Digital/Tech Archives - Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani

DE BERTI JACCHIA WITH INDUTRADE IN THE ACQUISITION OF CAT RICAMBI

team valletta — Fri, 27 Feb 2026 13:53:58 +0000

Indutrade AB, an international industrial and technology group listed on the Nasdaq Stockholm and operating through more than 220 companies across Europe, has completed the acquisition of 100% of the share capital of CAT Ricambi S.r.l., a company based in Modena and active in the automotive aftermarket segment.

CAT Ricambi operates in the distribution of original spare parts and components for Italian, French, Japanese, and Korean car brands in the Italian market, generating approximately €30 million in annual revenues and employing 38 people.

The transaction strengthens Indutrade Group’s presence in Northern Italy and further consolidates the Group’s Industrial & Engineering cluster in the automotive sector.

Law firm De Berti Jacchia, with a team composed of attorneys Marco Frazzica and Giuseppina Zoccali, assisted Indutrade AB in the transaction, advising on all phases of the negotiation and execution.

The transaction represents the third acquisition within Indutrade’s Italian expansion strategy.

Download the press review.

The post DE BERTI JACCHIA WITH INDUTRADE IN THE ACQUISITION OF CAT RICAMBI appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

WINTER OLYMPICS ARE OFF TO THE RACES, BUT THE SLALOM THROUGH AMBUSH MARKETING HAS ALREADY BEGUN

team valletta — Wed, 04 Feb 2026 16:19:54 +0000

On January 30, opening date of the Milano-Cortina 2026 Winter Olympic Village, the so-called “Games Period” began. Throughout such term (which will end on February 24, two days after the Closing Ceremony), the Key Principles of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) are applicable to govern the use of participants’ images in advertising[1].

Just on that date, the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) issued a press release whereby, upon a complaint filed by the Special Antitrust Unit of the Italian Financial Police (Guardia di Finanza), it had launched an investigation against a company for ambush marketing in relation to the Milano-Cortina 2026 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games[2]. That company – who is not among the official sponsors – seems to have published online advertisements, including on major social networks, frequently showing – also in combination with its own distinctive signs – the Olympic symbol (the five coloured rings) and/or the hashtags #MilanoCortina and #MilanoCortina2026. As part of this conduct, the company also engaged influencers and advertised a line of clothing named Cortina a colori (namely Cortina in colour).

The AGCM investigation, opened in conjunction with interim measure proceedings for the provisional removal of the advertisements at stake, is grounded on the apparently unlawful direct association between the company’s brand and the Games, in breach of Article 10 of Decree-Law no. 16/2020 (Decree-Law)[3].

Let us take a step backwards to recall the ad hoc national legislation on ambush marketing, which was issued in consideration of the urgent need to strengthen the regulatory framework to counter free riding and protect well-known marks in the field of sports, as well as the specific commitments made to the IOC for Milano Cortina 2026.

Article 10 expressly prohibits free-riding activities, described as “parasitic, fraudulent, deceptive or misleading advertising and marketing activities, carried out in relation to the organization of sporting events or trade fairs of national or international importance, that are not authorized by the organizers and are intended to obtain an economic or competitive advantage” (para.1). This definition illustrates the concept of ambush marketing. A specific list of banned free-riding activities is then supplied (para.2):

the creation of an even indirect link between a trademark or other distinctive sign and the event, likely to mislead the public as to the identity of the official sponsors;
the false representation or declaration in one’s advertising of being an official sponsor of the event;
the promotion of one’s trademark or other distinctive sign through any action, not authorized by the organizer, that is likely to attract the attention of the public, carried out during the event and likely to give the public the false impression that the person performing the action is a sponsor;
the sale and advertising of products or services unlawfully branded, even only in part, with the logo of the event or with other distinctive signs likely to mislead the public about the logo itself and create the erroneous perception of a connection with the event, its organizer or sponsors.

Arguably, the conduct that is being investigated by AGCM would fall under letter/s a) and/or d) in particular.

Moreover, the conduct would be covered by the timeframe of application of the prohibitions under Article 10, which runs from the date of registration of the official logos or trademarks of the event until the 180^th day following the official end date of the latter (Art.11). Hence, the investigated company risks an administrative fine ranging between Euro 100,000 and Euro 2.5 million (Art.12).

The application of the Decree-Law to this case would not be a première. By decision no. 30099 of 29 March 2022[4], the AGCM found that a well-known company active in the field of e-commerce had put in place a free-riding advertising activity surrounding the international soccer event UEFA Euro 2020. More particularly, the Financial Police had reported the presence, in a square in Rome where UEFA had set up the official Football Village, of a large-scale billboard featuring the claim “Who will be the winner?”, the name of the company, images of the 24 flags of the countries participating in the tournament and a white football t-shirt bearing the company’s logo.

The fine was inflicted in the minimum amount set out by the Decree-Law, in consideration, among others, of the limited geographical diffusion of the message (one billboard affixed in a single square) and the circumstance that it was the first enforcement of the new provisions after their entry into force. Neither of these circumstances could be relied on in the pending case; in particular, one may observe that running ads on the Internet entails an indefinite, potentially very large, territorial reach.

It is moreover noted that, as likewise specified in the Decree-Law (Art.13), the new rules do not preclude the enforcement of other legal provisions applying to the same free-riding conducts. As IP practitioners know, ambush marketing can be addressed within the framework of several pre-existing sets of provisions, especially the following.

