Go to Dashboard

Current affairs wrap up: business, legal and markets insights from Aug/Sep 2025

Each month, Jake Schogger (ex-Magic Circle lawyer and founder of Commercial Law Academy) and Peter Watson (ex-stock broker, head hunter and founder of Watson's Daily) host a free webinar summarising the key current affairs and trends from the previous month, including insights from a business, markets and legal perspective.  

To register for future sessions, check out https://citycareerseries.clickmeeting.com

This blog post covers topical legal current affairs from August and September 2025, including deploying the military, companies buying crypto, facial recognition, and flying taxis., including Trump's student visa proclamation, the regulation of small modular reactors, and changes in the rules around crypto trading. 

Please note that these articles do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. They simply reflect the author's research and opinion.

The president took control of the city’s police force and deployed 800 National Guard troops in Washington, citing “a public safety emergency”. He felt compelled to do this because of what he described as “a situation of complete and total lawlessness”. 

TRUMP ADVISED STARMER TO GET THE MILITARY INVOLVED TO STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. WHAT LAW GOVERNS THIS AND HOW COULD IT HAPPEN IN THE UK?

According to the Home Office, Operation TEMPERER is a joint contingency operation to provide military support to the police in extreme national emergency circumstances. It was developed following the 2015 Paris attacks, and was used for the first time in the UK in 2017 following the Manchester Arena bombing.

The Government explicitly states that this operation is activated only to support the Police in extreme circumstances and does not restrict civil liberties in any way. In particular:

  • The deployment of military personnel is intended to free up armed police officers to respond to particularly awful incidents, and support operational activity, with the military mainly taking on protective security guarding roles.
  • The military may be deployed to support armed police at public locations, to deter a terrorist attack and provide reassurance to the public.
  • However, this would apparently only be in a counterterrorism capacity, and military personal would not have the power to perform other routine police duties, nor powers of arrest.

Unsurprisingly we’re not given that much more information from the Government “for security reasons”!

Sources / further research:  

Packaging group Eightco Holdings saw its share price go moon bound as it surged by 3,000% when it announced a strategy to buy up Worldcoin tokens, echoing Strategy’s wildly successful play of buying up and storing bitcoin – but with a different crypto asset. Are we reaching the point where this seemingly crazy asset might actually work?? 

CAN ANY COMPANY JUST DECIDE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS? ARE THERE ANY PROTECTIONS FROM SHAREHOLDERS WHO OWN THE SHARES BECAUSE THEY EXPECT A COMPANY TO BE A CERTAIN WAY?

At a high level, in the UK, the actions a company can take are limited by statutes (notably the Companies Act 2006), common law rules, a company’s own constitution (including its articles of association), and contractual agreements.

A company’s articles of association is essentially a contract between the company and its shareholders which sets out the rights and obligations of the respective parties, including any restrictions on the actions a company can take without board or shareholder approval.

Note that companies incorporated before the Companies Act 2006 came into force had to list out all the types of business that they could engage in.

  • If a company engaged in business that was not provided for in this list, it would be acting outside of its authority, which could give other parties the right to take action against it (or the employees responsible).
  • So if investing in crypto wasn’t listed, the company would not be permitted to invest in crypto.

However, for companies incorporated under the Companies Act 2006, the default position is that they can engage in any type of business – including buying crypto. 

  • This freedom can be restricted by explicitly prohibiting certain actions in the Articles however.
  • So the articles could explicitly prohibit buying crypto, meaning the company would be acting outside its authority if it started buying up crypto.

A shareholder agreement – meaning an agreement between the various shareholders (and often the company – can also restrict what a company may do, by stipulating that certain types of actions must be approved by specific (or all) shareholders.

Failing to adhere to these contractual restrictions would constitute a breach of contract, again opening the company up to liability.

In Sainsbury’s tests facial recognition to stop shoplifters (The Times, James Hurley) we see that the supermarket is testing out facial recognition tech to combat the rising epidemic in shoplifting. It’s going to test out the tech in two stores (in Sydenham and Bath) before potentially rolling it out across more than 1,400 shops. It maintains that records will be deleted instantly if the software doesn’t recognise the face of reported individuals. 

WHAT ARE THE LAWS ON DOING THIS? IF THIS ACTUALLY GOES AHEAD IN SAINSBURY’S NOT DOUBT EVERYONE WILL START DOING IT…

There is no specific facial recognition statute in the UK. The Government has previously published guidance designed to promote the ethical and legal use of AI-powered facial recognition. However, this was only guidance - published back in 2021 – and things have obviously progressed significantly in the world of AI since then anyway.

So, what regulation does exist?

Well, data protection law imposes a number of responsibilities that are relevant in this context. For example, according to Arag Law, data controllers must “demonstrate that their processing can be justified as fair, necessary and proportionate”, and must adhere to a number of data protection principles such as those relating to security, the right of erasure, and so on.

Note that much of the commentary around the use of AI in facial recognition seems to revolve around the police. Apparently the Home Office is continuing to encourage the police to make more use of facial recognition technology, given its purported effectiveness. 

This use was previously challenged, but the Court of Appeal in 2020 found that there is a legal framework for police to use live facial recognition technology, provided the police complies with privacy, data protection and equality laws.

Police aside, according to Legal Vision, using biometric data - which includes the types of data derived from facial recognition technology - is generally prohibited by data protection law, unless very limited exceptions apply, for example if consent is freely given, informed, specific, and unambiguous.

Sources / further research:  

Tesla was ordered to pay $243m in damages to victims of a fatal accident that involved its autopilot system. This is the first federal case to find Tesla responsible for an accident involving its self-driving software. Other similar allegations have been settled out of court in the past, so you wonder whether more cases are going to crop up. Tesla will, unsurprisingly, appeal the decision. 

CHINESE COMPANY HESAI SAID THAT IT DIDN’T THINK THAT THE WORLD IS READY FOR DRIVERLESS – BUT WHAT ABOUT FLYING TAXIS? WHAT IS THE CURRENT UK LAW ON THAT?

It’s worth first acknowledging that aviation automation is already prevalent, given the development and deployment of drones and advanced air mobility vehicles over the past few years.

According to the Civil Aviation Authority – or CAA - to fly most drones or model aircraft outdoors in the UK, you must register for an operator ID and pass a theory test. However, what about fully autonomous air vehicles designed to carry paying human customers?

Well, according to the CAA, an air taxi or charter is recognised in law as commercial air transport, and according to the Law Society, the rules of the air currently assume a human pilot is on board. This indicates that the rules are not yet fit-for-purpose for autonomous air vehicles.

Moreover, taxi licensing organisation Taxi Plus points out that there’s still no approved UK airspace model for low-altitude autonomous or semi-piloted passenger flights, plus many of the necessary operational and safety frameworks are still years away from being finalised. And this isn’t surprising, given that traditional UK law and regulations were not designed to address this specific technological advancement.  

Ultimately, the potential large-scale introduction of autonomous flying taxies able to carry human passengers raises a huge number of legal issues, ranging from airworthiness certification and avoiding drunk passengers embarking, through to civil and criminal liability. 

Accordingly, last year The Law Commission was asked by the Civil Aviation Authority and Department for Transport to carry out a three year review of the law around autonomous flight, with a view to overhauling current regulations. This led to a consultation paper focused on remotely-piloted flying taxis.

Sources / further research: