Breaking news

China Takes Legal Action Against EU Over Electric Vehicle Tariff Hike

China has launched a legal dispute against the European Union (EU) at the World Trade Organization (WTO) in response to the EU’s decision to raise import tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs). The case comes on the heels of an EU investigation that concluded Chinese carmakers benefit from state subsidies, giving them an unfair edge in the European market.

Key Details:

  1. WTO Complaint: China’s filing marks its second WTO challenge over higher tariffs, with the complaint aiming to address the EU’s determination that Chinese EV manufacturers benefit from unfair government support.
  2. Impact on Chinese Car Makers: The new EU tariffs range from 17% for BYD, 18.8% for Geely (Volvo’s parent company), to a significant 35.3% for SAIC Motor Corp, making it one of the most heavily affected companies.
  3. WTO Dispute Timeline: Under WTO dispute settlement rules, China and the EU have 60 days to negotiate a resolution. If unresolved, the case may proceed to a WTO panel ruling. However, the WTO’s highest appellate body remains inactive due to a shortage of judges, potentially complicating the resolution process.

The heightened tariffs, which took effect on November 1, reflect growing trade friction between Brussels and Beijing. EU officials argue that China’s subsidies and access to inexpensive raw materials have granted Chinese EV companies excessive leverage over European competitors. In response, Brussels is exploring solutions, such as adjusting price commitments, to address these market imbalances while upholding WTO principles.

Negotiations between the EU and Chinese officials are expected to intensify in the coming weeks, with an EU delegation likely to travel to China to pursue a compromise. Both sides aim to foster fair market conditions while respecting WTO guidelines.

Copyright Law Struggles To Keep Up With AI Training

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.

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.

Uol
The Future Forbes Realty Global Properties
Aretilaw firm
eCredo

Become a Speaker

Become a Speaker

Become a Partner

Subscribe for our weekly newsletter