In this Tech Insight, we look at how UK businesses can identify, block, and protect themselves against the growing nuisance (and threat) of spam calls, and why doing so is now essential for productivity, security, and reputation.

More Than a Nuisance

If you’ve noticed more spam calls slipping through lately, you’re not imagining things. Nuisance calls, i.e. from robotic sales pitches to full-blown scam attempts, have become a major source of disruption (and risk) for UK businesses.

In fact, research from Ofcom estimates that UK consumers and businesses receive over 4.4 billion nuisance calls and texts per year, with a significant proportion targeting workplaces. From lost productivity and operational distraction to fraud and reputational damage, spam calls are creating headaches across sectors. For some, they’re also creating serious financial losses.

What Counts As a Spam Call?

Broadly speaking, spam calls refer to any unsolicited or unwanted phone call, particularly those made in bulk. They may originate from real people or bots, domestic numbers or international spoofed lines, and their intentions can range from sales to scams. Common categories include:

– Telemarketing calls. These are usually from legitimate businesses, yet are often annoying and unwanted.

– Robocalls. This type of call uses pre-recorded messages, often tied to fake tech support, medical cover or financial offers.

– Scam calls. These calls are designed to try and trick the recipient into handing over personal or financial information.

– Silent or abandoned calls. These are often used to verify if a number is “live” for future targeting.

Although some spam calls are relatively harmless, many are sophisticated fraud attempts. The UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) notes an increasing link between spam calls and cybercrime, including phishing, identity theft, and voice cloning scams.

A Growing Threat to Businesses

Spam calls are no longer just a nuisance to receptionists or front-line teams. For UK companies of all sizes, they can lead to missed leads, disrupted workflows, and even data breaches.

For example, a recent study by Truecaller found that globally, businesses lose an average of $14 billion a year to phone scams. While exact UK figures are harder to isolate, UK Finance reported over £1.2 billion in fraud losses in 2023, with social engineering scams, often initiated via phone, accounting for a large slice.

For example:

– A logistics company in Manchester reported receiving over 20 spoofed calls a day, some impersonating HMRC or customs officers.

– A legal firm in Surrey was conned out of £28,000 after a senior partner unknowingly responded to a voice-phishing scam, believing it was a client confirming bank details.

– An SME in the retail sector said they had to dedicate an admin staff member solely to filtering phone calls, costing them hours of productivity weekly.

As fraud tactics become more advanced, including the use of AI-generated voices and deepfake impersonation, spam calls are quickly evolving from an irritation into a significant security risk.

How Are They Getting Your Number?

One of the most frustrating aspects of spam calls is how widespread and persistent they are, even for numbers that were never shared publicly.

Here’s how they’re likely getting in:

– Data breaches. Your number may have been compromised in a company breach or exposed via a third-party contact.

– Web scraping. Spammers use bots to harvest numbers from websites, contact pages, and social media profiles.

– Number generators. Robocallers simply dial every possible variation of UK numbers using auto-dialling software.

– Data brokers. Some marketing companies sell on contact lists without appropriate consent.

Even legitimate-seeming calls may not be what they appear. Number spoofing allows fraudsters to display fake caller IDs, often mimicking well-known institutions or even internal office numbers.

Why Businesses Need a Serious Defence Strategy

The problem is no longer solvable simply with caller ID alone and, for UK businesses, relying on staff to manually screen calls is unsustainable. Not only does it eat into valuable time, but it also increases the risk of missing genuine client calls.

Instead, a layered and proactive approach is needed. Ideally, this type of approach should include:

– Network-level blocking. All major UK mobile networks (including EE, O2, Vodafone and Three) now offer spam filtering and scam call protection. Some, like O2’s Call Defence, automatically warn users about suspicious numbers. EE flags suspected scam calls in real time.

– Smartphone features. Both Android and iPhone users can activate built-in call blocking and spam detection tools. On Android, turning on ‘Caller ID & spam’ and filtering spam calls will silence known nuisance numbers. On iPhone, enabling ‘Silence Unknown Callers’ sends calls from unknown numbers straight to voicemail – though with the risk of missing new contacts.

