AI disputes: the invisible defendant? What in-house counsel need to know
With the Government recently abandoning plans for AI-specific legislation, existing legal frameworks will bear the regulatory burden. Against this backdrop, novel disputes and test cases are inevitable. What is clear is that “my robot did it” will not be an excuse.
AI-related litigation is accelerating globally and Australia will be no exception. Regulators are sharpening their focus on AI use, while customers and shareholders are demanding greater transparency and accountability – with plaintiff law firms waiting in the wings.
A recent G+T insight by our Disputes team maps where AI-related disputes are emerging, what regulators are targeting and the practical steps boards and in-house counsel can take now.
Future instalments will also examine legal professional privilege and AI use, and directors’ and officers’ duties and board considerations, with further topics to follow.
The new merger regime – first quarter insights
With Australia’s new mandatory merger review regime in operation since 1 January 2026, early trends and practical considerations are starting to take shape.
A recent G+T insight shares and analyses trends from the first quarter of the new regime, including waiver use, pre-notification timing and the ACCC’s approach to information requirements, remedies and conditions precedent
ASIC financial and sustainability reporting developments
ASIC continues its active enforcement approach in relation to financial reporting obligations which it identified as one of its 2026 enforcement priorities. Since August 2025, it has issued 24 infringement notices worth more than $4.5 million for alleged financial reporting breaches, which is in addition to court-imposed fines for failing to lodge financial reports and related governance obligations.
ASIC recently issued the following infringement notices for failure to lodge financial reports:
- infringement notices totalling $792,000 ($198,000 per company) to 4 companies in the Australian Canva Group – see here
- infringement notices of $198,000 each to the operators of the Zara, H&M and Sephora fashion and beauty brands – see here.
ASIC has recently published its financial reporting, audit and sustainability focus areas for FY2026–2027 which is essential reading for CFOs, audit committees, boards and in-house legal teams preparing for the upcoming reporting season.
Separately, ASIC also recently shared its early observations on the first sustainability reports prepared under Chapter 2M of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), to assist other reporting entities as they prepare their own disclosures.
A total of 259 sustainability reports were lodged for the financial year ending 31 December 2025, including 34 from listed entities. ASIC noted improvements in the quantity and quality of climate-related financial information compared with earlier voluntary disclosures, and commended the use of tables, diagrams and other visual aids to present information clearly.
ASIC also flagged the following areas for improvement:
- not using misleading or confusing disclaimers that conflict with the statutory framework and objectives of Chapter 2M
- the ‘reasonable and supportable’ information to identify climate-related risks includes information about past events, current conditions and forecast future conditions. ASIC observed instances where entities failed to disclose forward-looking risks despite prior-year reporting of financial impacts from extreme weather events
- disclosure of relevant judgments, assumptions and relevant measurement uncertainties should be clear and proximate
- additional climate-related information should not obscure material climate-related financial information required by AASB S2
- cross-referencing information outside the sustainability report must meet AASB S2 and ASIC Regulatory Guide 280
- remembering that the definition of ‘climate-related target’ in AASB S2 extends to targets imposed by law or regulation, including greenhouse gas emissions targets such as the Safeguard Mechanism.
ACCC new fast track exemption and authorisation powers in “exceptional circumstances”
The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Act 2026 commenced on 27 May 2026. The Act introduces new exceptional circumstances laws which give the Minister power to enable the ACCC to fast-track exemptions and authorisations for conduct that might otherwise contravene Part IV of the CCA, including retrospectively, for businesses responding to emergencies and major economic disruption.
A recent G+T insight explains when the new power may be used, how the streamlined ACCC processes operate and what they mean for businesses that need to respond quickly during a crisis.
Data minimisation and dark patterns – the Privacy Commissioner’s determination in IRE
The Privacy Commissioner’s recent decision in Commissioner Initiated Investigation into IRE Pty Ltd (Privacy) [2026] AICmr 24 has significant implications for digital platforms that collect personal information.
Although the case focused on IRE Pty Ltd (trading as InspectRealEstate) and its 2Apply ‘RentTech’ platform, the Commissioner’s reasoning has broader implications for online businesses collecting personal information.
This decision is also significant as it considers the role of ‘online choice architecture’ practices or ‘dark patterns’, and concepts of fairness under the Privacy Act.
A recent G+T insight considers the decision and outlines key takeaways for businesses collecting personal information in the digital space, as well as practical steps businesses can take.
The ‘lawful-ish’ dupe: what brand owners can still do when consumers know it’s a copy
Consumer ‘dupes’ i.e. products designed to evoke a market leader's appeal without amounting to outright counterfeits, are testing the limits of Australian intellectual property and consumer protection law.
A recent G+T insight explores why traditional passing off and ACL claims may fall short where consumers knowingly choose a cheaper alternative, and why Australian law does not recognise a free-standing right in a product's ‘vibe’, ‘look and feel’ or market position.
But copycat products are not beyond reach. The insight examines the legal landscape surrounding modern product dupes in Australia through the lens of recent Federal Court decisions which illustrate both the limits and the possibilities of enforcement against commercially sophisticated product imitation.
