Breaking news

CySEC Reverses Authorization Suspension for Trek Labs Amid Strategic Enforcement Moves

by THEFUTURE.TEAM

July 8, 2025

Renewed Confidence in Compliance

The Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC) has reaffirmed its trust in Trek Labs Europe Ltd, formerly known as FTX (EU) Ltd, by reversing the earlier suspension of its authorization. At the meeting held on June 23, 2025, CySEC confirmed that Trek Labs, operating under license number 273/15, had successfully met the rigorous standards mandated by the Investment Services and Activities and Regulated Markets Law of 2017. This decision, executed under paragraph 9(3)(a) of Directive DI87-05, signifies a significant regulatory turnaround and underscores the agency’s commitment to dynamic oversight.

Decisive Actions Against Non-Compliance

In a separate ruling on the same day, CySEC revoked the operating license of Oasis Wealth Management Limited. The firm, recognized as a Management Company of Open-ended Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities, had proactively opted to withdraw its own licence. This revocation was conducted under section 121(1)(a) of the Open-Ended Undertakings for Collective Investment Law of 2012, reflecting CySEC’s robust stance on ensuring regulatory alignment in the financial sector.

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

Targeted Financial Settlements

CySEC has also finalized several financial settlements under article 37(4) of the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission Law of 2009. These settlements address non-compliance with specific legal provisions and serve as an economic deterrent while contributing to the Treasury of the Republic. The agency concluded a €60,000 settlement with Blossem Services Ltd following an investigation into authorisation compliance requirements specified in the 2017 Law.

Similarly, a €40,000 settlement was secured from Exclusive Change Capital Ltd, tied to organisational obligations observed between January and August 2021, as per articles 22(1) and 17(5)(b) of the 2017 Law. In another case, Broctagon Prime Ltd agreed to a €50,000 settlement related to alleged breaches of articles 25(1) and 25(3)(a) concerning general principles and client information protocols during the third quarter of 2021.

Enforcement of Administrative Standards

Additionally, CySEC imposed a €1,800 fine on A.T.I. Associates (Cyprus) Ltd for failing to submit its annual report for the financial year ending December 31, 2024 by the statutory deadline of February 11, 2025. This administrative penalty, enforced during a board meeting on May 26, 2025, was executed pursuant to article 54(1) of EU Regulation 2019/2033 and the related provisions of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2284.

These regulatory actions reflect CySEC’s unwavering commitment to market integrity and operational transparency, reinforcing a disciplined approach that benefits both the consumer and the financial industry at large.

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.