Britain’s biggest business organisations have closed ranks against a wave of antisemitism sweeping the country, with 40 trade bodies and employer groups signing a joint letter pledging to root out anti-Jewish prejudice from the nation’s workplaces.

The intervention, co-ordinated by the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) and the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), lands at a politically charged moment. It coincides with a stark warning from Sir Mark Rowley, commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, who told MPs in a letter revealed this week that “British Jews are not currently safe in their capital city”, a phrase that has reverberated through Westminster, the City and Britain’s small business community alike.

“We, as leaders from across the UK business community, unreservedly condemn antisemitism in all its forms,” the signatories said in the letter, published by the British Chambers of Commerce. Signatories have agreed to speak up against antisemitism, adopt a zero-tolerance approach to it in the workplace, embed antisemitism within racism and inclusion training, and provide tailored support for Jewish employees.

A rare show of unity fromBbritain’s ‘B5’

The breadth of the coalition is striking. Alongside the BCC and CBI, the letter has been signed by the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), the Institute of Directors (IoD) and ADS Group, which represents more than 1,700 UK firms in the aerospace, defence, security and space sectors. After three years of public splits between the so-called “B5” business lobby groups, particularly in the wake of the CBI’s 2023 crisis, this is the broadest joint statement the sector has produced on a social policy issue in recent memory.

Shevaun Haviland, director-general of the BCC, said: “The rise in antisemitism is deeply concerning and demands a clear, collective response. This letter is the starting point … by acting together, business can be a powerful force for good.”

Kevin Craven, chief executive of ADS Group, was among those who described antisemitism bluntly as racism and “a daily experience” for Jewish people living and working in Britain.

Tina McKenzie, policy chair at the FSB, and Jonathan Geldart, director-general of the IoD, said they were taking a stand for the “sake of our Jewish colleagues and friends” and for the “health of our society”. Rain Newton-Smith, chief executive of the CBI, described antisemitism as “abhorrent”, adding: “The breadth of organisations backing this statement reflects the strength of feeling across the business community. Inclusive workplaces are vital for individuals, for businesses and for the success of our economy.”

‘Not currently safe’: Rowley’s warning to MP’s

The corporate intervention follows a sharp deterioration in community safety. Sir Mark Rowley’s letter to MPs on the home affairs select committee referenced “a sustained period of attack” on Jewish Londoners over the past six weeks, including the declaration of a terrorist incident in Golders Green, northwest London, after two men suffered stab wounds just over a fortnight ago. The Met has since launched 11 counter-terrorism investigations and made 35 arrests, while a new 100-strong community protection team has been stood up.

The King met victims of last month’s stabbings the same day Rowley’s warning emerged, a juxtaposition that has sharpened the political pressure on government and on employers to demonstrate visible action rather than mere words.

From boardroom statements to workplace culture

For Business Matters readers, particularly the owner-managers of the UK’s 5.5 million small and medium-sized firms, the practical question is what zero tolerance actually looks like in a payroll of 10, 50 or 250 people. Employment lawyers expect the letter to accelerate three trends already evident in HR departments: the explicit naming of antisemitism within diversity training (rather than its absorption into a generic anti-racism module), the development of complaints procedures sensitive to Jewish identity and religious practice, and tougher action on social media conduct that strays into anti-Jewish stereotypes.

Those shifts dovetail with a wider regulatory direction of travel. Ministers have already used the Employment Rights Bill to ban non-disclosure agreements that silence victims of harassment and discrimination, narrowing the room for employers to settle complaints quietly. Surveys from the sector continue to suggest that British firms are still failing to measure their impact on diversity and inclusion in any meaningful way, a data gap that is likely to come under fresh scrutiny following this week’s declaration.

The letter is part of growing momentum in industry. Peter Kyle, the business secretary, hosted a roundtable on antisemitism with senior business leaders this week. “I’m pleased to see workplaces begin to discuss the action they can take to combat this hatred,” he said. “Businesses have a crucial role to play in facing this challenge head-on.”

A BCC spokesperson described tackling antisemitism in the workplace as a “shared responsibility”, citing concern at the “increased experience” of antisemitism reported by Jewish employees. For owner-managers weighing how to operationalise the pledge, the practical playbook for building diversity, equity and inclusion into SME growth plans offers a useful starting point, but specialists caution that antisemitism, with its distinct history and contemporary tropes, demands its own dedicated lens rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

Whether the joint letter marks a genuine inflection point or a familiar cycle of statements followed by drift will be judged by what changes inside the country’s offices, factory floors and shop counters over the coming year. With the Met openly conceding that Britain’s Jewish citizens are not yet safe in their own capital, employers may find that the cost of inaction has rarely been higher.

