The UK Government’s announcement of a ban on social media access for under-16s is one of those moments where the headline is simple, but the implications aren’t as straightforward. The position is this: children under 16 will be prevented from accessing mainstream social media platforms, with implementation expected around spring 2027.

In isolation this is a significant step, but stop there and you miss the bigger point. This isn’t just about children and social media. The Government are looking to mandate a fundamental shift in how the UK – regardless of age – will have their social media usage regulated, and beyond the perceived societal benefits, that has very real consequences for platforms, brands, and agencies. 

The move from, ‘make social media safe’ to, ‘maybe you shouldn’t be here’

The Online Safety Act – which came into force in October 2023 – was based around an intention to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online. This would be achieved by platforms accepting more ownership for what happens on them via risk assessments, content moderation and child safety protections intended to deter harm to their users, especially children. 

What’s just been announced takes a different view entirely. The Government has framed its full ban on under-16s accessing social media platforms as a response to what it views as a “failing system”. That’s a huge shift, with potentially huge and unforeseen consequences.  

The ban is the headline, but the details tell the real story 

The ban isn’t itself may not be the most important part of the new proposals. The Government is also looking at: 

blocking livestreaming and contact with strangers for under-16s;  
tightening rules around AI chatbots and similar tools;  
limiting “addictive” features like infinite scrolling;
potentially introducing curfews or usage controls for teenagers; and
applying protections to 16- and 17-year-olds by default, to avoid a regulatory cliff edge  

In other words, this isn’t just about who can access platforms; it’s about how those platforms work. That’s where this new approach moves much closer to home for agencies and brands. Once regulators other than the ICO start looking at product design, feeds, engagement mechanics and messaging features, they’re addressing the DNA of the platforms themselves. 

Enforcement: same model, bigger ask 

One thing that hasn’t changed is where responsibility for social media compliance sits. As with the Online Safety Act, the burden isn’t on parents or on children, it’s on the platforms. They’ll be expected to take ‘reasonable steps’ to prevent under-16s from accessing their services, likely through a mix of facial age estimation, digital ID and wider age verification technologies. As with the Online Safety Act, OFCOM will be central to developing what ‘effective’ age assurance actually looks like. 

At scale, that raises some significant questions around how far platforms can go in verifying a user’s age and what personal data they need to collect (and can justify collecting). In addressing safety concerns, the Government is already creating new privacy issues as one of many consequences of a well-intentioned policy supported by the vast majority of parents.   

Why now? A political and cultural shift as much as a legal one

The tone coming out of the Government is also worth noting. This initiative isn’t being presented as a technical adjustment or a tweak to existing rules, but an acknowledgment that the current system isn’t working and that social media platforms are now seen as inherently risky for children. This led to a willingness to intervene more directly than has been the case under the remit of the Online Safety Act; the idea that social media is an inevitable part of growing up with risks that parents can monitor and foresee seems like old news. 

But does a ban actually solve the problem?

Unsurprisingly, not everyone is convinced. Some of the early criticism focuses on a fairly simple point; a ban doesn’t necessarily fix what’s creating the risk in the first place. There are ongoing concerns that harmful content will continue to be driven by algorithms and recommendation systems. Engagement will be shaped by design choices and children will find ways to access social media platforms anyway, potentially creating a false sense of security, the illusion of safety, and a veneer of compliance. From a legal and policy perspective, that tension is going to be important.  If the new regime doesn’t deliver the intended outcomes, the next step may well be even more intervention. 

What this means in practice for agencies and brands

1. Audience assumptions need revisiting 

If under-16s disappear (at least officially) from key platforms: 

youth-focused strategies will have to adapt
targeting models will need to be reassessed
‘where’ you reach younger audiences becomes a much more complex, risky question 

2. Platform risk becomes part of media planning 

Choosing a platform is no longer just about reach and engagement. It’s increasingly going to involve an assessment of regulatory exposure, and compliance maturity how that platform is dealing with age assurance and safety That’s a different conversation with clients. 

3. Targeting will come under more scrutiny 

As platforms lean harder into age assurance, the way audiences are identified and segmented will attract greater attention and the use of inferred or behavioural data may become even more contentious. 

4. ‘Safer design’ becomes a commercial expectation 

Finally, and this is probably the longer-term point, there’s a clear move towards expecting not just platforms, but the wider ecosystem, to support healthier and less exploitative digital experiences. That’s not just a legal issue, it’s reputational and commercial. 

