreements.
The reforms are widely seen as a shift towards greater clarity, accountability and predictability in civil dealings, giving individuals and businesses broader rights along with clearer legal responsibilities.
The new law applies to most civil transactions in the UAE, although areas such as employment, family matters, banking, insurance and certain free-zone issues remain governed by separate legislation.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Can Trump Charge $100,000 for an H-1B Visa? US Judge Presses Government on Scope of Presidential Powers
A federal judge has questioned the extent of President Donald Trump's authority to impose a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas for highly skilled foreign workers, raising concerns about whether there are any legal limits to such powers.
US District Judge Leo Sorokin heard arguments on Friday in Boston in a lawsuit brought by 20 Democratic state attorneys general challenging the fee, which Trump announced in September. The measure dramatically increased the cost of obtaining H-1B visas, a programme widely used by US companies to recruit specialised foreign talent.
The H-1B programme provides 65,000 visas annually, along with an additional 20,000 visas for workers holding advanced degrees. These visas are generally granted for periods ranging from three to six years. Before Trump's proclamation, employers typically paid between $2,000 and $5,000 in fees to sponsor a foreign worker, depending on various factors.
The sharp increase appears to have significantly reduced demand. According to a March court filing, US Citizenship and Immigration Services had received only 85 payments of the $100,000 fee as of February 15.
"The effect is to incentivise companies to train and hire American workers," Tiberius Davis, a lawyer representing the US Department of Justice, told the court.
Davis argued that Trump acted lawfully under his broad authority under federal immigration law to restrict the entry of foreign nationals whose presence could be deemed detrimental to US interests.
"It's clearly broad language," Judge Sorokin acknowledged.
However, the judge repeatedly pressed the government on whether its interpretation of the law imposed any meaningful limits on presidential power. He questioned whether the same legal theory could allow a president to impose a $100,000 fee on Americans seeking to marry non-citizens or require companies sponsoring foreign workers to surrender 10 per cent of their equity to the government.
"I'm trying to understand the government's position on the scope," Sorokin said.
Davis responded that such hypothetical measures could potentially fall within the president's authority to regulate the entry of non-citizens. "It's a very sweeping power," he said.
The government urged Sorokin to follow the reasoning of US District Judge Beryl Howell in a related case brought by the US Chamber of Commerce in Washington, DC. Howell previously concluded that Trump's broad immigration powers gave him the authority to impose the fee.
James Richardson, representing California, argued that the administration had effectively imposed an unconstitutional $100,000 tax on H-1B visa applications without congressional approval. He maintained that Congress had never delegated its taxing authority through immigration legislation.
Richardson also pointed to a US Supreme Court ruling issued in February that struck down Trump's sweeping tariffs imposed under a law intended for national emergencies. He argued that the decision provided a strong precedent for finding the H-1B fee unlawful.
"Congress does not delegate tax authority in ambiguous language," Richardson told the court.
Judge Sorokin did not immediately rule on the matter. The case, State of California et al v. Mullin, is being heard in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.