The New York Danziger Gallery displayed for sale an AI-generated version of Ansel Adams' photo "Moonrise Over Hernandez" without consulting the photographer's trust, effectively stealing the legendary artist's work and dramatically altering it with AI for the sake of profit.
Sabrina Carpenter is dealing with a scary situation.
The “Espresso” singer was granted a temporary restraining order on June 1 against a man she alleged has been stalking her and attempted to get...
Wade Griffin's mother said she "pretty well knew" that her son's supposedly pregnant girlfriend Taylor Parker was not actually pregnant.
But when she tried to discuss her concerns with Wade, he...
Milania Giudice doesn’t want anyone throwing stones.
After the 20-year-old’s May 14 arrest for assault became public, Milania shared a series of cryptic messages on social media.
“None of us sit...
Bill Gates is pointing the finger at Jeffrey Epstein.
As the Microsoft co-founder went in front of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to testify about his friendship—and...
This morning, DJI filed two lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Insta360, asserting it violated both design and utility patents. Insta360 is preparing its defense.
Ryan Breslow, the 32-year-old co-founder who returned to the helm last year after a three-year absence, insisted the move was central to his attempt to drag the one-time darling of Silicon Valley back into “start-up mode”. The online checkout software business shed roughly 30 per cent of its workforce in April, its fourth round of redundancies in as many years.
“We had an HR team, and that HR team was creating problems that didn’t exist,” Breslow told delegates. “Those problems disappeared when I let them go.”
He argued that traditional HR professionals were better suited to the “peacetime” rhythms of larger, more mature businesses than to the bare-knuckle conditions of a turnaround. In their place, Bolt has installed a leaner “people operations” function, charged with employee training and day-to-day support rather than policy-making.
“We need a group of people who are very oriented around getting things done,” Breslow said. “There is just a culture of not getting things done and complaining a lot.”
The remarks land at a delicate moment for the company. Bolt’s valuation has plunged from $11 billion at the peak of the 2022 fintech boom to just $300 million, according to The Information, a humbling reset for a business once held up as the future of one-click commerce.
Breslow, who stepped away from the chief executive’s office in 2022 before returning in 2025, has made little secret of his view that the workforce he inherited had grown soft on venture capital largesse.
“There’s a sense of entitlement that had festered across the company,” he said. “People who felt empowered, felt entitled — but weren’t actually working hard. And this is the number one thing that I had to battle. Ultimately, most of those people just had to be let go.”
Bolt has confirmed that fewer than 40 staff were affected by the latest cull, which it said was driven in part by the rapid adoption of artificial intelligence. In a company-wide Slack message in April, Breslow reportedly told employees: “Developing products and operating in 2026 is very different than it was in prior years, and we need to adapt as an organisation to be leaner and more AI-centric than ever to keep up with competition.”
The comments echo a broader trend across the technology sector, with employers from Meta to Microsoft using AI investment as cover for sweeping headcount reductions. Recent CIPD research suggests one in six UK employers now expect AI to eliminate jobs within the next 12 months, with white-collar roles bearing the brunt.
For founders of smaller British businesses watching from afar, the Breslow doctrine will provoke equal measures of admiration and unease. Few would deny that bloated middle layers can hobble a growth-stage company, and the temptation to strip back in tougher times is real. But UK employment law offers far less latitude than the at-will culture of the United States, and dispensing with HR expertise carries reputational as well as legal risks.
Employment lawyers have long warned that getting redundancy wrong can prove ruinously expensive, particularly for SMEs without the budgets to absorb tribunal claims. The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) continues to urge employers to follow a structured, transparent process, including meaningful consultation and fair selection criteria — protections that, in practice, are typically marshalled and monitored by an HR function.
Breslow’s broader argument, that growth-stage businesses must run leaner and faster in an AI-driven economy, is one that increasingly few in the City would dispute. The challenge for British founders is to translate that ambition into a culture that delivers results without falling foul of either employment law or staff morale. As the wave of AI-related layoffs sweeping global tech has shown, the line between bold restructuring and reckless cost-cutting is easily crossed.
Whether Bolt’s stripped-back, founder-led model can return the business to its former $11 billion valuation — or simply hasten its slide — will be one of the defining fintech stories of the year. As reported by Fortune, Breslow has slimmed the headcount from a peak of around 800 to roughly 100. For a man who once championed the worker-friendly four-day week, it is a striking volte-face — and one his remaining staff, and his investors, will be watching closely.
Read more:
Bolt boss defends sacking entire HR team, claiming staff ‘invented problems that didn’t exist’
The Court of Justice of the European Union, sitting in Luxembourg, found in favour of Italy’s communications regulator, AGCOM, which Meta had accused of overstepping its remit by setting the price the social media group must pay for displaying snippets of press articles on Facebook and Instagram. The judgment is likely to embolden newspaper groups across the continent, including in the UK, that have long argued they are negotiating from a position of structural weakness against a handful of dominant American technology platforms.
“The court finds that a right to fair compensation for publishers is consistent with EU law, provided that that remuneration constitutes consideration for authorising their publications to be used online,” the judges said in their ruling.
Meta had argued that the Italian measures were incompatible with the rights publishers already enjoy under European copyright law, and that allowing national regulators to dictate commercial terms amounted to regulatory overreach. The company, which owns WhatsApp alongside its flagship social platforms, said it would study the judgment in full and “engage constructively as the matter returns to the Italian courts”.