Trademark law, with respect to the distinctive signs of the event (under the Industrial Property Code for national trademarks; under Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 for EU trademarks). This remedy may prove of limited effectiveness, considering the weak distinctive character of the trademarks concerned (inasmuch as they identify/describe the hosting town or the type of sporting event concerned), and furthermore considering that the ambusher does not necessarily reproduce or imitate the organizer’s logo/name.
Unfair competition, under art. 2598 of the Italian Civil Code, chiefly for misappropriation of merits and/or non-compliance with principles of professional fairness, provided that the ambusher qualifies as a “competitor”.
Fairness in advertising, in particular under the Code of the Advertising Self-Regulation Institute (IAP Code), which is binding on those having accepted it directly or indirectly; and/or under Legislative Decree no. 145 of 2 August 2007 (on misleading advertising), as for relations between entrepreneurs/professionals; and/or under the provisions of the Italian Consumer Code on unfair commercial practices to the detriment of consumers.

In real-life cases – unless in presence of “hardcore” ambush marketing, characterized by a direct association with the event through an explicit use of its official signs – drawing a clear line between legitimate and unlawful marketing initiatives may not be obvious. The borderline becomes blurred when it comes to marketing strategies where the connection established between the non-sponsor brand and the event is more indirect. This happens, for instance, in the case of so-called coat-tail ambushing, which leverages the sponsorship of a prominent participant in the event (individual athlete or whole team, coach, trainer or official), in order for the brand to gain visibility bypassing the payment of the event sponsorship fees.

According to the Decree-Law, conduct carried out performing sponsorship agreements with individual athletes, teams, artists or participants authorized to the event does not constitute free-riding advertising (Art.10, para.3). However, the engagement of participants in commercial activities around the event, especially the use of their personal image in advertising by non-sponsors/non-partners of the event, remains a delicate issue.

As for the upcoming 2026 Winter Olympics, the abovementioned IOC Key Principles provide that “All Participants are permitted to promote their sponsors, and all sponsors are permitted to use Participant Images (in each case including Olympic Partners and Non-Olympic Partners), during the Games Period …”, but “… in accordance with the following Principles”[5], the implementation of which is a shared competence between the National Olympic Committee (for Italy, the CONI) and the Organizing Committee (for the upcoming Winter Olympics, Fondazione Milano Cortina).

Looking at the Principles, one reads that during the Game Period Non-Olympic Partners are allowed to use participants’ images for advertising subject to specific conditions. In addition to (i) obtaining the necessary consents from the participants concerned and (ii) respecting certain policies on activities that are incompatible with the Olympic values (for example, sponsorships connected with tobacco or prohibited drugs are banned), the advertising needs to (iii) avoid the use of any “Olympic Properties” and (iv) constitute “Generic Advertising”[6].

The list of Olympic Properties is extensive and detailed, including in particular: the Olympic symbol; the Olympic-related registered trademarks; the emblem, mascots, pictograms and graphics of the Games; the name of the host city along with the year of the Games (i.e. Milano Cortina 2026); the very words Olympic, Olympics, Olympic Games, etc.; names and emblems of Olympic teams (such as Italia team); the Olympic motto; films, musical/artistic works and designs created by the organizers; as well as “any other symbols, designs, works, words or expressions that are translations of, or which could be confused with, those listed above”.

In order for a marketing campaign to qualify as Generic Advertising, three cumulative requirements need to be met: that (i) the only connection between the Olympic Movement and the relevant marketing activity is the use of the image of a participant in advertising; (ii) the advertising has been on the market for at least 90 days prior to the Games Period, and (iii) the advertising has been run consistently and not materially escalated during the Games Period. Criteria (ii) and (iii) apply with a degree of flexibility, with exemptions to be considered by IOC on a case-by-case basis. In any event, within a specific deadline, Non-Olympic Partners are expected to have notified the IOC (or the relevant National Olympic Committee, in case of single-territory campaigns) of their Generic Advertising, so that the organizers are made aware of the planned activity, can verify its compliance and supply their feedback (for social media advertising, it is sufficient to describe the planned nature and content thereof, without the need to provide notice of each individual post).

Interestingly, still based on the IOC Key Principles, congratulatory advertising (either supporting an athlete/team or praising them for achievements at the Games), is not regarded as amounting to Generic Advertising, because of its “intrinsic connection with Milano Cortina 2026”. Non-Olympic Partners may undertake congratulatory advertising before and after the Games Period, but without using any Olympic Properties; brands of sporting goods participating in a specific project involving the World Federation of the Sporting Goods Industry (WFSGI Project) may do it (in the manner set out within the WFSGI Project itself) at any time, including during the Games Period.

On the whole, this set of limited restrictions is aimed at maintaining the distinctiveness of the official Olympic marketing programmes and supporting the funding of global athlete participation (the IOC runs an international marketing programme based on the principle of solidarity, to ensure that all teams are adequately funded to be able to join the Olympics)[7].

To facilitate the implementation of the Key Principles, the IOC issued an Illustrative Guidance dedicated to Non-Olympic Partners[8], containing a series of practical examples distinguishing between allowed and non-allowed initiatives, with images and brief explanations. The Guidance is relevant for advertising activities that cover more than one country, while those targeting only one territory are subject to the rules of that country’s National Olympic Committee and/or the relevant Organizing Committee.

The CONI has actually published its own Guidelines[9]. Besides, Fondazione Milano Cortina 2026 has issued, among other information on the protection of Intellectual Property in relation to the Games[10], specific Guidelines addressed to shopkeepers[11]. Basically, business owners can create a welcoming atmosphere (for example, using country flags, generic references to sports and neutral messages such as “Let’s celebrate sport!”), but without suggesting an official association with the Games. Rather, the Guidelines require a non-sponsor business to refrain from creating installations, shop windows, corners or other structures reproducing the trademarks of Milano Cortina 2026 or showing an excessive similarity to the graphics of the Games, in a way that suggests an official affiliation or association. For retailers whose stores are located within 500 meters of the competition venues and whose media exposure could be significant, the principle of continuity (so-called business-as-usual rule) applies.

