Reporting and opinion by Mathew Carr
This event late yesterday London time was fascinating and included big criticism of UK competition regulator CMA for failing to do its job curbing dominant big tech…much of which is based in the USA.
Also, who’s job is it to police copyright theft? Police have the right to do more of it, but they seem captured by big tech, like the UK government is.
Just a few highlights:
Multiple publishers have gone bust.
Some suffered 30% drop in traffic last year and it’s even worse in other cases. “It’s dire”.…said a publishing representative.
More than 100,000 have recently been made unemployed because of traffic falls, at least partly linked to switch to AI/chatbots.
Google search has started including AI overviews that lower the need to click into wider content, original news. This is how Google/Alphabet is dominating and near monopolising news/info searches.
Organisations doing the research and providing high quality info often “don’t even get a footnote”.
In some cases, 70% of people don’t “click out” from google….the “zero click” rate is steadily rising.
UK could/should force Google to unbundle search and AI overviews, multiple speakers said.
Creatives are missing out on millions/billions of pounds.
“My wife is a multi-published author and her work has been strip mined.”
Indeed, two speakers said they had direct knowledge of Amazon/others recklessly allowing the sale of stolen books / or stealing books …and repackaging them so others can make money out of an author’s work.
One person familiar with big-tech litigation told me AI will be more benign than many people fear.
One legislative submission is being held under embargo in a secret legislative process in Westminster.
Litigation might beat policymakers, said the person familiar.
The Epstein files are showing that US big tech companies are probably complicit in covering up really bad behavior in the US and beyond among the tech/political/military/media classes…with wrongdoing including market rigging, insider trading, currency manipulation….lack of media scrutiny of super important things that hurt victims and society.
Follow Whitney Webb (who is strangely silent on the latest Epstein files dump … since she is famous for epstein scrutiny):
NOTES
Preiskel & Co is hosting an event on “Artificial Intelligence and the Plurality of the Media” in the Inner Temple, London on Thursday 5 February 2026 (5 – 8pm)
Preiskel & Co. is hosting an upcoming event in the Inner Temple, London on Thursday 5 February 2026 (5 – 8pm) on Artificial Intelligence and the Plurality of the Media.
This event will explore how Google is exploiting content discovery using its gatekeeper position and control of online search, and how AI Overviews, AI Mode and Discover are reshaping media plurality, cultural production, and ultimately the information ecosystems that underpin democracy.
Panel One: Stories from the frontlines will dive into the political, legal, and economic context shaping publishers’ current struggles. The panel will explain publishers’ traffic loss and the business impacts resulting from AI Overviews and other chatbots. The discussion will emphasise the effects on media plurality, content quality, and misinformation, and raise concerns regarding Google’s anticompetitive conduct in light of recent EU and UK enquiries.
Panel Two: AI paying for content? Policy and solutions will cover the UK public interest considerations and the Government’s current approach, and the future of payment for content. This panel will rely on debate about the possible ways forward including copyright levy systems and arbitration approaches.
This event aims to move beyond describing problems towards identifying practical legal and economic interventions, set against current developments in the EU and US.
We are excited to host The Lord Fox and Baroness Kidron as Chairs. Panellists include Chris Dicker from the Independent Publishers Alliance, Thomas Barlow from the Independent Media Association, Rosa Curling from Foxglove Legal, Tony Curzon-Price from Nesta, James Rosewell from Movement for an Open Web, Tim Cowen from Preiskel & Co, and The Lord Clement-Jones.
If you are interested in attending, please RSVP using this link or emailing Preiskel’s admin team.
The European Commission Takes on Google to Level the AI Playing Field
On 27 January 2026, the European Commission announced the opening of two sets of specification proceedings to assist Google in complying with its obligations under the Digital Markets Act (“DMA”), formalising its regulatory dialogue with the company on key areas of implementation.[1]
The first set of proceedings concerns Google’s obligation under Article 6(7) of the DMA to provide third-party developers with free and effective interoperability with hardware and software features controlled by the Android operating system. The Commission’s focus is on features used by Google’s own artificial intelligence services, including Gemini. The proceedings aim to clarify how Google should grant third-party AI service providers access to the same functionalities available to its own services, ensuring equal opportunities to innovate and compete in the rapidly evolving AI ecosystem on mobile devices.