For Britain’s beleaguered publishing sector, where regional titles in particular have been hollowed out over the past decade as advertising revenue migrated to Silicon Valley, the ruling will be watched closely. Although the UK is no longer bound by Court of Justice decisions following Brexit, Westminster has been drafting its own framework for compelling platforms to strike commercial deals with news publishers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act. The European judgment provides political cover for ministers minded to take a firmer line.
The European Publishers Council was quick to claim victory. Angela Mills Wade, its executive director, said the ruling acknowledged “the economic reality that publishers cannot negotiate on equal terms with dominant online platforms without transparency, access to relevant data, and safeguards against coercive behaviour”.
“This crucial decision comes at a time when AI-driven and platform-mediated uses of journalistic content are rapidly expanding,” she added. “This important ruling will pave the way for fairer negotiations with gatekeepers which have been abusing their dominance by refusing to negotiate in good faith. Quality journalism depends on the ability of publishers to recoup the investments required to produce trusted news and information.”
The decision lands at a fraught moment for relations between the technology industry and the creative economy. Earlier this month, five of the world’s largest publishing houses, including Elsevier, Hachette and Macmillan, filed a class-action lawsuit against Meta in a New York federal court, alleging that the Silicon Valley group pirated millions of books and academic articles to train Llama, its large language model. Works cited in the complaint include N. K. Jemisin’s award-winning novel The Fifth Season and Peter Brown’s bestselling children’s book The Wild Robot.
Meta has vowed to fight the case “aggressively”, but the action is symptomatic of a broader reckoning. Anthropic, the AI start-up backed by Amazon and Google, last year became the first major artificial intelligence company to settle such a claim, agreeing to pay a group of authors $1.5 billion to resolve litigation that the company’s lawyers feared could have run into many billions more had it gone to trial.
For owner-managed publishers, freelance journalists and the broader content economy, the direction of travel is becoming clearer. After two decades in which platforms harvested editorial output largely on their own terms, the legal pendulum is swinging, slowly, but unmistakably, back towards those who produce the work in the first place. Whether the compensation flowing from rulings such as this one will be enough to sustain quality journalism is a separate, and arguably more difficult, question.
Read more:
Meta dealt blow by EU court in landmark ruling on publisher payments
The ruling brings to a head a long-running tussle between the Shirebrook-based discount sports chain, rebranded as Frasers Group in 2019, and Lifestyle Equities, the company that owns and licenses the Beverly Hills Polo Club marque. Lifestyle Equities had alleged that Ashley’s group infringed its trademark by flogging goods under the rival ‘Santa Monica Polo Club’ label, a claim it first lodged back in 2018.
Frasers had lost the underlying infringement case seven years ago but mounted a fresh challenge against the scale of damages it was ordered to stump up. At an appeal hearing in April, the retailer’s lawyers argued that the bill should be slashed because the third-party companies trading under the Beverly Hills Polo Club name, and on whose behalf Lifestyle Equities was attempting to recover losses, had never been officially registered as licensees in the United Kingdom.
The Court of Appeal duly sided with the high street giant, ruling that it was “too late” for Lifestyle Equities to retrospectively register the licences in question. With the original claim dating back to 2018 and the licensing arrangements stretching back nearly a decade, the court concluded that the additional claims “appear to be well out of time” and that allowing them through would amount to an “unprincipled windfall” for businesses that had not properly placed themselves on the public register.
Counsel for Frasers warned during the appeal that permitting such claims to succeed would expose accused infringers to ambush litigation, leaving defendants “suddenly confronted with a Trojan Horse full of licensees claiming damages” of whose existence they had no prior knowledge. Without strict adherence to public registration, the retailer’s legal team argued, the regime risked becoming “a charter of unjust enrichment”, allowing trademark owners to scoop up compensation for unregistered partners alongside their own losses.
The judgment represents a material win for Frasers, which has shrugged off a potentially eye-watering damages bill that, had it stood, would have set an awkward precedent for the wider retail sector. The decision is likely to be studied closely by intellectual property lawyers and brand owners alike, given the implications for how licensing arrangements must be formally documented to be enforceable in the British courts.
The legal win follows news first reported by City AM that the magic circle-adjacent law firm RPC has lost one of its highest-billing partners, Jeremy Drew, who represents Ashley personally, to Taylor Wessing.
The trademark victory comes hard on the heels of an extraordinary admission by Ashley, the man who founded Sports Direct in his native Burnham in 1982 and ran it as chief executive until handing the reins to son-in-law Michael Murray in 2022.
The 61-year-old billionaire has confirmed publicly for the first time that he engineered the downfall of his most prominent retail adversary, the former JD Sports executive chairman Peter Cowgill.
Cowgill stepped down from the FTSE 100 trainer chain in 2022 in the wake of a Competition and Markets Authority probe, triggered after leaked footage emerged of him in a clandestine car park meeting with Footasylum chief executive Barry Brown. The pair had been expressly barred from exchanging commercially sensitive information while JD Sports was attempting to acquire Footasylum, and the leaked footage led the CMA to impose fines of nearly £5m on the two businesses.
In an interview with the Financial Times last weekend, Ashley conceded that the footage had been obtained by one of his own employees and said he was “not hiding from the fact” that he was the architect of Cowgill’s removal, a candid acknowledgement that lifts the lid on one of the more colourful boardroom feuds in recent British retail history.
Read more:
Ashley’s Frasers group dodges hefty damages bill in trademark appeal victory
Rumer Willis and Derek Richard Thomas' legal battle continues.
Amid the former couple's custody dispute over their 2-year-old daughter Louetta, the House Bunny actress accused her ex of emotional...
Login