To sum up, the upcoming 2026 Winter Games ought to also supply a sort of fresh legal playground. Within the multi-layer legal framework outlined above it could be instructive to see, on the one hand, whether organizers and sponsors will resort to the remedies available to them, and to which ones, to root out unlawful ambush marketing; and, on the other hand, whether marketing offices and agencies of non-sponsor businesses will succeed in being creative and ride the wave of enthusiasm surrounding the Olympics without slipping into infringement and/or free-riding practices, first and foremost in the digital landscape.

Download the article

[1] The IOC Key Principles are set out in the document entitled “Commercial Opportunities for Participants during the Olympic Winter Games Milano Cortina 2026”, available in the website www.olympics.com at this LINK. Separate rules apply to the Paralympic Games.[2] Press release available in the AGCM website, at this LINK. [3] Decree-Law no. 16 of 11 March 2020, “Disposizioni urgenti per l’organizzazione e lo svolgimento dei Giochi olimpici e paralimpici invernali Milano Cortina 2026 e delle finali ATP Torino 2021 – 2025, nonché in materia di divieto di attività parassitarie”, converted with amendments by Law no. 31 of 8 May 2020. [4] For a more in-depth analysis of this decision, see our previous article available at this LINK. The challenge against the decision was rejected both by the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio in 2023 and, in second instance, by the Council of State in 2025. [5] See Footnote 1. The IOC Key Principles are applicable further to By-law 3 to Rule 40 of the Olympic Charter (LINK): “Competitors, team officials and other team personnel who participate in the Olympic Games may allow their person, name, picture or sports performances to be used for advertising purposes during the Olympic Games in accordance with the principles determined by the IOC Executive Board.” (By-law 3 to Rule 40); “All competitors, team officials or other team personnel in the Olympic Games shall enjoy freedom of expression in keeping with the Olympic values and the Fundamental Principles of Olympism, and in accordance with the Guidelines determined by the IOC Executive Board.” (Rule 40.2). [6] The Principles also require compliance with any Generic Advertising rules of the relevant National Olympic Committee. [7] As explained in pages 3 and 4 of the document mentioned above, in Footnote 1. [8] Such IOC Illustrative Guidance is available in the website www.olympics.com, at this LINK. [9] See Linee Guida Rule 40 e Ambush Marketing per Partecipanti a Milano Cortina 2026 e Aziende Non Sponsor, available in the CONI website at this LINK. [10] Such information can be found in the website www.olympics.com, at this LINK. A specific document on Brand Protection is also available: LINK. [11] Linee Guida Esercenti e Commercianti available in the website www.olympics.com, at this LINK.

The post WINTER OLYMPICS ARE OFF TO THE RACES, BUT THE SLALOM THROUGH AMBUSH MARKETING HAS ALREADY BEGUN appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

HEALTHCARE AND AI: MEDICAL RESPONSIBILITY STAYS STRONG

team valletta — Mon, 10 Nov 2025 15:15:00 +0000

Our Marco Stillo was interviewed by ItaliaOggi to discuss the impact of the AI Act on healthcare and medical liability.

What new risks emerge for doctors and healthcare institutions with the use of generative artificial intelligence?

“The systems in use may not have been sufficiently tested and/or supported by scientific evidence, or they may produce systematic distortions in their outcomes (so-called bias). As a result, healthcare institutions could face significant legal and reputational risks, which could be mitigated by taking into account the World Health Organization’s Guidelines for the ethical and responsible use of generative AI”, explains Marco.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE IN ITALIAN

The post HEALTHCARE AND AI: MEDICAL RESPONSIBILITY STAYS STRONG appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN THE AGE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: OPPORTUNITIES AND EMERGING CHALLENGES

team valletta — Tue, 02 Sep 2025 11:01:09 +0000

Artificial intelligence (hereinafter also “AI”) has become an integral part of modern society. While its use is sometimes criticized, and concerns remain about the potential replacement of human activity in certain fields, there is no denying that this emerging technology enhances work efficiency and simplifies many tasks. Given the rapid pace of development, those who choose not to engage with AI risk falling behind. The use of AI-based systems in the legal field offers numerous advantages, but it also presents significant challenges. The same applies in the context of international arbitration. In the sections that follow, the reader will find an overview of the main areas in which AI systems are currently being applied in arbitration proceedings (Section 1). This will be followed by an examination of the key challenges that arise from the use of such technologies in this context (Section 2). A brief overview of institutional rules and initiatives that have begun to address the integration of AI into arbitration will then be provided (Section 3). Finally, some concluding remarks and reflections on the way forward will be offered (Section 4).

Potential Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration

In international arbitration, AI can be highly valuable. It enables the automation of numerous legal tasks, helping to ease the workload of lawyers and arbitrators while enhancing the overall efficiency of proceedings. This technology can assist arbitration practitioners throughout the entire arbitral process, from the initiation of proceedings to their conclusion. Among its various applications, AI is particularly effective in analyzing large volumes of documents. It facilitates both document review and fact-finding and streamlines the document production phase. For example, AI can be used to quickly generate chronologies, accurately identify documents by category, and redact sensitive information more efficiently.^[1] AI can also accelerate and improve the accuracy of legal research, enabling practitioners to quickly access relevant case law and precedents. It can provide high-quality machine translations, which simplify communication in international arbitrations and help reduce translation costs for annexes. Moreover, the drafting of standard documents – such as procedural orders, procedural calendars, or Redfern schedules – can be efficiently managed using AI-based systems.^[2] AI can also assist in analyzing arbitrator profiles, helping parties identify the most suitable candidates based on objective and tailored criteria.^[3] In addition to the aspects already mentioned, AI systems also play a significant role in predictive analysis, offering parties and counsel advanced systems to preliminarily assess the likelihood of success in a given dispute or legal action.^[4] For example, several platforms available on the market use large case law databases to offer detailed insights into arbitral tribunals, judges, lawyers, and opposing parties. These systems claim to predict how different legal strategies may influence arbitral proceedings^[5] and their outcomes by analyzing established trends and complex statistical models.^[6] Some suggest that AI systems could even assist arbitrators in anticipating how an arbitral award might be treated in the future, such as the likelihood of it being set aside, refused enforcement, or freely enforced.^[7] This could help arbitrators draft decisions that, drawing on historical data and predictive models, are more likely to remain stable over time.^[8] Finally, AI could evolve to assist arbitrators in preparing the decision-making process, especially in highly complex disputes. These types of applications are already being used in ordinary litigation and class action proceedings.^[9] It is therefore possible that similar systems will also be adopted in international arbitration in the relatively near future (but see Section 2.4 below for potential challenges in this area).