What’s next?

The Online Safety Act was a big moment. This feels like the next step. For agencies and brands, the takeaway isn’t just “there’s a new rule coming”- the whole environment is changing. The agencies who understand how regulation could reshape social media platforms and help their clients to navigate that change may well just inherit the earth.  

For more information on how this legislation will affect you and your business, contact the Creative, digital and media team at Glaisyers ETL – lets figure this out together.

 A practical guide for UK businesses deploying AI agents

AI is moving well beyond chatbots. The latest generation of tools – now commonly referred to as “AI agents” – can act autonomously: sending emails, reviewing contracts, placing orders and interacting with third–party systems, often without a single human in the loop. The technology is developing rapidly, and the law has not kept pace, but that doesn’t mean businesses are operating in a legal vacuum.

AI can’t be liable, so who is? 

The starting point is important: AI systems have no legal personality under English law and therefore cannot be held liable for their actions. This principle is consistent across all major common law jurisdictions and was affirmed in the UK government’s own consultations on AI and intellectual property. 

In practice, responsibility falls on one or more of three parties:  

The developer who built the model 
The business that deployed it 
The end user who directed its actions. 

In most commercial settings, the deploying business carries the greatest exposure – it is typically the data controller, the principal whose authority the agent exercises, and the entity whose staff relied on the output. 

The key legal risks 

Data protection 

UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 apply in full wherever an AI agent processes personal data. Article 22 of the UK GDPR places specific restrictions on automated decision-making that produces legal or similarly significant effects; without meaningful human review, certain automated decisions may be unlawful altogether. The ICO’s 2023 AI guidance expects organisations to be able to explain and audit how AI decisions are made.  

Breach of confidence

business may be liable if its AI agent routes confidential information to the wrong recipient – even if the disclosure was entirely unintentional. This can also become incredibly complex where trade secrets are involved under the Trade Secrets (Enforcement, etc.) Regulations 2018. 

Intellectual property 

Under s.9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, copyright in computer-generated works vests in the person who made the necessary arrangements for its creation – in most cases, the deploying business. That business therefore also bears responsibility if AI-generated content infringes a third party’s copyright. If that content contains misleading claims, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the CAP Code may also be engaged. 

Contractual liability 

If an AI agent is authorised to interact with third parties – accepting quotes, negotiating fees, placing orders, agreeing terms – the business may be bound by those agreements under ordinary principles of apparent authority, even where the agent acted beyond its intended scope. 

Why supplier contracts matter

Most AI supplier agreements are drafted to minimise the supplier’s liability as far as possible. Businesses should pay close attention to liability caps (often limited to fees paid in the preceding 12 months), broad exclusions for consequential loss, and disclaimers that outputs are accurate or fit for purpose. Where personal data is processed, a compliant data processing agreement under Article 28 of the UK GDPR is a legal requirement, not an optional extra. 

What should businesses do? 

Define the agent’s permissions precisely – understand exactly what it can access, process and do.
Build in human oversight for consequential decisions: significant orders, sensitive disclosures, public–facing content.
Conduct a DPIA before deploying any agent that processes personal data at scale.
Negotiate supplier contracts – standard terms are rarely adequate.
Document governance – regulators expect accountability, not just compliance. 

The unchanging principle

The legal framework will continue to evolve – the EU AI Act is already in force with obligations rolling in through 2027, and UK reform is ongoing. But one principle remains constant: delegating a task to an AI agent does not delegate liability. The business that deploys the agent, benefits from its actions, and authorised its operation will ordinarily bear the consequences when things go wrong. 

For questions or further advice surrounding this topic, please contact [email protected] 

On 21 May 2026, HMRC updated paragraph EIM31240 of its Employment Income Manual to reflect a newly announced increase in the statutory mileage allowances for cars and vans for the 2026-27 tax year onwards.

The revised rates, backdated to 6 April 2026, are as follows:

55p a mile for the first 10,000 miles (an increase of 10p from the previous rate).
25p a mile for additional miles (unchanged).

Employers should ensure they now reimburse their employees to reflect the revised rates. Consideration should also be given as to whether an uplift to payments already made for April and May 2026 to reflect the backdated increase, is required.