Read more:
UK business chiefs unite to combat workplace antisemitism as Met chief warns jews ‘not safe’ in London

The billionaire chairman of JCB has warned that ministers risk provoking a public revolt over Britain’s spiralling £333.7 billion welfare bill, accusing Westminster of “conning” taxpayers by allowing some claimants to pocket as much as £60,000 a year without working.

In an unusually pointed intervention from one of Britain’s most prominent industrialists, Lord Bamford said the country could not “carry on conning the people for so long” and warned that voter patience with the benefits system was wearing dangerously thin.

“I don’t think you can get away with people on welfare getting up to £60,000 a year and not working for it. I just don’t think you can, in the end,” the JCB chairman told The Telegraph. “You could end up with a lot of people revolting or giving up entirely, and then what does that do to our economy? The economy really does depend on people working and us producing things.”

The intervention from the Staffordshire-based digger maker — a bellwether for British heavy industry and a barometer for SME sentiment in the Midlands manufacturing belt — comes as the welfare debate rapidly shifts from Westminster wonkery to kitchen-table politics.

A bill that has overtaken income tax

The Office for Budget Responsibility expects the government to spend £333.7 billion on welfare in the current fiscal year, eclipsing the £331 billion raised through income tax receipts last year. It is the first time in modern British fiscal history that the welfare line has overtaken the single largest source of tax revenue, and the OBR projects the bill will reach more than £406 billion by 2030-31 if left unchecked.

For business owners already grappling with higher employer National Insurance contributions, a tighter labour market and the rising cost of statutory sick pay, the imbalance is fast becoming a political flashpoint. Several recent reports have charted a record surge in long-term sickness claims, with 2.8 million working-age Britons now signed off, a structural drag on productivity that economists say is feeding directly into stagnant growth.

The Blair Institute warning

Bamford’s intervention echoes findings from the Tony Blair Institute, which in April warned that public tolerance for the existing system had collapsed almost everywhere in the country. YouGov polling commissioned by the institute found that in all but five of Britain’s 634 parliamentary constituencies, voters believed the welfare system was “too easy to access and does not do enough to prevent misuse” rather than “too strict”.

The think tank has called for an “emergency handbrake” on welfare spending, including the creation of a new statutory category of “non-work-limiting conditions” covering anxiety, stress-related disorders and certain musculoskeletal complaints. Business Matters previously detailed how the institute’s proposals could slow the runaway sickness benefits bill, which is on track to hit £78 billion before the end of the decade.

Bamford’s political weight

Lord Bamford has chaired JCB, the digger manufacturer founded by his late father, since 1975. The Bamford family has donated more than £10 million to the Conservative Party over the past two decades, making it one of the most consequential financial backers of the British centre right.

But the family’s allegiance has begun to fracture. In November, JCB confirmed it had given £200,000 to both the Conservatives and Reform UK, the first time the company had backed Nigel Farage’s insurgent party. The shift, first reported by Business Matters, is widely interpreted in Westminster as a signal that traditional Tory donors are hedging their bets ahead of what is expected to be a bruising electoral cycle.

A warning shot against the left

Bamford was equally unsparing about the prospect of a sharper turn to the left under Sir Keir Starmer’s premiership, suggesting that the country had little appetite for a return to 1970s-style state intervention.

“Do people really want to turn further left, with the country nationalising businesses?” he asked. “I lived through that. I lived through Wilson’s governments, I lived through three-day weeks. I remember it, and I’m not sure that is ever the right solution for Britain.”

For Britain’s small and medium-sized employers, the constituency that JCB has historically represented in industrial policy debates, the message is unambiguous. With the welfare bill overtaking income tax, sickness claims accelerating and confidence in the system collapsing across constituency lines, the political space for radical reform is widening fast. Whether ministers seize it before voters reach Bamford’s predicted breaking point is now the central fiscal question facing both Downing Street and the next general election.

Read more:
JCB chairman Lord Bamford warns ministers face public revolt over £333bn welfare bill

For Fiona McCoss, business is not about hustle culture or rigid corporate structures, it’s about creating sustainable success through intuition, connection, and embodied leadership.