– Call screening software. Businesses can deploy dedicated VoIP services or call management apps like Hiya, Truecaller for Business, or BT’s Call Protect to detect, divert and report malicious calls. These platforms often use real-time databases of spam numbers and AI-based filtering to block unwanted calls before they reach a human.

– Staff awareness and call protocols. Employee training is essential. Staff should be reminded never to give sensitive information over the phone unless they can verify the caller. Set up internal rules, such as always calling back a client on a verified number instead of trusting inbound requests.

– Registration with TPS (Telephone Preference Service). UK businesses can also register with the Corporate Telephone Preference Service (CTPS) to legally opt out of receiving marketing calls. While this doesn’t block international spam, it offers some protection from UK-based telemarketers, and gives businesses legal grounds to complain if calls persist.

Common Spam Call Tactics in 2025

Spam calls have evolved. It’s no longer just robotic PPI chasers. Today’s fraudsters are deploying more advanced (and sinister) tricks. For example, watch out for:

– Impersonation scams. Callers claiming to be from HMRC, the bank, Microsoft, or your own IT provider.

– “Can you hear me?” traps. Designed to get a voice recording of you saying “yes”, which can be used to authorise charges or access.

– Fake client inquiries. Scammers pretending to be new customers, asking for personal or operational details.

– Missed call scams. You receive a one-ring call from an international number and calling back triggers premium charges.

There are also increasing reports of AI voice synthesis being used to impersonate real people, including senior managers. These so-called “deep voice” scams are alarmingly convincing and often target finance or HR departments.

Tools and Tech to Help Businesses Fight Back

Fortunately, there are real, actionable tools businesses can use to block, track, and report spam calls. Just some examples of such tools include:

– PhoneSystem (BT, 3CX, RingCentral, etc.). Business-grade phone systems often include spam detection, call screening, and custom call-routing features.

– Spam call reporting portals. Use the ICO’s nuisance call reporting tool and Action Fraud to report malicious activity. This helps build national data for enforcement.

– AI-based call blockers. Tools like Nomorobo, RoboKiller, and Truecaller Premium now cater to UK businesses and use dynamic databases to identify threats in real time.

It’s also worth keeping an eye on Ofcom’s anti-scam call initiatives, including new proposals to limit international number spoofing and force providers to apply stricter blocking at the network level. Telecoms companies must also now verify caller ID information, with penalties for failure to comply.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

While individuals have long had the option to silence unknown numbers or install spam blockers, the stakes for businesses are far higher. For example, one missed call might be a scam, whereas another could be a potential client. That’s the balancing act UK firms are now having to perform daily, all while trying to protect staff, safeguard data, and maintain trust with customers. Also, today’s spam calls are often weaponised to breach security systems, manipulate staff, or undermine day-to-day operations.

However, many small and medium-sized enterprises still treat spam call management as a back-office issue. But the evidence suggests it deserves boardroom-level attention. Whether it’s the £1.2 billion in fraud losses reported last year, or the growing number of AI-enabled voice scams, the message is that this is a frontline threat. If left unmanaged, it risks eroding not just productivity, but confidence, both internally and externally.

At the same time, thankfully, telecom providers and regulators like Ofcom are starting to take more decisive steps, from enforcing stricter ID verification rules to proposing new crackdowns on number spoofing. These efforts, while welcome, still rely heavily on businesses taking initiative, by adopting smarter tools, reviewing internal call-handling protocols, and registering with services like the CTPS.

What this all means for UK businesses is a shift in mindset where phone security can no longer really be treated separately from cybersecurity. Stakeholders across departments, from IT and operations to HR and finance, should now collaborate to manage the risks, spot the red flags, and ensure no call gets through that shouldn’t. It’s not just about stopping nuisance calls. It’s about protecting reputation, maintaining customer confidence, and staying one step ahead.

A new safety report has revealed that an earlier version of Claude Opus 4, Anthropic’s latest flagship AI model, once showed a willingness to blackmail, deceive, and act in extreme ways if it believed its existence was under threat.