Employers that have been reimbursing their employees above the previous rates may need to revise their payroll calculations for April and May 2026 given the retrospective nature of the increase and employees who have been (or will be) reimbursed less than the revised rates may wish to consider claiming relief for the difference from HMRC.

A written ministerial statement made on 21 May 2026 confirms that the government will legislate retrospectively in respect of this change at the earliest opportunity.

If you need an updated expenses policy to deal with this change, then please contact Gemma Durham at [email protected]

The decision in McMahon v AXA ICAS Ltd is one of the most significant recent UK employment law cases concerning permanent health insurance (PHI) benefits, unlawful deductions from wages, and the limits on an employer’s ability to dismiss employees on long-term sick leave.

This case progressed through the Employment Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), and ultimately the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland.

Whilst a decision of the Scottish Courts, the case highlights the legal risks that arise when employers operate PHI or income protection schemes without fully considering the contractual obligations attached to them.

Background

AXA ICAS Ltd employed Carol McMahon from 2000 until her dismissal in 2013. Her contract included entitlement to a PHI scheme providing 75% of salary during long-term incapacity, with annual increases until recovery or retirement age. Ms McMahon became unable to work due to illness in 2010 and later became eligible for PHI benefits.

However, her employer, AXA ICAS Ltd had failed to secure the insurance policy intended to fund those benefits.

Ms McMahon argued that:

she remained contractually entitled to PHI payments;
there was an implied contractual term preventing dismissal where dismissal would deprive her of PHI benefits; and
non-payment of those benefits constituted an ongoing unlawful deduction from wages under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA).

Earlier tribunal decisions rejected the argument that post-dismissal PHI payments could amount to “wages,” but the Court of Session ultimately disagreed.

The Court of Session’s Ruling

1. Whether PHI Benefits Constitute “Wages”

The central legal issue concerned sections 13 and 27 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, particularly the definition of “wages.”

Section 27 ERA defines wages broadly to include sums payable “in connection with employment.” The question before the court was whether PHI benefits payable after dismissal could still fall within that definition.

The Court of Session held that PHI benefits were capable of qualifying as wages even after termination because:

the entitlement arose from the employment contract;
the scheme was specifically intended to operate when the employee was incapable of working; and
the employer could not rely on dismissal to extinguish rights the scheme was designed to protect.

This was a significant development because unlawful deduction claims in the Employment Tribunal are uncapped, whereas a breach of contract claim in the Employment Tribunal is subject to a cap of £25,000 of damages.

2. The Implied Term Restricting Dismissal

The court accepted that there may be an implied contractual term preventing an employer from dismissing an employee for incapacity where the effect would be to deprive them of PHI benefits.

The reasoning included the finding that:-

the PHI scheme existed specifically to protect employees who became unable to work;
allowing dismissal solely because of incapacity would undermine the purpose of the scheme; and
employers should not benefit from their own wrongdoing by terminating employment to avoid liability.

This implied term has potentially wide implications for employers managing long-term sickness absence.

3. Post-Termination Liability

Another important issue was whether liability for PHI benefits could survive termination of employment.

The employer argued that any post-dismissal losses should only be recoverable as damages for breach of contract. That distinction mattered because breach of contract claims in the Employment Tribunal are subject to a £25,000 cap.

The Court of Session rejected this narrow approach and concluded that the obligation to make PHI payments could continue beyond dismissal where the dismissal itself breached the implied contractual protection.

As a result, Ms McMahon was allowed to pursue ongoing unlawful deduction claims potentially extending over many years, and in excess of £25,000.

4. Administrative Failures and Employer Responsibility

A striking feature of the case was that the employer had apparently failed to secure the insurance policy intended to fund the benefit scheme. The contractual entitlement nevertheless remained enforceable against the employer itself.

The case therefore demonstrates that:

insurance arrangements do not necessarily limit employer liability;
employers remain contractually responsible for benefits promised to employees; and
failures in scheme administration can create substantial direct financial exposure.

So what does this decision mean for employers, and what are the Key Takeaways?

For employees, the case strengthens their protections when on long-term sick leave.

For employers, it creates increased litigation risk where PHI or income protection schemes are poorly drafted, inconsistently administered, or disconnected from sickness dismissal procedures.