Emerging challenges in the use of artificial intelligence

While the benefits of artificial intelligence outlined above are undeniable, it is essential not to overlook the potential risks linked to its use in international arbitration. The following section examines some of the main issues that may arise in this context. 2.1 Data processing and training: the “black box” and “bias” problem The “black box” problem in AI refers to the lack of transparency in how AI systems – particularly those based on complex algorithms like deep learning – reach their decisions.^[10] This lack of transparency makes it difficult to understand, interpret, and trust the outcomes generated by AI systems. In the legal field, it raises significant ethical concerns, particularly regarding the reproduction of discriminatory patterns, commonly referred to as bias. AI systems, after all, rely on the data they are fed.^[11] AI systems are trained on information that may include biased or unrepresentative data.^[12] If such data is not identified and corrected, the algorithm trained on it may perpetuate – or even amplify – certain biases, leading to inaccurate or flawed outcomes.^[13] The risk of perpetuating stereotypes may arise, for example, when AI systems are used to select arbitrators based on statistical probabilities drawn from available data, particularly data reflecting the prevailing composition of arbitral tribunals in practice.^[14] 2.2 Outdated data and “hallucinations” AI requires access to up-to-date and relevant data in order to function effectively. If the system is fed outdated information, there is a risk that its analyses and recommendations will be out of context or no longer applicable to current circumstances. In this regard, another significant challenge is the risk of so-called “hallucinations” generated by AI.^[15] These occur when AI systems generate inaccurate or misleading responses based on non-existent or incorrect data.^[16] A notable example occurred during legal proceedings in the United States, where a defense team relied on an AI system to identify legal precedents to present at a hearing. It was only during the proceedings that the judge discovered those cases did not, in fact, exist.^[17] Another emblematic incident took place in early 2025 in Norway, where a lawyer submitted fictitious sources generated by an AI system during court proceedings. This prompted the Norwegian Supreme Court to update its guidelines, introducing a new provision specifically aimed at regulating the use of AI in judicial proceedings.^[18] These cases clearly highlighted the risks associated with the use of such technologies, particularly the tendency of some systems to produce inaccurate, misleading, or entirely fabricated content. In the context of arbitration, this raises the very real possibility that AI-based systems could lead to the submission of documents containing errors or flawed assessments, especially if the underlying data is poorly managed.^[19] It is therefore essential for lawyers and arbitrators to adopt a critical approach to AI technologies, ensuring through careful oversight that the information used is accurate, verifiable, and reliable.^[20] 2.3 Duty of professional secrecy, data confidentiality In addition to the points already mentioned, another important aspect must be considered, as lawyers are bound by a strict duty of professional secrecy.^[21] In an increasingly digitized age marked by the widespread use of AI systems, data relating to legal proceedings may not be fully protected when shared with AI solution providers or external platforms. In particular, there is a concrete risk that client information – such as case details or confidential documents – could be processed without adequate safeguards, potentially resulting in breaches of confidentiality and improper use.^[22] Online legal platforms and AI providers often do not clearly disclose whether, and to what extent, they may reuse retained data, raising concerns about the potential use of client information.^[23] In addition, legal data such as court decisions or contracts in full-text format are particularly difficult to anonymize effectively. Even when anonymization is promised or applied, contextual elements may still allow the identification of the clients or entities involved.^[24] Considering the above, it is essential for those who intend to use AI systems in arbitration proceedings – whether lawyers relying on them to draft pleadings or arbitrators using them for case management support – to carefully select their AI service providers. This helps ensure that confidentiality is respected and data is properly protected, avoiding any breach of professional secrecy.^[25] 2.4 Risks related to automated decision-making Finally, to complete this overview of critical issues surrounding the use of AI in arbitration, we turn to the risks linked to the potential use of AI by arbitrators in the decision-making process. As discussed above, this possibility may become increasingly common in the future. At the same time, it is essential to recognize that the role of the arbitrator must comply with specific ethical standards, including independence, impartiality, competence, and the duty to ensure the enforceability of awards.^[26] The improper use of AI-based systems by arbitrators to assist in their decision-making process could undermine these principles and may provide grounds for challenging the award.^[27] In this regard, a key consideration is the intuitu personae nature of the arbitral mandate, which requires that the assigned functions be performed directly by the arbitrator.^[28] Where delegation does occur – for example, through the appointment of a tribunal secretary – it must be disclosed to the parties in advance.^[29] Thus, legitimate concerns have been raised as to whether it is appropriate for an arbitrator to delegate activities related to the decision-making function to an AI system or software.^[30] Under French law, for instance, only a natural person with full legal capacity may act as an arbitrator.^[31] Similarly, under Italian law, “no person who lacks, in whole or in part, the legal capacity to act may be an arbitrator”.^[32] In addition, case law in the context of AI-assisted patent registration has established that AI systems cannot be considered natural persons.^[33] Consequently, delegating adjudicative functions to an AI system could violate this requirement^[34] and potentially lead to a challenge of the award.^[35] In addition, it is worth noting that the New York Convention, which governs the enforcement of arbitral awards across many jurisdictions, provides under Article V that enforcement may be refused if the arbitration procedure was not conducted in accordance with the parties’ agreement or the law of the seat. Accordingly, the use of AI in the decision-making process, without party consent or in breach of applicable procedural law, could also risk refusal of enforcement under such Convention.^[36] A further issue concerns the alleged inability of AI systems – at least at this stage of technological development – to produce adequately reasoned legal decisions.^[37] Reasoning, which involves explaining the logical and legal grounds on which a decision is based, is a cornerstone of legal decision-making. This limitation represents a significant obstacle to the adoption of AI in arbitration.^[38] In light of these considerations, the use of AI systems in the decision-making process remains particularly problematic. It is thus essential that arbitrators and the parties involved agree on strict criteria governing the possible use of AI systems, to ensure compliance with the principles of independence, impartiality, and transparency throughout the arbitration process, thereby avoiding uncertainty and potential disputes. In this context, a key question emerges: should parties be informed when arbitrators or lawyers make use of AI during legal proceedings? This is an issue that will need to be addressed in the near future.^[39]

