The judgment delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on September 10, 2024 (Case C-48/22 P), represents the definitive legal conclusion to the decade-long Google Shopping antitrust dispute. This final ruling definitively upheld the European Commission's original finding of abuse of dominance and confirmed the landmark fine of €2.42 billion.  

Crucially, the ruling established a fundamental new legal standard for platform behavior. It firmly characterized active discriminatory leveraging (self-preferencing) as an independent category of abuse under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), fundamentally differentiating it from the stringent “refusal to supply” test.This landmark victory provides the critical judicial underpinning necessary for the ex-ante enforcement of the Digital Markets Act (DMA), validating the core anti-competitive theories currently applied against designated dominant "gatekeepers". Furthermore, the judicial finality immediately transforms the corporate risk landscape, clearing the path for substantial follow-on damages claims across the EU, already estimated to exceed €12 billion.  

The EU's Artificial Intelligence Act and the emerging regulatory frameworks in the GCC represent two fundamentally different visions for the future of AI. The EU’s approach is a fortress of regulation built on the precautionary principle, prioritizing safety and fundamental rights above all else through a comprehensive, risk-based framework. In stark contrast, the Gulf Cooperation Council’s approach is a high-speed launchpad for innovation, leveraging a light-touch, agile posture to attract investment and build a new, knowledge-based economy.  

For businesses, this divergence is a strategic challenge that requires a dynamic and adaptable compliance strategy. The most successful companies will build a single, harmonized data governance framework based on rigorous standards like the GDPR, which aligns with data privacy principles in both regions. They will then leverage the GCC's pro-business regulatory sandboxes as a strategic lever for accelerated market entry and legislative development, providing a significant competitive edge over those that take a more cautious, wait-and-see appr

Belgium is poised to implement a transformative shift in its commercial landscape with the mandatory adoption of electronic invoicing for all business-to-business (B2B) transactions, effective January 1, 2026. This mandate is not a gradual change but a comprehensive, "big bang" implementation affecting nearly all Belgian VAT-registered businesses. The core requirement is the exchange of structured e-invoices directly between business systems, replacing traditional paper and unstructured formats such as PDF files.  

The framework is built upon the Peppol network, which serves as the default and preferred channel for e-invoice transmission. Businesses must ensure they are technically capable of issuing and receiving invoices via this network, even if they agree to use alternative compliant methods with their partners. The primary drivers for this reform are the modernization of the tax system and the reduction of the national VAT gap, estimated to be a significant annual loss to the government.  

For businesses, the mandate presents a dual challenge and opportunity. While it necessitates immediate investment in technology and procedural changes, it simultaneously serves as a catalyst for end-to-end process automation, leading to increased efficiency, reduced operational costs, and improved security. The government is supporting this transition with targeted tax incentives for digital investments, while simultaneously instituting a tiered penalty regime for non-compliance, with fines ranging up to €5,000 for repeat offenses. This reform is also a foundational step toward a planned near real-time e-reporting system in 2028, aligning Belgium's digital strategy with the broader European Union's "VAT in the Digital Age" (ViDA) initiative.

The core of the AI Act is a four-tiered risk framework that categorizes AI systems with escalating levels of regulation. AI systems that pose a clear threat to fundamental rights are prohibited, including practices such as social scoring systems, biometric categorization to deduce protected characteristics, and manipulative AI that exploits vulnerabilities to distort behavior and cause significant harm. High-risk systems that can pose a serious threat to health, safety, or fundamental rights are subject to the most stringent obligations. Limited-risk AI systems, like chatbots, are subject to specific transparency obligations, requiring providers to inform users they are interacting with an AI. The majority of AI applications currently on the market are considered minimal risk and are largely unregulated by the Act.

A particularly compelling dynamic is the complex interplay between artificial intelligence and sustainability. AI presents a significant paradox: it can be a powerful tool for advancing sustainability goals, yet its underlying infrastructure has a substantial environmental footprint. On one hand, AI and machine learning models are already being used to optimize transportation logistics, as seen in UPS’s ORION system, which reduces fuel usage by minimizing turns on delivery routes. On the other hand, the energy-intensive nature of AI training and deployment is a growing concern. For example, generating a single image with a generative AI can consume as much energy as fully charging a smartphone, and the fossil fuel industry is also leveraging AI to optimize its operations.

A new Book 6 of the Belgian Civil Code, which took effect on January 1, 2025, has introduced a significant shift in corporate liability by abolishing the principle of "quasi-immunity" for company directors. Previously, a company's contractual partners were generally shielded from directly suing a director for a contractual breach committed by the company. The new legal regime fundamentally changes this dynamic. It now grants a contracting party a direct, extracontractual claim against a director if the director’s fault caused the damage, even if that fault was committed in the framework of a contract. For example, if a director knowingly approves the delivery of a defective product, the customer can now pursue personal liability claims against that director in addition to a claim against the company.