Breaking news

CySEC Enforces Regulatory Reforms To Safeguard Financial Markets

by THEFUTURE.TEAM

January 12, 2026

Withdrawal Of Administrative Services Licences

The Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC) has implemented a series of decisive regulatory actions in Cyprus. In a clear demonstration of its commitment to market integrity and compliance with financial services legislation, the regulator has withdrawn administrative services licences and initiated settlements with investment firms.

Fiduserve Management Limited And Mann Made Corporate Services

Effective September 9, 2025, Fiduserve Management Limited (LEI 213800WAVVOPS85N2205) formally waived its authorisation to provide administrative services under the Law Regulating Companies Providing Administrative Services and Related Matters of 2012. As a result, its licence (Number 215/196) expired and the firm was permanently removed from the licensed persons’ Register in accordance with section 16(2) of the Law.

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

Similarly, Mann Made Corporate Services (Cyprus) Limited ceased administrative services as of November 11, 2024, following the waiver of its authorisation (Number 200/196). The company was, in turn, permanently deregistered, further solidifying CySEC’s stringent supervisory approach.

Enforcement And Settlements With Investment Firms

In addition to licence revocations, CySEC detailed settlements with two investment firms over potential breaches of investment services legislation. On January 9, 2026, CySEC confirmed a settlement with EDR Financial Ltd (LEI 213800J8EV4SSMIBWB22). This settlement comes after an intensive investigation covering the period from 2020 to 2024, wherein the firm’s adherence to stringent organisational requirements and product intervention measures under Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 was scrutinised. The settlement fee of €50,000 has been fully paid by EDR Financial Ltd.

On the same date, a comparable settlement was reached with Benor Capital Ltd (LEI 213800SPTJ6JRLKCPY23) for non-compliance with the Investment Services and Activities and Regulated Markets Law of 2017, also resulting in a payment of €50,000. As emphasized by CySEC, all revenue collected from such settlements is channelled to the Treasury of the Republic, underscoring the regulator’s impartial role and commitment to fiscal transparency.

Commitment To Market Integrity

These regulatory actions not only reinforce CySEC’s robust supervisory framework but also serve as a stern reminder of the critical importance of adherence to established financial regulations. By swiftly addressing deviations from required standards, CySEC continues to protect market participants and ensure the integrity of Cyprus’ financial landscape.

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.