Emerging regulatory approaches on this issue

Precisely for the reasons outlined above, arbitral institutions are beginning to adapt to the introduction of artificial intelligence in arbitration proceedings. On 30 April 2024, the Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Center (“SVAMC”) published the first edition of its “Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration” (“Guidelines”). This was the first example of an arbitration institution incorporating AI provisions into its rules.^[40] The Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (“JAMS”), one of the leading providers of alternative dispute resolution services, also began adapting to the emergence of AI systems in arbitration proceedings. On 23 April 2024 – around the same time as the SVAMC’s Guideline – it issued the “Rules Governing Disputes Involving Artificial Intelligence Systems”, a set of provisions specifically designed to regulate disputes arising from the use of AI systems.[41] In October 2024, the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (“SCC”) issued a guide dedicated to the use of artificial intelligence in arbitration proceedings conducted under its rules. The document sets out guidelines aimed at ensuring that the adoption of AI technologies does not compromise the integrity and impartiality of the arbitral process.^[42] Despite the differences and specific features of the individual sources cited, some common principles emerge, reflecting the risks outlined above. First, human oversight remains central to all three institutions (see Section 2.2 above). Under no circumstances may final decisions be delegated to AI. Arbitrators are permitted to use such systems only for support activities, such as factual analysis or document management, while remaining responsible for verifying their accuracy and fully accountable for the results produced. Transparency is another shared pillar (see Section 2.4 above), although with some variation. The SCC requires arbitrators to disclose any use of AI, enabling parties to be informed and, if necessary, to object. The SVAMC adopts a more flexible approach, leaving the decision to the discretion of the arbitral tribunal, depending on the circumstances of the case. JAMS, on the other hand, has introduced specific protocols to ensure that AI-generated outcomes are accessible and subject to review by all parties. Finally, all three sets of rules place particular emphasis on data protection, confidentiality, and security (see Section 2.3 above). Each Institution requires that AI systems comply with the highest standards of data protection and anonymization, and mandates verification of data storage and management policies. It is therefore likely that, following these initial efforts, more arbitral institutions will soon begin developing frameworks to regulate the use of AI systems in the proceedings they administer, in order to remain aligned with technological developments.[43]

Conclusion and recommendations

In conclusion, artificial intelligence presents significant opportunities to enhance efficiency in international arbitration over the long term, creating new possibilities for optimizing time and resources. However, these innovations also introduce novel risks that require careful regulation and oversight by both arbitrators and legal practitioners. As a result, an increasing number of arbitral institutions are progressively developing guidelines to support the responsible use of AI. Looking ahead, collaboration among technology developers, arbitral institutions, and legal professionals will be essential to fully harness the potential of AI, helping to shape an arbitration process that is safer, more accessible, and better tailored to the needs of the parties involved. In the meantime, while this regulatory landscape continues to evolve, we offer the following recommendations for the safe and effective use of AI in arbitration: 1) prioritise AI systems with transparent processes and regularly assess the risks and critical issues associated with their use. 2) Ensure that AI systems are updated with current data and carefully review the outputs they generate. 3) Select AI technology providers with care, verifying that they comply with strict data protection standards and applicable regulations. 4) Discuss and agree on the use of AI with clients, parties and arbitrators and clearly define how it will be integrated into the proceedings. 5) When acting as an arbitrator, always retain full decision-making authority, using AI solely as a support tool and ensuring that its use is disclosed to and accepted by the parties.