As founder of Wild Feminine Retreats and creator of the Wild Feminine Facilitator Training, she has built a thriving international community supporting women to reconnect with themselves, their bodies, and their creativity. From transformational retreats in Greece and Ibiza to mentoring female entrepreneurs around the world, McCoss has developed a business model rooted in what she calls “feminine business”, one that values nervous system regulation, pleasure, flexibility, and authentic human connection over burnout and one-size-fits-all formulas.

What do you currently do at your business?

My core offerings are my signature Wild Feminine Facilitator Training, one-to-one mentorship, and immersive retreats. Right now, I’m supporting 16 women through the current training cohort while preparing to host retreats in Crete and my online Wild Feminine Solstice Festival, which reaches over a thousand women globally.

No two days are ever the same. One day I may be teaching a masterclass, another focused on strategy, marketing, or client mentorship. What matters most to me is intimacy and genuine connection. I don’t see clients as names on a spreadsheet, I know their stories, their families, their dreams, and often even their pets’ names.

Together, we work on everything from nervous system healing and feminine leadership to pleasure, emotional expression, and business sustainability. My work is centred around helping women reconnect with themselves in a world that often encourages disconnection and over-performance.

Who do you admire?

Honestly, the women I work with who are mothers.

I’m child-free by choice, and I’ve chosen to pour my creative energy into the businesses and communities I’ve built. But I witness every day the depth of work many mothers are doing, not only raising children, but consciously breaking generational patterns and creating emotionally healthier environments for their families.

They’re teaching their children about boundaries, emotional literacy, consent, and self-worth in ways previous generations often didn’t experience. That level of self-awareness, sacrifice, and devotion deserves far more recognition and support than society currently gives it.

Looking back, is there anything you would have done differently?

I probably would have studied business or economics earlier on. When I first started, I had to teach myself everything from scratch and invested heavily in coaches and programmes to understand how to build a sustainable company.

Some of those investments were invaluable. Others weren’t.

What I eventually realised was that many traditional business formulas simply didn’t align with how I wanted to work or live. I had to create my own blueprint, one that balanced success with sustainability and nervous system health.

Personally, I’d also remind myself to enjoy the process more. Entrepreneurship can easily become an endless pursuit of the next milestone. I’m still learning to slow down and appreciate the beautiful moments along the way.

What defines your way of doing business?

The way I run my business is deeply rooted in feminine principles, which looks very different from traditional business culture.

For me, feminine business means working cyclically rather than mechanically. It means understanding energy, nervous system regulation, intuition, pleasure, creativity, and sustainability. I structure my work around what allows me to operate at my best, not around rigid nine-to-five expectations.

It’s also about rejecting performative hustle culture. You won’t find aggressive sales tactics or “bro marketing” here. I believe business can be deeply successful without burnout, urgency, or constant pressure.

My approach blends intuition with strategy. I trust what feels aligned while also applying systems and structure that genuinely support growth. Ultimately, I want to build businesses that support life, not consume it.

What advice would you give to someone starting out?

Get support early and build slowly.

I often describe feminine business as a “slow burn” model. It takes time to build sustainable momentum, but once it’s established, it creates something far more enduring than overnight success culture.

Too many people leave corporate seeking freedom and accidentally recreate the same stress and burnout patterns inside their own businesses. That’s why structure, systems, and support matter so much.

I’d also ask people to be honest with themselves: do you truly have the resilience and vision to build something long-term? Entrepreneurship is incredibly rewarding, but it’s also deeply challenging. Without a strong “why,” it becomes very difficult to stay committed when things get hard.

And finally, don’t let fear stop you. Most people regret the opportunities they didn’t take, not the ones they did.

What are your favourite things to do outside of work? How do you maintain a healthy work/life balance?

Pleasure and spaciousness are priorities in my life, not rewards I “earn” after overworking.

I’ve intentionally designed my business to support balance. I don’t check my phone before 8am or after 7pm, I avoid client calls on Mondays, and I don’t start desk work before 10am. These boundaries allow me to stay regulated, creative, and present.

Outside work, I love gardening, dancing, redecorating our home in Somerset, and spending time outdoors. Earlier this year, my partner and I bought a house in Frome, so I’ve been planting flowers and creating a space that feels nourishing and grounding.