Employers should therefore:-

urgently review employment contracts, staff handbooks, PHI policy wording and insurance arrangements. Any mismatch between contractual promises and insurance cover may expose the employer to direct liability.
exercise extreme caution before dismissing employees on long-term sick leave – dismissal for incapacity may breach an implied contractual term if the employee has entitlement to PHI benefits.
ensure insurance policies are actually in place, as one of the most damaging facts in the case was the alleged failure to secure the insurance cover at all. HR and legal teams should therefore check policy renewal dates and employee eligibility for insurance policy cover.
Be alive to the fact that liability may continue after termination of the employment relationship, as this decision suggests that PHI-related liabilities may survive dismissal and continue for years. This significantly increases the financial exposure of sickness management decisions, particularly for senior or long-serving employees.
align sickness absence procedures with contractual benefits – this will likely require a policy audit to ensure contractual benefits are considered as part of capability procedures, and training where necessary to ensure managers understand PHI implications.

It is also highly advisable that you seek legal advice before taking the decision to dismiss an employee in these circumstances.

The recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision in Tarbuc v Martello Piling Ltd is an important warning for employers who rely on protected conversations under section 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA). While s.111A allows employers to hold confidential pre-termination discussions, it is important that employers are aware that the protection is narrow and can be used only in limited circumstances. The case has highlighted the conditions of s.111A protection and confirms that tribunals must assess ‘improper behaviour’ holistically, not just by looking at specifically what was said in the meeting.

Employers are reminded that labelling a meeting as a ‘protected conversation’ does not guarantee confidentiality, and procedural missteps around notice and accompaniment can unravel an employer’s protection under this provision, and mean that anything said during that meeting (often where employers feel safe to talk openly and frankly) becomes admissible in any subsequent proceedings.

Background

Mr Tarbuc worked for Martello Piling Ltd from 2018 until his redundancy dismissal in June 2024. Prior to the dismissal, the Managing Director held a ‘protected conversation; meeting with him to discuss a redundancy proposal, pointing out issues with his performance and presented ‘heads of terms’ for a potential settlement. Mr Tarbuc complained that:

the meeting was sprung on him without notice,
he was not given the opportunity to bring a companion,
he was told that he would be made redundant if he did not accept the offer, and
he was given only five days to consider the proposal

he brought claims for unfair dismissal, unauthorised deduction from wages and less favourable treatment as a part-time worker. The employer sought to exclude all evidence of the meeting under s.111A ERA, which protects pre-termination negotiations in ordinary unfair dismissal claims.

The Tribunal’s initial approach

The Employment Tribunal (ET) accepted that the meeting was a protected conversation and found no improper behaviour. The ET therefore ordered that all references to the meeting be excluded from all claims. Mr Tarbuc appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

The EAT

The EAT found that s.111A only applies to ordinary unfair dismissal claims and the ET had wrongly excluded evidence from all claims despite s.111A not applying to wage claims, part-time worker detriment, discrimination or whistleblowing claims. It only applies to ordinary unfair dismissal. On this basis, the EAT required the case to be remitted.

In addition, it found that the ET had focused solely on what had been said in the meeting and failed to consider the lack of notice, the ‘ambush’ nature of the meeting and the lack of opportunity to bring a companion. The EAT held that improper behaviour must be assessed holistically and all factors must be considered when assessing improper behaviour under s.111A.

The EAT referred to previous rulings where an ambush meeting did not amount to improper behaviour but only because the ET had carefully considered all relevant circumstances in those cases. It was held that this level of analysis was missing in the ET’s evaluation of whether there had been improper conduct in Tarbuc v Martello Piling Ltd. The EAT also noted that Mr. Tarbuc had rejected the offer outright in the meeting, meaning the five-day period in the letter did not add pressure and was rendered irrelevant. The EAT also took the opportunity to clarify that the ACAS 10-day recommendation applies to formal written settlement agreements but not to preliminary ‘heads of terms’.

Why this matters for employers

This case reinforces several important principles: firstly that protected conversations are not a blanket shield and they only protect ordinary dismissal claims. S.111A cannot provide protection in relation to any other claims. It is therefore very important that employers consider the wider circumstances of the employee, and whether there is scope for the employee to bring claims beyond ordinary unfair dismissal, before proceeding with a ‘protected conversation’. Even if a conversation is protected for the purpose of an unfair dismissal claim, it can still be fully admissible if an employee brings a claim for discrimination, whistleblowing, or wage claims.

