Breaking news

Stability In Consumer Prices Persists Amid Sectoral Shifts

by THEFUTURE.TEAM

November 26, 2025

Stable Price Trends Maintain Hold

The latest report from the Consumer Protection Service reveals that consumer prices continue to exhibit stable restraint. According to the monthly Price Observatory, despite varied fluctuations across categories, annual inflation has remained in negative territory for the sixth consecutive month. The analysis, which tracks 250 basic consumer products across 400 retail outlets, confirms that inflation declined from 0.9 percent in July and August to 0.7 percent in September, and finally to 0.3 percent in October 2025.

Sector Dynamics And Price Adjustments

The detailed observatory data highlights distinct trends among product categories. Services, for example, experienced the most substantial year-on-year increase in October at 3 percent, whereas petroleum products and agricultural commodities saw marked declines by 7.5 percent and 2.6 percent respectively. Additionally, electricity prices fell by 2 percent on an annual basis, although a modest month-to-month rise of 1.7 percent was noted. Out of 45 distinct product categories, 33 experienced moderate monthly increases of less than 3 percent, while 11 categories became notably cheaper than in October 2024, with some reductions reaching up to 16 percent.

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

Notable Product Price Movements

Within the granular breakdown of product prices, certain items stood out. Evaporated and sweetened milk saw a 6.5 percent rise, while frozen molluscs and shellfish edged upward by 6.2 percent. Instant coffee, fresh vegetables and herbs, infant formula, oil, vegetable shortening, and frozen pasta also recorded increases ranging from 2.1 to 3.5 percent. Conversely, fresh meat dropped by 3.4 percent compared with September and other staples, such as frozen fish, rice, tomato paste, sugar, and canned fish, registered annual declines between 1.1 and 7.1 percent.

Supermarket Pricing Insights And Digital Comparisons

The report further outlines a concurrent initiative that compares supermarket prices for items listed on the e-kalathi digital platform. During the period from October 15 to November 19, the number of identical products across seven major supermarket chains increased from 228 to 257. While the rankings of the most expensive and cheapest chains remained unchanged, the overall basket value rose from €147.05 to €153.68. On November 19, the top-tier supermarket’s basket cost €1,090 in comparison to €936.50 at the lowest-priced competitor.

Consumer Guidance And Strategic Considerations

The Consumer Protection Service advises consumers to leverage the e-kalathi platform and its mobile app for more informed purchasing decisions. It is important to note, however, that while the Price Observatory offers comprehensive data and analysis, it does not substitute for personal market research. Consumers are encouraged to consider qualitative differences and conduct thorough checks in line with their preferences and needs. Detailed data can be accessed directly on the Consumer Protection Service’s website.

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.