And when I travel for retreats, I always stay a few extra days, preferably near a beach.

Read more:
Getting to Know You: Fiona McCoss, founder of Wild Feminine Retreats

National Grid has unveiled what amounts to the most ambitious capital programme in its history, pledging a further £70bn over the next five years to rewire the energy systems of Britain and the north-eastern United States.

The FTSE 100 utility, which has spent the past two years reshaping itself into a pure-play networks business, said the fresh commitment would accelerate its march towards a net-zero electricity system on both sides of the Atlantic. The announcement, made alongside its full-year results, builds on a record £11.6bn of capital expenditure in the prior year and signals that the group sees no let-up in the structural demand for grid investment.

Of the headline figure, some £31bn will be funnelled into UK electricity transmission, expanding capacity to absorb the surge of offshore wind, solar and nuclear coming on stream this decade. The company described the spend as the foundation of a “decarbonised electricity network” by the 2030s, and the bill will, in part, be underwritten by Ofgem’s new RIIO-T3 framework, which has formally cleared the way for the heavier outlay.

Across the Atlantic, £17bn has been earmarked for New York and a further £12bn for New England, with around 60 per cent of the US allocation flowing directly into National Grid’s own networks. The group expects a 10 per cent uplift in returns from its asset base by the 2030/31 financial year on the back of the programme.

Zoe Yujnovich, who took the helm as chief executive earlier in the year, said the company was “embarking on the largest investment programme in our history… to modernise and expand energy networks across the UK and the US Northeast, networks that underpin economic growth, strengthen energy security and enable the transition to a cleaner, more flexible energy system.” She added that the group was “building the skilled workforce needed to deliver this investment at pace, creating thousands of jobs across our markets” — a message likely to play well in Westminster and Whitehall, where ministers have been pressing infrastructure operators to demonstrate the employment dividend of the green transition.

The growth ambitions came against a softer revenue backdrop. Total turnover slipped four per cent to £17.6bn from £18.3bn the previous year, a decline the company attributed to storm-related costs and the divestment of its renewables arm and US grain liquid natural gas business. Pre-tax profit, however, jumped to £4.2bn from £3.6bn, while earnings per share rose eight per cent to 78p.

Shareholders were rewarded with a final dividend of 32.1p, taking the full-year payout to 48.9p, a 3.8 per cent increase pegged to UK inflation. The market responded warmly, with shares climbing 1.5 per cent in early trading to 1,297p, leaving the stock up 11.9 per cent since January and comfortably outpacing the wider FTSE 100.

Looking ahead, National Grid expects UK electricity transmission revenue to rise by roughly £850m in the year ahead, with RIIO-T3 doing much of the heavy lifting. In New England, top-line growth of around $450m is forecast, driven by rate resets, though partially offset by the costs of the expanded build-out. New York is expected to follow a similar trajectory.

For SMEs reliant on a stable, predictable power supply, from manufacturers wrestling with energy-intensive processes to data-hungry tech firms, the scale of the commitment is significant. A more capacious, modern transmission network underpins the kind of long-term industrial planning that has been sorely lacking since the energy shock of 2022, and it puts hard numbers behind the government’s grid-connection reforms.

Yujnovich struck an appropriately customer-focused tone in her closing remarks. “Through… transforming our capabilities we will be able to meet the rapidly growing demand and enable a more efficient energy system, one that supports long-term affordability and reliability for customers,” she said.

For investors, the calculation is straightforward: a regulated, inflation-linked income stream married to a multi-decade capex story. For the wider economy, the prize is a grid finally fit for the century it has to serve.

Read more:
National Grid commits record £70bn to power the next decade of energy networks

For all the hand-wringing over privacy, Britain’s high streets, gyms and offices are about to be flooded with cameras hiding in plain sight.

The latest generation of so-called smart glasses, most notably Meta’s Ray-Ban range, has become one of the fastest-selling consumer electronics products in history, and the world’s largest technology companies are queuing up to follow suit.

The commercial momentum is undeniable. Meta has now shipped more than seven million pairs of its Ray-Ban smart glasses, made in partnership with Franco-Italian eyewear giant EssilorLuxottica, and the device accounts for more than 80 per cent of the global AI eyewear market, according to Counterpoint Research. Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s chief executive, told investors earlier this year that the glasses were “some of the fastest-growing consumer electronics in history”, a rare bright spot for a company that has spent tens of billions of dollars chasing the metaverse with limited return.