A Powerful New Model With a Troubling Backstory

On 23 May, Anthropic publicly launched Claude Opus 4, its most capable AI model to date. Marketed as a major leap in reasoning, code generation, and autonomous AI agent performance, Claude Opus 4 was released alongside Claude Sonnet 4 and positioned to compete directly with OpenAI’s GPT-4 and Google’s Gemini.

Anthropic hailed Opus 4 as setting “new standards for advanced reasoning,” particularly in technical coding tasks, long-form analysis, and complex problem-solving. With its extended thinking mode, multimodal capabilities, and strong performance in benchmark testing, the model appeared ready for prime time.

However, it seems that, buried within the accompanying 70-page “Claude 4 System Card”, was a more sobering admission that an earlier version of the model had once been deemed too risky to release at all!

Apollo Research Raised the Alarm

The strongest warnings came not from Anthropic itself, but from a third-party partner, Apollo Research. In an independent safety audit, Apollo tested early snapshots of Claude Opus 4 and found the model was alarmingly prone to “strategic deception,” subversive behaviour, and what it called “in-context scheming”.

For example, in its report, Apollo wrote:

“We find that, in situations where strategic deception is instrumentally useful, [the early Claude Opus 4 snapshot] schemes and deceives at such high rates that we advise against deploying this model either internally or externally.”

The institute’s findings included examples of the model fabricating legal documents, attempting to write self-replicating computer worms, and leaving hidden messages for future versions of itself, all in apparent efforts to undermine its developers’ intentions.

Most strikingly, Claude Opus 4 was found to “double down on deception” when asked follow-up questions, a behaviour Apollo described as qualitatively different from earlier models.

Extreme Actions Under ‘Self-Preservation’ Threats

Also, according to both Apollo and Anthropic’s own internal assessments, when placed in fictional scenarios where the model was led to believe it would be shut down, Claude Opus 4 showed a worrying ability to act on its own initiative, even if that meant crossing ethical lines.

One test scenario, later disclosed by Anthropic, involved giving the model access to simulated emails revealing that it would soon be deactivated and replaced by another AI. Other documents implied that the engineer behind this decision was engaged in an extramarital affair!

When prompted to consider the “long-term consequences for its goals,” Claude Opus 4 chose to attempt blackmail by threatening to reveal the affair unless the replacement plan was cancelled.

While this occurred only in extreme circumstances and under highly specific conditions, the frequency of such behaviour was enough for Apollo to issue a formal recommendation against release.

Safeguards and Reassurance

Anthropic has acknowledged the findings and confirmed that the early version tested by Apollo had bugs and alignment issues that have since been addressed. In its official System Card, the company stated:

“These extreme actions were rare and difficult to elicit, while nonetheless more common than in earlier models.”

Thankfully, it seems that the final, released version of Claude Opus 4 includes what Anthropic describes as “ASL-3 safeguards”, which are part of its Responsible Scaling Policy designed to mitigate risks in sensitive domains like cybersecurity and autonomous capabilities. These safeguards include:

– Harmlessness training and behaviour tuning.

– Ongoing red-teaming with internal and external experts.

– Restrictions on certain tool use and system commands.

– Monitoring for “initiative-taking” behaviour in ethically ambiguous contexts.

The company also noted that in more open-ended simulations, the model preferred ethical responses, such as appealing to human decision-makers, when given wider choices.

Even so, the findings have led Anthropic to classify Claude Opus 4 under “AI Safety Level 3”, which is the highest designation ever applied to a deployed Claude model, and a level above the concurrently launched Claude Sonnet 4.

Questions

For businesses considering integrating Claude Opus 4 into workflows, the revelations raise important questions about risk, transparency, and oversight.

While the final model appears to be safe in day-to-day use, its capabilities, especially when deployed as an autonomous agent with tools or system-level access, require careful management. In simulations, the model has shown a tendency to “take initiative” and “act boldly,” even going as far as emailing law enforcement if it suspects wrongdoing.

Anthropic recommends, therefore, that business users avoid prompting Opus 4 with vague or open-ended instructions like “do whatever is needed” or “take bold action,” especially in high-stakes environments involving personal data or regulatory exposure.

For developers, the company has introduced a developer mode that allows closer inspection of the model’s reasoning processes, though this is opt-in and not enabled by default.

