Breaking news

CySEC Cracks Down On Unauthorized Investment Platforms

by THEFUTURE.TEAM

July 17, 2025

The Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC) has issued a stark warning to investors regarding a series of online investment platforms operating without the requisite authorization. The regulator’s announcement underscores the importance of compliance in a rapidly evolving digital financial marketplace.

Regulatory Oversight And Investor Protection

CySEC has identified a number of websites that are not legally permitted to offer investment services or conduct investment activities under Article 5 of Law 87 (I)/2017. The infringement places investors at heightened risk of fraud and potential financial loss, as engaging with unlicensed platforms means trading without the safeguards afforded by regulation.

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

List Of Non-Compliant Platforms

The commission specifically cited the following domains: fernrise.com, market-trading.ltd, xmarktrades.com, veldorna.pro, pravintol.com, kingsoptiontrade.com, fasat-g.pro, capitaliko.com, finconnect.fr, avacaptal.com, iux.com, and elitesignalmarket.com. Additionally, a secondary list includes iqforextrade.net, metaindextrade.net, premiumwave.online, viptradersclub.com, stockforexinvestment.com, oneroyalfx.co, capitalinvestmentcentre.com, tradeshipglobex.com, cfdoptions.com, and quantoria-markets.net.

Guidance For Investors

CySEC advises investors to verify the regulatory status of any investment firm by consulting its official website at cysec.gov.cy prior to engaging in any business transaction. This proactive measure is critical to ensure that investors only deal with licensed entities, thereby reducing the risk of financial exploitation or fraudulent schemes.

Industry Implications

The commission’s recent warning is a testament to its ongoing efforts in safeguarding the interests of the public against the perils of unauthorized financial products. The move is in line with global regulatory trends where financial authorities are intensifying their oversight to protect investors and reinforce market integrity. Professional investors and firms alike can draw parallels with stringent enforcement actions in other reputable jurisdictions, where compliance remains the cornerstone of market confidence and stability.

This development serves as a crucial reminder of the inherent risks associated with engaging unregulated or dubious financial entities. In an environment where digital platforms are proliferating, due diligence and adherence to regulatory guidelines have never been more essential.

Updated as of 21 November 2025

Following official clarification provided to the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC), IUX has been removed from the CySEC public warning list. The initial warning is no longer in effect.

The Future Forbes Realty Global Properties

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.