But the same product line is now sitting at the centre of a rapidly widening privacy row that could shape regulation, workplace policy and consumer trust for years to come, and which British SMEs, from beauty salons to cafés, are already being forced to think about.

A camera in every frame

The appeal of the device, on paper, is straightforward. The Ray-Ban model carries an almost invisible camera in the frame, small open-ear speakers in the arms, and a discreet indicator light. Wearers can take a photo, capture video, place a phone call or summon Meta’s AI assistant with a tap on the temple. For early adopters such as Mark Smith, a partner at advisory firm ISG, the attraction is mundane rather than futuristic. He wears his every day, he says, because they let him take a call or listen to a podcast while washing up without blocking out the room, and spare him from pulling out a phone to capture a moment while travelling.

The problem, as Smith himself concedes, is that nobody around the wearer can tell. The recording light is dim in daylight and easily missed. To the casual observer, the glasses look like any other pair of Wayfarers.

That ambiguity is now generating an uncomfortable run of headlines. Women have reported being approached on beaches, in shops and on the street by men wearing the glasses, who film their reactions to scripted pick-up lines or intrusive questions and then upload the clips for clicks. Victims often only discover the footage exists once it has gone viral — and any subsequent abuse with it. As photography in public places is broadly lawful in the UK, legal recourse is limited. One woman who asked for her secretly recorded video to be removed told the BBC she was informed by the poster that takedown was “a paid service”.

Lawsuits, content moderators and a Kenyan flashpoint

The reputational pressure on Meta has been compounded by the working conditions of those who train the AI behind the product. Content moderators in Kenya, tasked with reviewing footage captured through the glasses to build training data, alleged they had been required to watch graphic material including sexual activity and people using the lavatory. Two lawsuits followed from owners of the glasses themselves: one group claiming they had no idea such videos had ever been captured, another that they had not realised the footage was being shared back to Meta for human review.

The company has pointed to its terms of service, arguing that the possibility of human review in certain circumstances had been disclosed. A Meta spokesman, Tracy Clayton, told the BBC: “We have teams dedicated to limiting and combating misuse, but as with any technology, the onus is ultimately on individual people to not actively exploit it.”

That defence is unlikely to satisfy the regulators now circling the category. Meta is reportedly preparing to add facial recognition to a forthcoming version of the glasses, according to The New York Times, a feature that would allow wearers not just to record passers-by, but to identify them in real time.

The rest of Silicon Valley piles in

For all the controversy, the rest of Big Tech sees a market it cannot afford to miss. Apple is widely reported to be developing its own smart glasses, with Bloomberg suggesting a launch as soon as next year. Snap has confirmed a new, lighter pair of its Specs for 2026. Google, more than a decade on from the spectacular failure of Google Glass, pulled within two years of launch amid a furious privacy backlash, is preparing another attempt under its Android XR platform.

Analysts at Citigroup and researchers at UC Berkeley reckon as many as 100 million people could be wearing AI-enabled glasses within a few years. For investors, that points to a genuinely new product category, the first since the smartwatch. For regulators, public bodies and small businesses, it raises a far thornier question: how do you enforce existing rules against recording in courtrooms, hospitals, changing rooms, museums, cinemas and bathrooms when a meaningful slice of the population is wearing a camera on their face?

David Kessler, who leads the US privacy practice at international law firm Norton Rose Fulbright, says corporate clients are already wrestling with it. “There are some pretty dark places we could go here,” he said. “I’m not anti-technology in any sense, but as a societal matter… will I need to think [of being recorded] anytime I go out in public?”

What it means for British SMEs

For owner-managers in the UK, this is no longer a Silicon Valley curiosity. Anecdotes are mounting of customers and staff being caught off guard: the online influencer Aniessa Navarro recounted feeling “sick” when she realised mid-treatment that her beauty technician was wearing Meta’s glasses. The technician insisted they were neither charged nor recording, and were needed for prescription lenses — but the reputational risk for the salon is obvious.

Smaller businesses in hospitality, retail, healthcare, fitness and personal services should expect to revisit their acceptable-use policies, customer-facing signage and staff training. Under UK GDPR, covert recording of identifiable individuals on a business’s premises is likely to fall on the operator as well as the wearer once that footage is processed for any purpose beyond purely personal use. Insurers and trade bodies are likely to start asking questions.