The second set of proceedings relates to Article 6(11) of the DMA, which requires Google to provide third-party online search engine providers with access to anonymised ranking, query, click and view data held by Google Search on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. The Commission will examine the scope of data to be shared, the anonymisation methods, conditions of access, and whether AI chatbot providers should be eligible to access the data. Effective access to a meaningful dataset, the Commission argues, would enable competitors to optimise their services and offer genuine alternatives to Google Search.
The Commission is expected to conclude both proceedings within six months. Within the next three months, it will communicate its preliminary findings to Google, outlining draft measures intended to ensure effective compliance with the DMA. Non-confidential summaries of these findings and proposed measures will be published, allowing third parties to submit comments.
The Commission stressed that the proceedings are without prejudice to its broader enforcement powers under the DMA. They do not pre-judge compliance and will not prevent the Commission from adopting a formal non-compliance decision, including the imposition of fines or periodic penalty payments.
The DMA is designed to ensure fair and contestable digital markets by regulating large platforms that act as critical gateways between businesses and consumers. In September 2023, the Commission designated Google Search, Google Play, Google Maps, YouTube, Android, Chrome, Google Shopping and Google’s online advertising services as core platform services under the regime.
The proceedings mark another step in the Commission’s efforts to translate the DMA’s broad obligations into concrete, enforceable requirements, particularly in areas such as AI and search, where market power and data access remain central to competition concerns.
Please contact Tim Cowen for further advice on the above.
The material in this article is only for general review of the topics covered and does not constitute legal advice. No legal or business decision should be based on its content. This article is written in the English language. Preiskel & Co LLP is not responsible for any translation of all or part of its content into any language.
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_202
ChatGPT unchecked:
A stack of formal procedures and conventions that together keep Lords material under embargo until a specified moment.
Here are the main ones, broken down cleanly.
1. Select Committee publication rules (the big one)
This is the most common reason.
What’s embargoed
Written submissions (evidence) Draft reports Committee conclusions
Why
Committees operate under Standing Orders and their own agreed protocols. Evidence is treated as confidential until the committee formally authorises publication.
How the embargo works
Submissions are circulated privately to peers. They remain embargoed until: the committee agrees publication, or the report is formally laid before the House.
Authority
House of Lords Standing Orders Committee-specific resolutions Parliamentary privilege
⚠️ Breaching this can be treated as a contempt of Parliament.
2. Draft reports & “private consideration”
Closely related but distinct.
Draft reports are discussed in private sessions. Amendments are agreed internally. Nothing becomes public until the committee orders publication.
This protects:
candour of discussion, reputational fairness, and political neutrality before conclusions are settled.
3. Parliamentary privilege & confidentiality
Submissions are covered by absolute privilege, but only once properly published.
Before publication:
they are protected inside Parliament, but cannot be freely disclosed outside.
This creates a strong incentive to keep material embargoed until the formal trigger.
4. Sub judice rule
Used less often, but still relevant.
If a submission:
relates to active court proceedings, or risks prejudicing a trial,
then:
it may be embargoed or restricted until proceedings conclude.
This is overseen by the Lords Speaker / clerks, not the courts.
5. Bills, amendments & Marshalled Lists
For legislation specifically:
Amendments submitted to a Bill: are embargoed until they appear on the Marshalled List. Draft groupings are confidential until released by the Public Bill Office. Briefings given to peers may be embargoed until a stage begins (e.g. Report Stage).
This prevents:
market-sensitive leaks, lobbying advantages, procedural ambushes.
6. Statutory Instruments (SIs) & laying rules
When submissions relate to SIs:
Explanatory material may be embargoed until the SI is formally laid. The 21-day rule (for negative instruments) often dictates timing. Committees like the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee control publication timing.
7. Government-provided embargoes
Sometimes submissions include:
policy announcements, fiscal data, security-sensitive material.
These may be embargoed under:
ministerial direction, national security conventions, market-sensitive information rules.
Once again, publication only occurs when the House authorises it.
8. King’s Consent / Prince’s Consent (rare but real)
If legislation affects Crown interests:
material may be embargoed until consent is formally signified. This happens before certain stages of debate.
Pulling it together
Embargoes in the Lords exist to protect:
parliamentary privilege, fair process, legal integrity, and orderly scrutiny.
They are enforced through:
Standing Orders, committee resolutions, clerks’ authority, and long-standing constitutional convention.