[1] Janine Haesler/Tim Isler, Navigating the Main Impacts of Artificial Intelligence in International Arbitration: Insights from the ICC YAAF Workshop, in Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 17 March 2024 (https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2024/03/17/navigating-the-main-impacts-of-artificial-intelligence-in-international-arbitration-insights-from-the-icc-yaaf-workshop/). [2] Leonardo F. Souza-McMurtrie, Arbitration Tech Toolbox: Will ChatGPT Change International Arbitration as We Know It?, in Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 26 February 2023 (https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2023/02/26/arbitration-tech-toolbox-will-chatgpt-change-international-arbitration-as-we-know-it/). [3] Martina Magnarelli, Cogito ergo (intelligens) sum? Artificial Intelligence and international arbitration: who would set out the rules of the game? Iurgium, volume 2022, number 43, p. 31 ff., para. 10; Janine Haesler/Tim Isler, Navigating the Main Impacts of Artificial Intelligence in International Arbitration: Insights from the ICC YAAF Workshop, in Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 17 March 2024 (https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2024/03/17/navigating-the-main-impacts-of-artificial-intelligence-in-international-arbitration-insights-from-the-icc-yaaf-workshop/). [4] Martina Magnarelli, Cogito ergo (intelligens) sum? Artificial Intelligence and international arbitration: who would set out the rules of the game? Iurgium, volume 2022, number 43, p. 31 ff., para. 12. [5] Janine Haesler/Tim Isler, Navigating the Main Impacts of Artificial Intelligence in International Arbitration: Insights from the ICC YAAF Workshop, in Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 17 March 2024 (https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2024/03/17/navigating-the-main-impacts-of-artificial-intelligence-in-international-arbitration-insights-from-the-icc-yaaf-workshop/). [6] Janine Haesler/Tim Isler, Navigating the Main Impacts of Artificial Intelligence in International Arbitration: Insights from the ICC YAAF Workshop, in Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 17 March 2024 (https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2024/03/17/navigating-the-main-impacts-of-artificial-intelligence-in-international-arbitration-insights-from-the-icc-yaaf-workshop/). [7] Leonardo F. Souza-McMurtrie, Arbitration Tech Toolbox: Will ChatGPT Change International Arbitration as We Know It?, in Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 26 February 2023 (https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2023/02/26/arbitration-tech-toolbox-will-chatgpt-change-international-arbitration-as-we-know-it/). [8] Leonardo F. Souza-McMurtrie, Arbitration Tech Toolbox: Will ChatGPT Change International Arbitration as We Know It? in Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 26 February 2023 (https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2023/02/26/arbitration-tech-toolbox-will-chatgpt-change-international-arbitration-as-we-know-it/). [9] For instance, the Frankfurt Regional Court developed an AI tool called Frankfurter Urteils-Konfigurator elektronisch (FRaUKe) to assist judges in managing air passenger rights cases (https://hessen.de/presse/hessen-und-brandenburg-kooperieren-beim-ki-projekt-frauke). Similarly, the Stuttgart Court of Appeals introduced a project named Oberlandesgerichtsassistent (OLGA) to support the handling of mass litigation arising from the Diesel emissions scandal (https://de.newsroom.ibm.com/2022-12-07-OLG-Stuttgart-pilotiert-IBM-Massenverfahrensassistenten-zur-Fallbearbeitung-in-Dieselabgasverfahren). [10] Maxi Scherer, Artificial Intelligence and Legal Decision-Making: The Wide Open? Study on the Example of International Arbitration, Queen Mary University of London, School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 318/2019, p. 22 ff. [11] Maxi Scherer, Artificial Intelligence and Legal Decision-Making: The Wide Open? Study on the Example of International Arbitration, Queen Mary University of London, School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 318/2019, p. 19; Mahnoor Waqar, The Use of AI in Arbitral Proceedings, in Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 2022, volume 37, number 3, p. 343f. [12] Maxi Scherer, Artificial Intelligence and Legal Decision-Making: The Wide Open? Study on the Example of International Arbitration, Queen Mary University of London, School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 318/2019, pp. 22f., 31. [13] Maxi Scherer, Artificial Intelligence and Legal Decision-Making: The Wide Open? Study on the Example of International Arbitration, Queen Mary University of London, School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 318/2019, pp. 22f., 31; Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center, Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration, Commentary to Guideline 1, p. 16. [14] Janine Haesler/Tim Isler, Navigating the Main Impacts of Artificial Intelligence in International Arbitration: Insights from the ICC YAAF Workshop, in Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 17 March 2024 (https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2024/03/17/navigating-the-main-impacts-of-artificial-intelligence-in-international-arbitration-insights-from-the-icc-yaaf-workshop/); Martina Magnarelli, Cogito ergo (intelligens) sum? Artificial Intelligence and international arbitration: who would set out the rules of the game? Iurgium, volume 2022, number 43, p. 31 ff., para. 10. [15] Crenguta Leaua/Corina Tănase, Artificial Intelligence and Arbitration: Some Considerations on the Eve of a Global Regulation, in Revista Română de Arbitraj, 2023, volume 17, number 4, pp. 31 ff. [16] Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center, Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration, Commentary on Guideline 1, p. 16. [17] See https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/05/27/lawyer-uses-chatgpt-in-federal-court-and-it-goes-horribly-wrong/. [18] See https://www.advokatbladet.no/hoyesterett-kunstig-intelligens/hoyesterett-har-mottatt-sitt-forste-prosesskriv-med-oppdiktede-kilder/227171 ; https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/internett/advokatveiledningen/advokatveiledningen-april-2025.pdf . [19] Crenguta Leaua/Corina Tănase, Artificial Intelligence and Arbitration: Some Considerations on the Eve of a Global Regulation, in Revista Română de Arbitraj, 2023, volume 17, number 4, pp. 31 ff. [20] Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center, Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration, Commentary on Guideline 1, p. 16. [21] Art. 13 of the Italian Code of Legal Ethics. [22] Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law firms in the EU, 2022, p. 47, 51. [23] Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law firms in the EU, 2022, p. 48. [24] Moreover, the safeguards provided by the GDPR do