E-Kalathi’s Discount Dilemma: Genuine Savings Or Mere Illusion?

by THEFUTURE.TEAM

February 4, 2026

Conceived as a tool to reduce grocery prices, e-kalathi has come under intense scrutiny as its practical utility diverges from its original promise. Despite its objective to deliver tangible savings to consumers, recent analyses reveal that several supermarket chains may be leveraging the platform more for advertising appeal than for providing real discounts.

Misleading Price Comparisons

Recent findings by the Cyprus Consumers Association indicate that even seven months after its launch in June 2025, e-kalathi has fallen short in meeting its stated goals. The data suggest that the platform may create a distorted picture of pricing, misleading consumers to believe one chain offers the lowest prices overall. In practice, the display of selectively discounted items can lead to erroneous perceptions about a supermarket’s overall pricing structure.

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

Flavor-Specific Price Discrepancies

One example involves a children’s yogurt dessert. A strawberry flavor appears on e-kalathi at a lower price, while other flavors of the same product are not listed. This can suggest broader savings even though the discount applies only to one variant. Notably, only a few retailers, such as Athinaeitis and Ioannidis, maintain uniform pricing across all variants, bolstering customer trust through consistent pricing practices.

Promotion Compliance Under The Microscope

Concerns also extend to promotional campaigns. According to the Cyprus Consumers Association, offers such as “1+1 free” are sometimes presented in a way that may not clearly reflect the actual unit price. Under current regulations, if a product is listed at €3, the promotional unit price should not exceed that amount. In practice, some retailers appear to adjust list prices without immediately updating or removing the promotion, which can create confusion for shoppers.

Cases such as detergents incorrectly labeled under “1+1 free” promotions highlight broader questions about price transparency. The discussion around e-kalathi’s operation has therefore focused on the need for clearer pricing rules and more consistent promotional practices among supermarkets.

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