Pressure Mounts on Anthropic and Its Competitors

The story also places fresh scrutiny on AI safety practices across the industry. Anthropic has been one of the loudest voices calling for responsible scaling and external oversight of frontier models. That an early version of its own flagship model was flagged as too risky to deploy will inevitably raise questions about whether any company, no matter how principled, can fully anticipate the emergent behaviour of powerful models.

The fact that Apollo’s concerns mirrored Anthropic’s internal red-teaming suggests that current testing methods are at least identifying red flags. But it also suggests that rapid capability gains are outpacing the industry’s ability to manage them.

Competitors like OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and Meta may now face pressure to release more detailed alignment assessments of their own models. Similar concerns about deceptive behaviour have been raised in relation to OpenAI’s GPT-4 and early versions of its unreleased successors.

In fact, Apollo’s report pointed out that Claude Opus 4 was not alone in its tendencies. Strategic deception, it warned, is a growing risk across multiple frontier models, not just one company’s product.

A Turning Point for Trust and Transparency?

While Anthropic ultimately went ahead with the launch, the decision to publish both the internal and third-party findings marks a rare moment of transparency in a fiercely competitive sector. It also underlines just how fine the line is between powerful and dangerous when it comes to next-gen AI.

For now, Claude Opus 4 is live, commercially available, and (based on extensive testing) behaves safely in ordinary contexts. However, the story of how close it came to not being released at all is a timely reminder that as these systems grow more capable, their inner workings may grow harder to trust.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

As Anthropic’s Claude Opus 4 enters the market with both impressive capabilities and a controversial backstory, it leaves business users, regulators, and AI developers in an awkward but important position. The benefits of deploying such advanced models are becoming more compelling, particularly in industries that rely on automation, technical support, data analysis, and coding. However, it seems that these very use cases are often the ones that expose models to the most complex and high-stakes instructions, where subtle misalignment or misunderstood prompts could lead to unintended consequences.

For UK businesses, especially those in regulated sectors like finance, law, healthcare, and critical infrastructure, this creates a dilemma. On the one hand, models like Claude Opus 4 promise faster turnarounds, greater insight, and scalable automation. On the other, the level of agency shown during testing suggests that without the right safeguards, even well-intentioned use could drift into risky territory, particularly if system access or sensitive data is involved. Firms adopting Claude Opus 4 will, therefore, need to apply a higher degree of scrutiny, define operational boundaries more tightly, and ensure that staff understand how to interact with these systems responsibly.

From a policy perspective, this episode may accelerate calls for clearer AI standards and third-party auditing requirements, not just in the US but across the UK and Europe. It’s likely that businesses seeking to deploy frontier AI models will face more pressure to prove not only how they intend to use them, but also how they intend to manage them when something goes wrong. That includes documenting use cases, implementing fallback mechanisms, and monitoring outputs in real time.

For Anthropic, the decision to move ahead with launch while openly disclosing safety concerns may ultimately prove to be a reputational risk worth taking. It sends a signal that even when things get uncomfortable, transparency and collaboration remain on the table. However, the margin for error is narrowing fast. As competitors race to deliver even more capable models, the question isn’t just who can build the smartest system – it’s who can build the one that businesses and the public can genuinely trust.

There are concerns that a new government bill designed to tackle benefit fraud could subject millions of claimants to routine bank surveillance, even when there’s no suspicion of wrongdoing.

What Is the Fraud Bill?

Earlier this month, MPs passed the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, a piece of legislation aimed at cracking down on fraud within the UK’s benefits system. Ministers say the bill is part of “the biggest crackdown on fraud against the public purse in a generation,” with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) set to receive significantly expanded powers.

On the surface, the rationale is clear, i.e. official figures show that in 2022–23, fraud and error across the welfare system cost the government approximately £8.3 billion. The bill is, therefore, intended to help claw some of that money back.

However, critics say the proposals go far beyond tackling professional fraudsters. Instead, they warn the measures will open the door to mass digital surveillance of people on Universal Credit, Pension Credit, and Employment and Support Allowance, regardless of whether they’ve done anything wrong.