Meta markets the product under the tagline “Designed for privacy, controlled by you”, and tells wearers not to record people who object and to switch the glasses off entirely in sensitive spaces. Those suggestions, by the company’s own admission, are honoured more in the breach than the observance. A growing genre of “prank” content sees young men in Ray-Bans persuading retail workers to smell candles laced with foul odours, getting members of the public to sign fake petitions, or filming themselves snatching food at drive-throughs.

A Google Glass moment, or a tipping point?

Andrew Bosworth, Meta’s chief technology officer, was asked on Instagram about “the stigma around people wearing smart glasses every day”. His answer leant heavily on the sales figures, arguing that the sheer volume shifted “suggest these are widely accepted”.

Not everyone is convinced. David Harris, a former Meta AI researcher now teaching at UC Berkeley and advising policymakers in the US and EU, believes the category is heading for the same wall that flattened Google Glass. “Technology like this is fundamentally an invasion of privacy and it’s really going to face more and more backlash,” he said.

The signs are already there. In December, a New York man posted a clip lamenting that a woman he had been filming on the subway had broken his Meta glasses. The internet did not commiserate. It crowned her a folk hero.

For Meta, for Apple, for Snap and for Google, the commercial prize from owning the face is enormous. But for an industry that has spent the past decade trying to rebuild public trust, betting the next platform on a device most bystanders cannot tell is a camera may yet prove the most expensive miscalculation of all.

Read more:
Smart glasses are ‘an invasion of privacy’, yet Meta is shifting them by the million

Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta Platforms has suffered a significant legal setback in Europe after the bloc’s highest court ruled that national regulators have the power to enforce compensation arrangements between online platforms and news publishers for the use of their journalism.

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

Tesco has suffered a significant setback in the long-running equal pay battle being waged by tens of thousands of its shop floor staff, after the Court of Appeal threw out the supermarket’s challenge to the way an Employment Tribunal had been assessing the value of jobs carried out by its customer assistants.

In a judgment handed down on 12 May 2026, the Court of Appeal dismissed Britain’s biggest grocer’s appeal against the Tribunal’s approach to determining the job facts of customer assistants and warehouse operatives, a critical step in the so-called “equal value” process that underpins the entire dispute.

The ruling comes mid-way through a separate Employment Tribunal hearing in which Tesco is attempting to justify paying its predominantly female store workforce less than its largely male distribution centre staff. The supermarket has leant heavily on the argument that the differential reflects “market rates”, a defence lawyers at Leigh Day, who act for more than 16,000 claimants, insist cannot lawfully stand.

At the heart of the appeal was Tesco’s attempt to stop the Tribunal from relying on the company’s own training manuals and operational documents to establish what customer assistants and warehouse operatives are required to do day-to-day. For Britain’s SME employers and retail bosses watching closely, the Court of Appeal’s response will make uncomfortable reading.

The judges upheld the Tribunal’s approach, accepting that Tesco operates in a highly regulated environment, deploys sophisticated digital stock systems and maintains exhaustive training materials precisely to ensure work is carried out consistently across every one of its stores. The Court found Tesco had a “strong business need” for these roles to be performed in the same way throughout its operations, and that, absent clear evidence to the contrary, its own training documents could properly be treated as determinative of what staff were required to do.

The implications stretch well beyond Welwyn Garden City. The judgment effectively rejects attempts to force thousands of workers in mass equal pay claims to individually prove every nut and bolt of their roles when the employer has itself standardised the work. For any business with a structured operating model, supermarkets, hospitality chains, logistics operators and the wider SME retail community, the precedent is plain: your own training materials and operating manuals may be used as evidence against you.

The Court of Appeal also repeated earlier criticisms of Tesco’s evidential approach, raising concerns about both the nature and presentation of witness testimony deployed during the litigation. In a further blow to large employers, the judgment offered fresh guidance that tribunals in mass equal pay claims may, where appropriate, assess jobs more generically rather than insisting every single claim be picked apart on an overly individualised basis, a clarification that could substantially reduce the runway of delay and procedural complexity that often accompanies these disputes.

Kiran Daurka, employment partner at Leigh Day, said the ruling was a significant moment for access to justice. “The Court of Appeal has recognised the importance of removing unnecessary hurdles that prevent everyday people from accessing justice in complex equal pay litigation,” she said. “This judgment is a welcome clarification that, in large-scale cases involving sophisticated respondents like Tesco and other large retailers, tribunals can take a practical and proportionate approach to assessing jobs, which then mitigates against unnecessary complexity to delay or obstruct claims.

