Breaking news

Curtailing Age-Based Premium Discrimination For Senior Drivers: Legislative Reforms Under Consideration

Overview Of Proposed Legislative Reforms

Two new legislative proposals aimed at ending premium surcharges for drivers aged 70 and older are poised for submission by the Human Rights Committee to the plenary session of the House in January. These proposals, which have repeatedly surfaced in parliamentary debates, seek to dismantle the entrenched practice of basing insurance premiums solely on age. This initiative comes as insurers warn that any modification in premiums for elderly drivers could potentially lead to increased costs for the rest of the population.

Targeting Age-Based Discrimination In Insurance Pricing

Championing the reform, deputy Alexandra Attalidou has drafted two legislative measures intended to curb profiteering practices driven exclusively by age. The first measure mandates that no insurance company may discriminate against any individual aged 70 or above during the issuance, renewal, or pricing of an insurance contract. Insurers are expressly forbidden from using age as the sole criterion in underwriting or imposing unfavorable contract terms. Premium differentiation for senior drivers can only be justified by concrete risk data. Any violation of these provisions will result in fines up to €100,000 for the offending insurance companies.

Guaranteeing Fair Access To Insurance Policies

The second proposal stipulates that insurers must not deny the issuance of an insurance policy to any applicant without providing a detailed, documented justification in writing. Should an insurer fail to comply with this requirement, the Insurance Commissioner is empowered to impose administrative fines of up to €3,500. This measure is set against a backdrop where nearly 74,000 senior drivers in Cyprus could directly benefit from enhanced protection against age-based discrimination.

Perspective From Legal And Regulatory Authorities

Both the Legal Service and the Law Association of Cyprus have expressed concerns that relying solely on age as a basis for increased premiums is discriminatory—a stance supported by similar practices in many other countries, with the notable exceptions of the Netherlands and Luxembourg. The Law Association has underscored the need for non-discriminatory practices in premium setting, while the Legal Service emphasizes the necessity of incorporating case-by-case risk assessments into binding legislation.

Industry And Regulatory Concerns

Insurance industry representatives caution that if measures to lower premiums for older drivers are enforced, the financial burden may simply shift to younger segments of the population. The Insurance Association, represented by General Director Andreas Athanasiadis, noted that while approximately 74,000 senior drivers are currently insured in Cyprus, only a small fraction have faced refusals—with just 3,000 experiencing denial after multiple rejections. He analogized the insurer’s discretion to that of a lawyer, who is never obliged to accept every client by default. Meanwhile, the Insurance Commissioner has expressed reluctance to assume a role akin to a judge in resolving individual disputes, stressing that his oversight is strictly regulatory. His primary concern remains preventing insurer insolvency while ensuring overall market stability.

Conclusion

As Cyprus stands on the brink of potentially transformative regulatory change, the debate centers on how best to balance the interests of senior drivers with broader market dynamics. The forthcoming legislative proposals reflect a strategic effort to eliminate unfair age-based practices in the insurance industry while calling for risk-based assessments that could safeguard both consumers and the financial integrity of insurance providers.

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.

The Future Forbes Realty Global Properties
eCredo
Aretilaw firm
Uol

Become a Speaker

Become a Speaker

Become a Partner

Subscribe for our weekly newsletter