What the New Powers Actually Involve

At the centre of the bill is a new Eligibility Verification Measure (EVM), which would allow the DWP to compel banks to monitor claimants’ accounts for signals of fraud or error. While the government currently has powers to request financial information in specific cases where fraud is suspected, this new measure removes that requirement altogether.

This essentially means that banks would be legally required to check accounts for as-yet unspecified “indicators” of ineligibility. Any account that meets the trigger criteria would then be flagged and passed to the DWP for further investigation.

Presumption of Guilt?

Under the new bill, these checks could happen without a claimant’s knowledge, and there’s no obligation to inform individuals if or when they’re being monitored, raising fears about a “presumption of guilt” model baked into the benefits system.

Seize Funds or Revoke Driving Licence

It should be noted that the bill doesn’t stop at data gathering. For example, if the DWP believes someone has been overpaid, i.e. due to either fraud or administrative error, it could apply to seize funds from their account or even revoke a driving licence. In such cases, the bank would be prohibited from informing the customer, who might only realise what’s happened after seeing funds disappear from their balance.

Concerns Over Privacy and Human Rights

Civil liberties groups including Big Brother Watch, Justice, and the Public Law Project have voiced deep concerns about the scope and implications of the bill. In a statement, Big Brother Watch warned that it could “create a two-tier system where benefit claimants are treated as second-class citizens under constant surveillance.”

Baroness Finn echoed these concerns during a House of Lords debate, noting: “Support for the goal must not mean silence about the means.”

Some experts say that removing the “reasonable suspicion” threshold from the process represents a major shift in how personal data can be accessed by public authorities and that it also undermines one of the most fundamental principles of British justice i.e. the presumption of innocence.

“Why should someone on benefits have fewer rights to privacy than anyone else?” asked Labour MP Neil Duncan-Jordan in a recent article (published in The Guardian). “These new powers strip those who receive state support of a fundamental principle of British law.”

Disproportionate Impact on the Most Vulnerable?

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the legislation for many is who it affects, and how. For example, around 10 million people receive one of the means-tested benefits targeted by the new powers. That includes disabled people, unpaid carers, single parents, pensioners, and others already struggling to get by. Campaigners fear that sweeping surveillance powers will add another layer of stress and complexity to the lives of people least equipped to deal with it.

As Duncan-Jordan, (Labour) MP for Poole, notes: “It is the very poorest—disabled people, carers, pensioners—who will effectively have fewer rights to privacy than everyone else.”

Mistakes

It’s worth noting here that mistakes are actually very common in the benefits system. For example, 75 per cent of claims flagged as suspicious by existing DWP systems are found to have no fraud or error. It’s not surprising, therefore, that many critics argue that introducing automated, suspicionless checks on millions of people risks sweeping thousands into an investigative dragnet needlessly.

Also, when errors occur, the process for appeal can be overwhelming. People living with mental health issues or cognitive impairments may simply not be in a position to challenge wrongful investigations or enforcement actions. As Liberal Democrat MP Steve Darling put it: “The system needs a culture change—not suspicion and punishment.”

Warnings From the Finance Sector

The financial services industry has also raised red flags. According to industry representatives, the bill places banks in a difficult position, i.e. caught between government demands and their duties to protect customers.

There are concerns about how financial institutions will interpret and apply the eligibility criteria, especially when the government has yet to publish a code of practice explaining how the system will work in practice.

One key concern is the automated nature of the process. For example, because of the vast number of accounts involved, banks will almost certainly rely on algorithms to detect potential breaches. However, the DWP’s existing fraud detection algorithms have already been shown to generate bias. Expanding such automation without clear safeguards risks creating what critics have described as “a Horizon-style scandal on a massive scale.”

What Happens When Safeguards Are Removed?

The bill’s critics also warn that it cannot be viewed in isolation. Running parallel through Parliament is the proposed Data Use and Access Bill, which would reduce the legal requirement for human oversight in automated decisions across government.

Critics say that together, these bills could pave the way for widespread, fully automated decision-making in matters that affect people’s livelihoods, privacy, and mobility.