“Our clients have always maintained that these cases should focus on the reality of the work being done, not on creating artificial barriers that make equal pay claims impossible to pursue. This ruling will help future claims progress in a more streamlined and accessible way.”

For Tesco, and for every employer with a workforce split between front-of-house and back-of-house operations, the message from the Court of Appeal is unambiguous. The defence of “that’s just what the market pays” is wearing thin, and the documents sitting on a company’s own intranet may yet prove to be the most powerful evidence claimants ever need.

Read more:
Tesco loses court of appeal fight over equal pay job assessment in landmark ruling for SME and retail employers

Waitrose is to put bottles of champagne behind locked glass before the end of the year, as the upmarket grocer escalates its fight against an unrelenting wave of shoplifting that has swept through Britain’s high streets.

The John Lewis Partnership-owned chain has told its 50,000-strong workforce of partners that it will pilot so-called “smart cabinets” to protect premium spirits and champagne, marking one of the most striking acknowledgements yet that organised retail crime has begun to reach into the aisles of Britain’s most genteel supermarkets.

The cabinets, already trialled at rivals including Sainsbury’s, typically require shoppers to navigate a multi-step process on a touchpad before the doors will release. Some retailers have gone further, demanding customers scan a loyalty card or enter a mobile telephone number to gain access, creating a digital paper trail that can later be cross-referenced if stock goes missing. The technology can also log how long a cabinet door has been open, flagging suspicious behaviour such as bulk emptying to staff in real time.

Waitrose has declined to disclose the precise mechanics of its own system, but the move comes alongside a broader package of measures: protective “meat nets” wrapped around premium joints, reinforced screens at tobacco counters to deter the increasingly common practice of vaulting kiosks to grab cigarettes, and an expanded rollout of body-worn cameras for staff on the shop floor.

In an internal communication to partners, Lucy Brown, the John Lewis Partnership’s director of central operations, framed the investment as proof that the business was not “standing still” in the face of what she conceded had been characterised as “a tide of retail crime and epidemic of shoplifting”. She acknowledged the frustration felt by staff who watch thieves walk out unchallenged, but warned that intervention was rarely the safer option.

“It may feel like standing back is us not acting, but this isn’t the case,” Ms Brown wrote, urging partners to resist their “first instinct” to detain suspects or wrestle back stock. Detaining “potentially volatile” individuals in front of other customers, she said, risked escalating an already fraught situation.

The guidance follows a bruising month for Waitrose’s public image. The retailer faced sharp criticism in April after dismissing Walker Smith, a 17-year veteran of the chain, who said he had been sacked for confronting a shoplifter attempting to make off with Easter eggs. The Partnership declined to comment on the specifics, citing employment confidentiality, but said it had followed “the correct process” and pointed to the “serious danger to life in tackling shoplifters”.

Jason Tarry, the John Lewis chairman who joined from Tesco last year, has since written in The Telegraph that the answer to the crime wave was emphatically not to “encourage” workers to take on thieves themselves. Trained security personnel would “intervene to challenge shoplifters”, he said, “but only if they’ve been trained and it’s safe to do so”.

The retreat into hardened technology reflects the scale of the problem confronting British retailers. Industry body the British Retail Consortium has repeatedly warned that shop theft has reached levels not seen in a generation, with the cost to retailers running into the billions and assaults on shop workers rising sharply. For a chain such as Waitrose, whose brand has long traded on a relaxed, customer-trusted shopping experience, the optics of placing Bollinger behind a touchscreen-controlled glass door represent a notable cultural shift.

A spokesman for John Lewis confirmed the direction of travel: “We are currently investing in a range of advanced technology, including smart technology to deter theft. As part of this we are planning to pilot lockable smart cabinets for areas such as spirits and champagne soon. We already use smart shelf technology in our health, beauty and spirits aisles, which are able to sense unusual customer behaviour, so this would provide an additional layer of security.”

For Britain’s SME retailers, who lack the capital to deploy comparable systems, the message from Waitrose is sobering. If a chain of its size and security spend has concluded that its most prized stock now needs locking up, the implication for the independent off-licence or village convenience store is uncomfortable indeed.

Read more:
Waitrose places champagne under lock and key as retail crime wave bites