not necessarily address in a comprehensive manner the risks associated with the use of artificial intelligence-based systems (Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, Guide on the Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools by Lawyers and Law Firms in the EU, 2022, p. 48). The growing use of such systems also introduces an additional risk concerning the extraterritorial application of the GDPR. In particular, when cloud service providers – commonly used in AI applications – are subject to local regulations outside the scope of the GDPR, users may lose control over how those rules affect the protection of personal data in the context of legal proceedings (ibid., p. 44). [25] Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law firms in the EU, 2022, p. 51; Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center, Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration, Commentary to Guideline 2, p. 17. [26] Juan Perla, A Closer Look at the New SVAMC Guidelines for AI in International Arbitration, 23 May 2024 (https://aria.law.columbia.edu/a-closer-look-at-the-new-svamc-guidelines-for-ai-in-international-arbitration/#:~:text=Guidelines%20for%20Arbitrators,-Arbitrators%20are%20subject&text=While%20arbitrators%20may%20use%20AI,instructed%20to%20verify%20their%20veracity). [27] Juan Perla, A Closer Look at the New SVAMC Guidelines for AI in International Arbitration, 23 May 2024 (https://aria.law.columbia.edu/a-closer-look-at-the-new-svamc-guidelines-for-ai-in-international-arbitration/#:~:text=Guidelines%20for%20Arbitrators,-Arbitrators%20are%20subject&text=While%20arbitrators%20may%20use%20AI,instructed%20to%20verify%20their%20veracity). [28] Claire Morel de Westgaver, Canvassing Views on AI in AI: The Rise of Machine Learning, in Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 12 July 2023 (https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2023/07/12/canvassing-views-on-ai-in-ia-the-rise-of-machine-learning/); Crenguta Leaua/Corina Tănase, Artificial Intelligence and Arbitration: Some Considerations on the Eve of a Global Regulation, in Revista Română de Arbitraj, 2023, volume 17, number 4, pp. 31 ff. [29] Claire Morel de Westgaver, Canvassing Views on AI in AI: The Rise of Machine Learning, in Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 12 July 2023 (https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2023/07/12/canvassing-views-on-ai-in-ia-the-rise-of-machine-learning/). [30] Claire Morel de Westgaver, Canvassing Views on AI in AI: The Rise of Machine Learning, in Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 12 July 2023 (https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2023/07/12/canvassing-views-on-ai-in-ia-the-rise-of-machine-learning/). [31] Art. 1450 of the French Code of Civil Procedure: “La mission d’arbitre ne peut être exercée que par une personne physique jouissant du plein exercice de ses droits.” [32] Art. 812 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure. [33] United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Stephen Thaler v. Katherine K. Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Case No. 2021-2347, 5 August 2022. [34] Juan Perla, A Closer Look at the New SVAMC Guidelines for AI in International Arbitration, 23 May 2024 (https://aria.law.columbia.edu/a-closer-look-at-the-new-svamc-guidelines-for-ai-in-international-arbitration/#:~:text=Guidelines%20for%20Arbitrators,-Arbitrators%20are%20subject&text=While%20arbitrators%20may%20use%20AI,instructed%20to%20verify%20their%20veracity). [35] Juan Perla, A Closer Look at the New SVAMC Guidelines for AI in International Arbitration, 23 May 2024 (https://aria.law.columbia.edu/a-closer-look-at-the-new-svamc-guidelines-for-ai-in-international-arbitration/#:~:text=Guidelines%20for%20Arbitrators,-Arbitrators%20are%20subject&text=While%20arbitrators%20may%20use%20AI,instructed%20to%20verify%20their%20veracity); Crenguta Leaua/Corina Tănase, Artificial Intelligence and Arbitration: Some Considerations on the Eve of a Global Regulation, in Revista Română de Arbitraj, 2023, volume 17, number 4, pp. 31 ff, p. 38. [36] Juan Perla, A Closer Look at the New SVAMC Guidelines for AI in International Arbitration, 23 May 2024 (https://aria.law.columbia.edu/a-closer-look-at-the-new-svamc-guidelines-for-ai-in-international-arbitration/#:~:text=Guidelines%20for%20Arbitrators,-Arbitrators%20are%20subject&text=While%20arbitrators%20may%20use%20AI,instructed%20to%20verify%20their%20veracity). It should be noted, however, that while not explicitly mentioning the use of AI, some authors point out that the 1958 New York Convention could not foresee such an eventuality, thus making the issue particularly interesting (see in more detail the analysis by Annabelle O. Onyefulu, Artificial Intelligence in International Arbitration: A Step Too Far?, in The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management, p. 56 ff., p. 60 ff., with further references). [37] Maxi Scherer, Artificial Intelligence and Legal Decision-Making: The Wide Open? Study on the Example of International Arbitration, Queen Mary University of London, School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 318/2019, p. 22. [38] See in more detail Maxi Scherer, Artificial Intelligence and Legal Decision-Making: The Wide Open? Study on the Example of International Arbitration, Queen Mary University of London, School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 318/2019, p. 22 ff. [39] Claire Morel de Westgaver, Canvassing Views on AI in AI: The Rise of Machine Learning, in Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 12 July 2023 (https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2023/07/12/canvassing-views-on-ai-in-ia-the-rise-of-machine-learning/). [40] Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center, Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration, p. 8 (“computer systems that perform tasks commonly associated with human cognition, such as understanding natural language, recognising complex semantic patterns, and generating human-like outputs“). Specifically, the Guidelines define artificial intelligence as “computer systems that perform tasks commonly associated with human cognition, such as understanding natural language, recognising complex semantic patterns, and generating human-like outputs“. [41] Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Artificial Intelligence Disputes Clause and Rules, Section 1, p. 1 ff. [42] Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), Guide to the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Cases Administered Under the SCC Rules, Section ‘AI and its uses‘, p. 1 ff. [43] In this regard, it should be noted that both the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) and the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) of the AAA have more recently issued guidance documents on the use of AI in arbitration proceedings, with CIArb publishing its guideline in March 2025 and ICDR following in April 2025.

