CySEC Adopts ESMA Guidelines For CASPs Under MiCA

Regulatory Update Drives Uniform Supervisory Practices

The Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC) has officially incorporated several guidelines from the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) that impact crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) under the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA). With this initiative, CySEC’s circular outlines detailed expectations regarding transfer services, reverse solicitation, and portfolio management activities related to crypto-assets.

Clear Directives For Transfer Services

Issued on February 26, 2025, the ESMA guidelines on transfer services are grounded in Article 82(2) of MiCA. They are designed to instill consistency and efficiency within the European financial supervision system while reinforcing a uniform approach to applying MiCA’s provisions. Furthermore, the guidelines delineate robust procedures and client rights measures intended to heighten investor protection for CASPs involved in transferring crypto-assets.

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

Enhanced Transparency In Reverse Solicitation

CySEC also highlighted ESMA’s guidelines on reverse solicitation, introduced on December 17, 2024. Although these guidelines primarily target competent authorities, they serve as a critical reference for both existing and prospective CASPs. The circular draws attention to specific paragraphs and illustrative examples that elucidate circumstances under which a third-country firm might be deemed to be soliciting clients within the European Union.

Standardizing Portfolio Management Requirements

The third set of guidelines, released on March 26, 2025, addresses portfolio management activities. Based on Article 81(15) of MiCA, these standards require CASPs to adhere to defined requirements regarding the suitability of crypto-asset advice and the formatting of periodic statements. This move is aimed at fostering consistent application of several MiCA provisions, thereby ensuring that supervisory practices remain effective across the board.

Implementation Timeline And Executive Endorsement

All three sets of guidelines will take effect 60 calendar days following their publication on ESMA’s website in all official EU languages. The endorsement of these measures by CySEC Chairman George Theocharides underscores the sector’s commitment to transparency, regulatory coherence, and enhanced investor protection in the rapidly evolving crypto market.

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