EAC Submits Revised Electricity Pricing Proposal Amid Consumer Backlash

The Electricity Authority of Cyprus (EAC) has announced that it will soon submit a refined proposal on electricity pricing to the regulatory authority CERA. EAC Chairman George Petrou stated on Wednesday that the board’s decision, pending further review, will be forwarded to Cera, which ultimately holds the power to approve the adjustment.

Regulatory Process And Proposed Adjustments

Following deliberations during Tuesday’s House energy committee meeting, Petrou informed the public that while Cera previously signaled that a 7.5 percent increase was justified, the EAC board has yet to reach a conclusive stance. Instead, the board is meticulously studying the proposal, with recent indications suggesting that a milder adjustment, possibly around a 3 percent increase, may be favored to minimize the impact on households.

Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram

Balancing Consumer Concerns With Industry Realities

Petrou’s remarks come in the wake of strong consumer objections. Consumer advocates argue that electricity prices are already excessively high and demand a freeze or even a reduction in charges. The head of the Cyprus Consumers Association, Marios Drousiotis, emphasized that current rates are untenable, urging authorities to explore alternatives that shield consumers from further financial strain.

Political And Administrative Dynamics

The controversy intensified after President Nikos Christodoulides intervened, urging the EAC to reconsider the initially proposed 7.5 percent increase. This call for restraint underscores a broader tension between regulatory imperatives and consumer affordability. Critics, including Loukas Aristodimou, President of the Pancyprian Consumers’ Union, have accused the EAC of employing tactics that unduly burden consumers, calling for more rational management and innovative solutions from the board.

As the EAC prepares its formal submission over the coming days, the decision will hinge on a delicate balance between addressing the sector’s financial requirements and mitigating the escalating concerns of consumers. The outcome of Cera’s review is expected to set a critical precedent for future rate adjustments.

The Future Forbes Realty Global Properties

Copyright Law Struggles To Keep Up With AI Training

by News Editor

August 24, 2026

Courts Are Still Applying Old Copyright Rules To AI

AI companies train models on enormous amounts of published material, including books, articles and academic research. Whether using that content without authors’ permission violates copyright law remains unresolved.

Much of the debate centres on fair use, which allows copyrighted material to be used without permission in certain circumstances. Courts consider factors such as the purpose of the use, how much material was involved and its impact on the original market.

Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram

Anthropic Case Sets An Important Precedent

A major case involving Anthropic and a group of authors provided one of the clearest rulings so far. Judge William Alsup found that using copyrighted books to train AI models was lawful, comparing the process to people reading and studying literature before creating something new.

Anthropic was nevertheless ordered to pay $1.5 billion in a settlement. The penalty concerned books the company had obtained from illegal online libraries rather than the AI training itself.

For AI companies, that distinction could prove significant because it separates studying copyrighted material from directly copying it.

Competition Could Be The Key Issue

A case involving Thomson Reuters and Ross Intelligence offers a different perspective. A court ruled that Ross could not claim fair use after using Reuters’ copyrighted material to develop a competing AI-powered legal research platform.

The decision suggests courts may be less willing to consider AI training fair use when copyrighted content is used to build a product that directly competes with the original.

For authors, an unresolved question is whether AI-generated content should be considered competition for the works used to train these models.

The Law Has Yet To Catch Up

US copyright law predates generative AI by decades, leaving courts to apply old principles to new technology. Questions also remain over copyright protection for AI-generated works. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, a court ruled that material created entirely by AI cannot receive copyright protection.

Major AI companies remain involved in copyright litigation, and different courts could reach different conclusions. For now, there is no universal rule: the legality of AI training will depend on the circumstances of each case and how courts ultimately interpret copyright and fair use.

Breaking news