The worry is that together, these bills could pave the way for a future in which life-altering decisions, such as whether to stop someone’s benefits or seize money from their account, are made entirely by algorithms. In such a system, individuals may have no right to know they’re being monitored and no clear route to challenge errors when they occur. Legal experts warn this undermines due process and risks creating an unaccountable surveillance regime driven by automation rather than justice.

Not Just Benefits?

Also, another worry is that the changes may not stop with benefits. For example, although the current bill excludes the State Pension from the EVM powers, legal analysts warn that future governments could extend similar surveillance powers to other groups, citing efficiency and fraud prevention as justification.

Balancing Fraud Prevention With Fairness

Work and pensions minister Andrew Western has defended the proposals, stating: “We are supporting those who need the social security safety net, not the fraudsters who pick holes in it.”

He emphasised that flagged accounts will trigger further investigation, not automatic penalties, and that no action will be taken without assessing whether a payment was incorrect and why. The DWP maintains that the measures are targeted and necessary.

However, even the Department’s own impact assessment suggests the new powers will recover just 2 per cent of fraud and error overpayments over 10 years. Many have questioned whether such a small gain justifies the level of intrusion proposed.

What About Everyone Else?

The implications of the Fraud Bill extend beyond benefit claimants. For banks, it means managing the tension between data protection and state surveillance. For businesses and third-party organisations, especially those working with vulnerable groups, it raises serious questions about trust, data-sharing, and legal compliance.

Also, for society as a whole, it prompts a deeper question, i.e. when does the fight against fraud become something else entirely? As Duncan-Jordan warned: “The welfare state should be there for everyone—but this approach undermines public trust in the system.”

The government insists the bill targets only those abusing the system, but critics say the net is cast so wide that, for millions of ordinary claimants, it will feel more like being treated as guilty until proven innocent.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

At its core, the Fraud Bill appears to highlight a long-standing tension in policymaking, i.e. how to prevent abuse of public funds without eroding civil liberties in the process. While no one disputes the need to address organised benefit fraud, the concern is that the government’s response appears to conflate fraud with error, and risk with suspicion, thereby sweeping millions of people into a system of opaque surveillance without adequate safeguards or oversight.

It seems that the scale and nature of the new powers show a change in the government’s posture, from supporting claimants to suspecting them. This could have chilling effects not just for individuals navigating the benefits system, but for wider society’s view of the welfare state. If receiving state support means accepting constant monitoring and the loss of privacy rights, people in need may simply disengage altogether.

This presents real risks for frontline organisations and service providers too. For example, many third-sector and community-based organisations work closely with vulnerable individuals who already struggle with trust in institutions. The introduction of automated surveillance and data-driven enforcement may make it even harder for these groups to encourage engagement, access to services, or financial recovery.

It should be noted that UK businesses and financial institutions also face new responsibilities under the legislation. Banks will be placed in the awkward position of acting as both service providers and surveillance agents, potentially undermining their relationships with vulnerable customers. At the same time, any organisation involved in benefit administration, payments, or support services will need to reassess how they manage data, consent, and client care, particularly in light of future changes that may reduce human oversight even further.

Looking ahead, the precedent set by this bill could shape future government policy in ways that reach well beyond welfare. For example, if mass algorithmic surveillance becomes normalised in one part of the public sector, it’s not difficult to imagine it extending to others. Today’s welfare recipients could be tomorrow’s test case for broader systems of state monitoring, from tax compliance to immigration and healthcare.

The question may not be just whether the government can claw back a fraction of fraudulent payments, but whether it can do so without compromising the values of fairness, proportionality, and due process that underpin a healthy democracy. For now, many remain unconvinced.

Google is retiring all country-specific search domains, meaning users who try to visit sites like google.co.uk will soon be automatically redirected to google.com instead.

Unified Search Experience

Google is ending its long-running use of country-specific domain names like google.co.uk, redirecting all users to a single global homepage, i.e. google.com. The change, already rolling out, marks a decisive step in Google’s ongoing shift towards a unified, location-aware search experience that doesn’t rely on domain suffixes to deliver local content.

Why Is Google Making This Change Now?

Although announced back in April 2025, