
UK passes updated data bill, without AI copyright provisions
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
After intensive debates, the United Kingdom parliament has finally passed the 'Data (Use and Access) Bill' (DUA Act), intended to simplify the use of and access to personal data for U.K. data regulators whilst easing the administrative burden of using personal data.
The DUA Act builds on the Data Protection Act 2018 and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—the landmark European Union regulation on information privacy and data use—to modernize the U.K.'s data regime and facilitate more streamlined compliance processes without eroding the protections of the GDPR legislation.
On June 11, the bill passed from the House of Lords to the Royal Assent stage—the final stage of the legislative process in the U.K., in which the King essentially rubber stamps bills that Parliament has approved.
When it does get its Royal approval—at a date to be decided soon—the DUA Act will become law and herald in the most significant change to the U.K.'s data protection framework since GDPR.
Key updates in the bill include expanding the scope for data processing under 'Legitimate Interests,' such as for direct marketing and security processing, reducing interruptive and ineffective cookie consent banners, and provisions to boost market research, product development, and technological innovation.
The structure and remit of the U.K.'s information rights regulator, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), will also be 'modernized,' requiring it to consider the public interest in promoting innovation and competition alongside privacy and data protection.
Another change involves streamlining the process of submitting a 'Data Subject Access Request' to make it more efficient for individuals and organizations to request information on how a company uses or stores its data.
However, one key change the bill doesn't include is a much-debated amendment to force big tech firms and artificial intelligence (AI) companies to get permission and/or pay for U.K. content, as the government insisted that it was planning to address this topic in future AI and copyright legislation—after the conclusion of a consultation on the topic in February.
The DPO Centre, a leading U.K. data protection officer and resource center, described the DUA Act as 'a targeted evolution of the current regime' rather than a complete departure from existing frameworks.
The rocky road to Royal Assent
The DUA Act's passage to Royal Assent was a long, bumpy road that started under the previous Conservative government with the Data Protection and Digital Access (DPDI) Bill, first introduced in 2022.
The DPDI set out a range of provisions for how data can be accessed, used, and processed, including making it easier and clearer for organizations to use and re-use data for research purposes; clarifying the processes and safeguards for the re-use of personal data; and easing compliance burdens on organizations related to record keeping, breach reporting and responding to unreasonable information requests from individuals. However, the DPDI failed to pass before the 2024 general election, and in October 2024, the new Labour government introduced the revised DUA Act.
The Labour bill retained much of the original content while removing some of the more controversial provisions of the DPDI, including one that would have allowed government oversight of the ICO's strategic priorities and another that required telecom providers to report suspected illegal marketing to the ICO.
On May 12, the House of Lords—the Upper chamber of U.K. Parliament—voted by a 147 majority to amend the DUA Act, adding transparency requirements to ensure U.K. copyright holders have to give permission for their work to be used.
The amendment would have forced tech companies to declare their use of copyright material when training AI tools so that they could not access U.K. content without paying for it—a proposal backed by prominent U.K. recording artists such as Elton John and Dua Lipa.
However, a couple of days later, the House of Common—the lower (and elected) chamber of Parliament primarily responsible for producing legislation—rejected this change, with the government reasoning that it was already carrying out a separate consultation on AI and copyright and wanted to wait on the outcome.
In an interview with BBC journalist Laura Kuenssberg, Elton John described the Commons' rejection of the amendment as 'criminal,' adding that if ministers went ahead with plans to allow AI firms to use artists' content without paying, they would be 'committing theft, thievery on a high scale.'
The Commons' decision also resulted in an extended back and forth, known as a 'ping-pong,' between the two houses of Parliament, as amendments were debated, changed, and rejected, with the legislation bouncing from one chamber to another in the process.
Ultimately, a compromise was struck, with the Commons rejecting the Lords' amendment on AI, but the government agreed to publish reports on its AI and copyright proposals within nine months of Royal Assent.
Ben Seretny, Head of DPOs at The DPO Centre, says, 'The final version of the DUA Bill feels more like a careful update than a radical overhaul of the UK GDPR and Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR) frameworks.'
Commenting on June 12 on the bill's passage from Parliament, Seretny warned that 'while some areas are now clearer, others may introduce uncertainty.'
In particular, he noted that the DUA Act gives the Secretary of State more power to decide which countries have data protection standards that are not 'materially lower' than the U.K.—a shift in language that he suggested may concern the European Commission, which is due to review the U.K.'s data adequacy status in December.
In order for artificial intelligence (AI) to work right within the law and thrive in the face of growing challenges, it needs to integrate an enterprise blockchain system that ensures data input quality and ownership—allowing it to keep data safe while also guaranteeing the immutability of data. Check out CoinGeek's coverage on this emerging tech to learn more why Enterprise blockchain will be the backbone of AI .
Watch: Blockchain & AI unlock possibilities
title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen="">
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Glasgow Times
13 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Palestine Action to legally challenge proscription under anti-terror law
An urgent hearing was held in the High Court on Monday related to an application for judicial review on behalf of one of the founders of the direct action group, Huda Ammori. A further hearing will be held on Friday to decide whether the Government can temporarily be blocked from banning the group, pending a hearing to decide whether Palestine Action can bring the legal challenge. A decision on whether the group will be given the green light to bring the legal challenge will be given at a further hearing expected to be held in the week of July 21. Supporting statements have also been submitted by Amnesty International, Liberty and European Legal Support Centre over concerns of unlawful misuse of anti-terror measures to criminalise dissent, a spokesperson said. It comes as a draft order was laid before Parliament on Monday to amend the Terrorism Act 2000 to include Palestine Action as a proscribed organisation, making membership and support for the direct action group illegal. If approved, it would become a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper unveiled the intention to ban the group on June 23 (James Manning/PA) Commenting on the hearing, Ms Ammori said: 'I have been left with no choice but to request this urgent hearing and to seek either an injunction or other form of interim relief because of the Home Secretary's decision to try to steamroll this through Parliament immediately, without proper opportunity for MPs and Peers to debate and scrutinise the proposal, or for legal and human rights experts and civil society organisations to make representations, or for those of us who would be denied fundamental rights as a result and criminalised as 'terrorists' overnight, including the many thousands of people who support Palestine Action.' The Government's move comes after two planes were vandalised at RAF Brize Norton on June 20 in an action claimed by Palestine Action. Five people have since been arrested on suspicion of a terror offence in relation to the incident. Unveiling the intention to ban the group following the incident on June 23, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said it was the latest in a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage committed by Palestine Action'. The group has staged a series of demonstrations in recent months, including spraying the London offices of Allianz Insurance with red paint over its alleged links to Israeli defence company Elbit, and vandalising US President Donald Trump's Turnberry golf course in South Ayrshire. Its website states the group uses disruptive tactics to target 'corporate enablers of the Israeli military-industrial complex' and seeks to make it 'impossible for these companies to profit from the oppression of Palestinians'. Ms Ammori added that causing disruption 'is not terrorism', while Ms Cooper has said proscribing the group is a 'legitimate response to the threat posed' by Palestine Action. The Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation under the Terrorism Act of 2000 if she believes it is 'concerned in terrorism'. Some 81 organisations have been proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas and al-Qaida, far-right groups such as National Action, and Russian private military company the Wagner Group.


Daily Record
15 minutes ago
- Daily Record
DWP benefit cuts to push 150,000 people into poverty despite partial U-turn
The figure is down from the 250,000 extra people estimated to have been left in relative poverty after housing costs under the original proposals. Around 150,000 people will be pushed into poverty by 2030 as a result of the Government's welfare cuts despite Keir Starmer being forced into a partial U-turn. The figure is down from the 250,000 extra people estimated to have been left in relative poverty after housing costs under the original proposals. Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall announced last week that changes to the personal independence payment (Pip) will only apply to new claimants from November 2026. Ministers also rowed back on plans to cut the health-related element of Universal Credit. It comes after after 126 Labour MPs - 12 of them Scottish - signed an amendment that would have blocked the Government's Bill. Kendall will update MPs on the changes later on Monday, with the Labour leadership still braced for a substantial revolt. A No 10 spokesman said: 'The broken welfare system we inherited is failing people every single day. 'It traps millions, it tells them the only way to get help is to declare they'll never work again and then abandons them. 'No help, no opportunity, no dignity and we can't accept that. 'For too long, meaningful reform to a failing system has been ducked.' Government whips are expected to continue talking to would-be rebels in the lead-up to Tuesday's vote. This is when the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Bill faces its first Commons test. The No 10 spokesman said the poverty modelling was 'subject to uncertainty' and showed 'the effect of these measures on poverty in isolation in 2029-30, it doesn't reflect the full picture'. He added: 'You have to look at the record levels of investment in the health and care system, £29 billion more day-to-day funding in real terms, than in 2023-24, to help people get the treatment they need on time to return to work.' Several Scottish Labour MPs have told the Record today that they are undecided on whether they will back the bill.


South Wales Guardian
19 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Palestine Action to legally challenge proscription under anti-terror law
An urgent hearing was held in the High Court on Monday related to an application for judicial review on behalf of one of the founders of the direct action group, Huda Ammori. A further hearing will be held on Friday to decide whether the Government can temporarily be blocked from banning the group, pending a hearing to decide whether Palestine Action can bring the legal challenge. A decision on whether the group will be given the green light to bring the legal challenge will be given at a further hearing expected to be held in the week of July 21. Supporting statements have also been submitted by Amnesty International, Liberty and European Legal Support Centre over concerns of unlawful misuse of anti-terror measures to criminalise dissent, a spokesperson said. It comes as a draft order was laid before Parliament on Monday to amend the Terrorism Act 2000 to include Palestine Action as a proscribed organisation, making membership and support for the direct action group illegal. If approved, it would become a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Commenting on the hearing, Ms Ammori said: 'I have been left with no choice but to request this urgent hearing and to seek either an injunction or other form of interim relief because of the Home Secretary's decision to try to steamroll this through Parliament immediately, without proper opportunity for MPs and Peers to debate and scrutinise the proposal, or for legal and human rights experts and civil society organisations to make representations, or for those of us who would be denied fundamental rights as a result and criminalised as 'terrorists' overnight, including the many thousands of people who support Palestine Action.' The Government's move comes after two planes were vandalised at RAF Brize Norton on June 20 in an action claimed by Palestine Action. Five people have since been arrested on suspicion of a terror offence in relation to the incident. Unveiling the intention to ban the group following the incident on June 23, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said it was the latest in a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage committed by Palestine Action'. The group has staged a series of demonstrations in recent months, including spraying the London offices of Allianz Insurance with red paint over its alleged links to Israeli defence company Elbit, and vandalising US President Donald Trump's Turnberry golf course in South Ayrshire. Its website states the group uses disruptive tactics to target 'corporate enablers of the Israeli military-industrial complex' and seeks to make it 'impossible for these companies to profit from the oppression of Palestinians'. Ms Ammori added that causing disruption 'is not terrorism', while Ms Cooper has said proscribing the group is a 'legitimate response to the threat posed' by Palestine Action. The Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation under the Terrorism Act of 2000 if she believes it is 'concerned in terrorism'. Some 81 organisations have been proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas and al-Qaida, far-right groups such as National Action, and Russian private military company the Wagner Group.