The post INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN THE AGE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: OPPORTUNITIES AND EMERGING CHALLENGES appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

FROM ACQUISITION TO DEPLOYMENT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS: OBLIGATIONS AND COMPLIANCE UNDER THE AI ACT AND THE GDPR – 17 July 2025

team valletta — Thu, 17 Jul 2025 11:13:25 +0000

On the occasion of the webinar organized by our Firm in collaboration with the Italian-Swedish Chamber of Commerce Assosvezia, several key aspects related to the adoption of artificial intelligence systems in companies were explored together with Alessandro Foti, Jacopo Piemonte, Ugo Romano (CEO of Dyna Brains), Armando Ambrosio, and Massimo Caiazza.

In particular, the discussion focused on:

Strategies and roadmaps to reduce risks and create value
Contracts, policies, and governance for responsible AI use
The interplay between the AI Act and GDPR, with a focus on practical implications for developers and users

The post FROM ACQUISITION TO DEPLOYMENT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS: OBLIGATIONS AND COMPLIANCE UNDER THE AI ACT AND THE GDPR – 17 July 2025 appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

AICE SEMINAR – PURCHASING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS: CONTRACTUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILES – 5 June 2025

team valletta — Thu, 05 Jun 2025 18:32:56 +0000

On June 5, Armando Ambrosio spoke at the webinar organized by AICE, which focused on the legal aspects related to the purchase of artificial intelligence systems.

The session covered the fundamental principles of the European Regulation on Artificial Intelligence (AI Act) and examined the contractual and organizational implications involved in acquiring AI systems. Special attention was also given to the AI literacy requirement introduced by the AI Act, which will come into force on February 2, 2025.

The goal? To provide companies with practical tools to mitigate risks and ensure legal protection.

The post AICE SEMINAR – PURCHASING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS: CONTRACTUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILES – 5 June 2025 appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

EUROPEAN REGULATION ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI ACT): WHERE DO WE STAND? – 8 May 2025

team valletta — Thu, 08 May 2025 13:19:20 +0000

On Thursday, May 8, we hosted the event “European Regulation on Artificial Intelligence (AI Act): Where Do We Stand?”, organized by our Firm in collaboration with the Italian-Swedish Chamber of Commerce Assosvezia and Horizon Security.

Speakers Alessandro Foti, Jacopo Piemonte, Massimiliano Luraghi, Fabio Ferraro and Armando Ambrosio explored the main aspects of the AI Act, with a particular focus on the obligations and prohibitions already in force under the regulation.

Two key thematic areas:

Technical aspects: A closer look at how AI systems actually work, with insights from our partners at @Horizon Security.
Regulatory compliance: A deep dive into the obligations and prohibitions already in effect, which companies should have already started integrating into their compliance processes.

The post EUROPEAN REGULATION ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI ACT): WHERE DO WE STAND? – 8 May 2025 appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

LOW-COST ECOMMERCE: EUROPE PREPARES NEW RULES TO TACKLE COUNTERFEITING AND ILLEGALITY

team valletta — Wed, 30 Apr 2025 11:51:49 +0000

Andrea Terragni was interviewed by BusinessCommunity about how low-cost eCommerce is raising concerns regarding counterfeiting and illegality, with a significant impact on the European market.

In fact, the growth of the eCommerce sector is leading to an increase in counterfeiting risks, with estimated losses in the billions of euros for industries such as fashion, cosmetics, and toys. European authorities are preparing to introduce new regulations to tackle these issues, aiming for greater transparency and safety for consumers.

Andrea explained that “The growing number of customs border seizures confirms that many counterfeit products are purchased online, often through low-cost platforms that fail to implement adequate countermeasures. However, one positive aspect is that many of the better-known operators, such as Alibaba, have introduced effective tools to protect the authenticity of the goods sold.”

READ THE FULL ARTICLE IN ITALIAN

DOWNLOAD THE ARTICLE

The post LOW-COST ECOMMERCE: EUROPE PREPARES NEW RULES TO TACKLE COUNTERFEITING AND ILLEGALITY appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFLUENCER MARKETING – Milan, 27 March 2025

team valletta — Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:56:10 +0000

On March 27, 2025, the 3rd Edition of the International Conference on Influencer Marketing, organized by INDICAM, took place.

An event that offered an important opportunity for dialogue, shedding light on the challenges and opportunities of a constantly evolving sector.

This edition was entirely dedicated to influencer marketing and featured the launch of the new INDICAM Editorial Series. Among the authors were Andrea Terragni, Giulia Beneduci and Silvia Bolognani, who contributed to the chapter titled “Interaction Between Authorities”.

Among the speakers was also our Andrea Terragni, who, during the second round table, explored the topic of interaction between authorities, analyzing the roles played in Italy by AGCM, IAP, and AGCOM. His focus was on the risk of conflicting rulings related to the so-called “dual track” between administrative and judicial protection.

Download the event flyer.

The post INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFLUENCER MARKETING – Milan, 27 March 2025 appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

AI DRAFT LAW: LAWYERS EXPLAIN THE NEW RULES

team valletta — Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:33:53 +0000

Economy Magazine features an article analyzing the Artificial Intelligence Draft Law, approved by the Italian Senate on March 20, and now under review in the Chamber of Deputies. The draft law aims to complement the European AI Act by introducing a regulatory framework governing AI use across various sectors, with a strong focus on balancing technological progress and fundamental rights.

Among the interviewees is our Jacopo Piemonte, who emphasized: "This draft law represents [...] an important safeguard for the protection of fundamental rights recognized by our society. [...] After the legislative process is completed, it will be crucial to ensure adequate funding for the authorities responsible for overseeing this regulation. Only in this way can we achieve effective enforcement of the law, ensuring that the key principles it enshrines are truly upheld."

READ THE FULL ARTICLE IN ITALIAN

DOWNLOAD THE ARTICLE IN ITALIAN

The post AI DRAFT LAW: LAWYERS EXPLAIN THE NEW RULES appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.