Further, it is a reminder to employers that ‘improper behaviour’ is a broad concept, it includes not just what is said at the meeting but how it is arranged and conducted. Meetings that could be interpreted as an ‘ambush’ are not automatically improper, but there is increased risk that in these circumstances s.111A protection will be lost.

Practical Guidance

Tarbuc is a reminder that protected conversations are a useful tool, but only when handled carefully. Employers should ensure that meetings are planned with reasonableness notice, employees are treated fairly, managers understand the limits of s.111A and the process is accurately documented.

If you require further guidance on protected conversations, our Employment Team can offer tailored advice to ensure that protected conversations are legally compliant and do benefit from the protection under s111A.

The landscape of politics in this country is as unpredictable as it’s ever been, with growing doubts around the current PM’s longevity, questions are beginning to emerge about who could replace him.

One of the current frontrunners within Labour to replace the current PM is Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham. Of course, there are several obstacles in the way for Burnham before potential leadership, namely, winning the Makerfield by-election and being selected as the leader of the country.

That said, it’s the job of a good lawyer to try and predict the future to a certain extent, so here’s our take on what his government may mean for the creative industries based on his track record in Manchester.

What’s Andy Burnham Actually Done for the Sector? 

For starters, his track record is consistently pro-creative sector and pro-culture, viewing it as a central component of economic infrastructure and a core growth sector alongside digital, AI, and life sciences. That’s no real surprise given that Manchester is the largest creative cluster outside London although that’s not down to the efforts of any one individual; we’ve been punching way above our weight for years before devolution.

That said, Burnham’s been a genuine champion for the sector who’s backed up rhetoric with actual funding commitments such as the £10.5m Screen Production Fund – an initiative not just to bring production into the region but also build a local supply chain to support them alongside training to ensure its development. 

From a wider perspective, the mayor has consistently promoted the City Region’s culture, nightlife and visitor economy as a central pillar of its prosperity as well as a key part of its identity.

It’d be easy to come up with a much longer list of individual proof points, but this isn’t intended to be a press release or campaign material. What we can say from inside the M60 is that Andy Burnham’s impact on the Creative Industries has been wholly viewed as positive.

What Might This Look Like on A National Level?  

Extrapolating (carefully) from Manchester to Westminster, likely positives of a Burnham Premiership could include a continuation of stronger regional creative policy with a continuing focus on devolution, development of creative clusters and more funding to support them. His previous comments around the need for more “active state” economic policy could lead to more skills funding and subsidised infrastructure alongside a continued commitment to skills reform aligned to growth sectors, and given the Creative Industries’ unique challenges in dealing with talent gaps it’s hard to see how this wouldn’t be welcomed.

Again, Greater Manchester’s creative renaissance isn’t a project for which any one figure is responsible, regardless of their commitment and visibility, but the Greater Manchester Creative Sector Plan was built upon the Labour Government’s own national commitments coming out of the recently-launched Industrial Strategy so it’s unlikely that his administration would look to choose a different direction of travel.

What he would need to get to grips with would be taking a firm stance on AI regulation and the difficult balance between respect for IP rights and encouraging new forms of creativity and innovation. Given that businesses in the sector are having to do the same, they’re unlikely to welcome any erosion of their value or that of their work in favour of providing a soft landing for developing tech at their expense. In what has been described as the “battle for the soul of our nation” that may not be the most immediate issue to resolve, but it is an existential one for some of the most important of his corporate constituents.

It’s also worth being realistic about the fact that Manchesterism may not be able to scale nationally. We have the advantage of relatively tight, centralised governance, a very visible creative cluster, and strong legacy institutions to support them. This may be watered down by Whitehall in favour of other priorities, of which there will be many.

Getting Off the Fence 

So, would the creative industries benefit from Burnham as PM? We think so, in no small part due to the already-recognised strategic importance of the sector to the UK economy and a combination of existing commitments and a clear, positive direction for the future. He may not be a transformational figure for the sector, but he is one with a longstanding commitment to its prosperity, even if rolling out the northern model across the UK will be no easy task.  

It’s also worth noting that he’ll have to address some of the negative policy choices which businesses of all kinds have had to reckon with since Labour came back into power, but even if a new national approach may seem like more of the same from the North’s perspective then that may be a pretty good start. 

While we can’t say with any certainty that an Andy Burnham government would be the answer businesses have been looking for, alongside most of the country, we’ll be watching closely as the political landscape develops over the coming months…