IP | IT | Law

Organisations that develop, deploy or use AI systems, and any national laws regulating such use, shall ensure that, to the extent reasonable given the circumstances and the state of the art of the technology, such use is transparent and that the decision outcomes of the AI system are explainable.

A survey of middle powers’ converging drivers and mitigation strategies to address vulnerabilities relating to technological sovereignty.

The article by Hans Caspar von der Crone and Keivan Mohasseb analyses the current status of the revision of company law following the Council of States’ deliberations in June 2019 and highlights the key political and legal directions of the reform project. Drawing on ten key topics – including the capital band, general meetings held abroad, statutory arbitration clauses, remuneration rules and loyalty shares – the authors highlight the main differences between the National Council and the Council of States. The analysis combines an overview of the parliamentary decisions with a critical assessment of their practical implications. The article thus provides a concise guide to the key developments in Swiss company law at that time.

The article by Keivan Mohasseb and Hans Caspar von der Crone analyses a ruling by the Federal Supreme Court on the question: Can rights of configuration, once exercised, be revoked retrospectively? Taking as their starting point a dispute over the delayed completion of a flat under condominium ownership, the authors examine the legal principles underpinning rights of configuration and the scope of the principle of their irrevocability. The article highlights the conditions under which a switch between different legal remedies may nevertheless be permissible, and places the Federal Supreme Court’s reasoning within the general context of contract law.

This article analyses a judgement by the Zurich Commercial Court concerning the judicial enforcement of minority shareholders’ right to information under company law. It focuses on the conditions, limitations and procedures for the provision of information, as well as its enforcement through legal action under Article 697 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (OR). Keivan Mohasseb and Hans Caspar von der Crone contextualise the decision within the framework of current company law whilst also highlighting the implications of the then-imminent revision of company law. The article thus provides valuable guidance for practitioners navigating the tension between shareholders’ interests in information and the company’s interests in confidentiality.

Episode 44 of the Data Navigator podcast focuses on FRAND in the Data Act – specifically, the conditions under which data owners must disclose IoT data to third parties and what they are permitted to charge for this. Martin Schirmbacher and Hubertus von Rönne explain the details of the new legal framework. The starting point is the familiar triangle: a user (e.g. a wind farm operator) instructs the manufacturer (e.g. Vestas) to send operational data directly to a third party (e.g. the start-up Turbit). To this end, a contract must be concluded between the manufacturer and the third party (see Art. 8 Data Act), and remuneration is governed by Art. 9 DA, all on FRAND terms. The user, however, may request the data free of charge. Martin and Hubertus go through in detail which costs the manufacturer is permitted to charge (provision costs, onboarding, margin where applicable, and investment costs – though the latter, for example, not vis-à-vis SMEs), which billing models the Commission’s draft guidelines provide for, and what ‘non-discriminatory’ means in practice. Key principle: The value of the data itself must not be priced. The conclusion: Remuneration issues will develop differently depending on the sector. At present, progress is often still stalling on fundamental issues: What data is actually being shared, and how should it be categorised? The call remains: producers, users and data recipients must come together within their respective sectors and also discuss the terms of data provision.

On 26 March 2026, the Bundestag passed the Act Implementing the Data Regulation (DADG), which was published in the Federal Law Gazette on 29 May. Germany has thus – albeit with a significant delay – established the national legal framework required of Member States under the EU Data Act. Below, we provide an overview of the background, content and penalty provisions of the new Act.