Independent review of the SOCI Act – what regulated entities should know
The final report on the independent review into the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (Cth) (SOCI Act), conducted by Dr Jill Slay AM and delivered on 2 February 2026 (Report), was made public. Its findings signal a fundamental shift in how critical infrastructure regulation will operate in practice. For regulated entities, the core message is clear: the framework is moving from technical compliance towards demonstrable operational assurance.
A recent G+T insight summarises the Report, its recommendations and the likely practical implications. Boards and management should not wait for a formal response from the government and our insight also suggests practical steps that boards and management can be taking now to prepare for the reform.
Bill to enhance the director identification number regime
Following exposure draft consultation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Business Registries Stabilisation and Uplift) Bill 2026 (Bill) was introduced into the House of Representatives on 14 May 2026.
The Bill proposes amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and other legislation to strengthen the Director Identification Number (DIN) regime and link it to ASIC’s Companies Register.
Introduced in November 2021, the DIN regime was designed to strengthen corporate transparency and combat unlawful activity, including illegal phoenix behaviour. Under the regime, people acting as directors or acting alternate directors of companies or other relevant bodies registered under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) or the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (Cth) are required to apply for a unique lifelong identifier number.
Once passed, the Bill will link the DIN to ASIC's publicly available Companies Register. Companies will be required to provide each director’s DIN to ASIC as part of standard corporate registration and reporting practices, including applications for registration, notification of changes and annual reporting.
The Bill has been referred to a Senate Economics Legislation Committee for report by 17 June 2026.
Separately, on 2 June 2026, ASIC announced that two New South Wales directors had each been convicted and fined $10,000 for failing to comply with DIN requirements (they each may apply to have the conviction set aside by 16 June 2026). ASIC has now prosecuted 11 directors over director identification failures, resulting in more than $40,000 in fines.
The new rules of the game: what the 2026–2027 Federal Budget means for private capital
The 2026–2027 Federal Budget (Budget), handed down on 12 May 2026, is the most consequential for Australian private capital in generations.
The headline is that the 50% CGT discount is gone. In its place, CPI-based indexation of cost base and a 30% minimum tax on capital gains from 1 July 2027. For a fund manager whose carry was effectively taxed at 23.5%, the floor has just moved to 30% and a top marginal tax rate ceiling of 47%. Legislation to effect these changes was introduced on 28 May 2026 (see here and here).
The Budget simultaneously expands the venture capital limited partnership (VCLP) and early-stage venture capital limited partnership regimes (with investee caps nearly doubled), reintroduces loss carry-back, creates a new loss refundability mechanism for start-ups, lifts R&D incentive rates, and commits to further consultation on the treatment of early-stage businesses.
A recent G+T insight unpacks how the Budget reshapes the after-tax economics of private capital in Australia, including what has changed, what it means in practice, and how the private capital sector may need to adapt.
Latest insolvency insights
The current economic landscape continues to test the resilience of Australian businesses. Rising costs, geopolitical volatility and an uptick in corporate insolvencies mean that boards and management teams must be proactive – not reactive – in safeguarding their operations.
Two recent G+T insights highlight two critical areas demanding attention.
What to do if your IT vendor fails
The collapse of a key IT vendor can bring a business to its knees almost overnight. When a supplier of critical technology services enters administration or liquidation, clients are often left scrambling – facing disrupted systems, inaccessible data, and uncertain contractual rights.
A recent G+T insight outlines steps to take after learning that an IT vendor has entered administration or liquidation. It also examines how businesses should be stress-testing their IT vendor arrangements (including robust contractual safeguards) now, before a crisis hits.
From the Strait of Hormuz to the boardroom – directors are you distress-ready?
The ongoing conflict in the Middle East and disruption in the Strait of Hormuz is driving sustained cost pressures across the Australian economy, particularly in fuel, freight, insurance, agricultural inputs and supply chain.
A recent G+T insight examines the financial distress risks emerging across key sectors, the importance of a board ‘distress readiness kit’ and the practical steps directors should be taking now – from strengthening liquidity oversight to considering early restructuring and safe harbour advice.
Amendments to Guidance Note 5 for CHESS Depositary Interests (CDIs) now in effect
On 24 April 2026, ASX announced amendments to Guidance Note 5 (CHESS Depositary Interests), effective 1 May 2026. The amendments reflect updates to the ASX Settlement Operating Rules (including Section 13, Depositary Interests in CHESS), together with the introduction of formal Nominee Terms by CHESS Depositary Nominees Pty Limited (CDN) and related contractual arrangements which modernise the legal framework governing CDN's role as depositary nominee – the entity that holds legal title to underlying securities on trust for CDI holders.
A notable change is the introduction, for the first time, of fees payable by issuers for CDN's depositary nominee services. These comprise a one-off appointment fee of $5,000 (excluding GST) and an annual service fee tiered by reference to the market capitalisation of quoted CDIs.
The revised Guidance Note also clarifies that, while CDN remains the only depositary nominee currently offering CDI services for ASX-quoted securities, issuers retain the ability to appoint an alternative depositary nominee provided it satisfies the requirements under the ASX Settlement Operating Rules.
CDI issuers should familiarise themselves with the updated framework and ensure their internal arrangements are aligned. A mark-up showing the amendments to the Guidance Note is available here.
Regulation in Motion
G+T’s latest Regulation in Motion for the financial services sector includes: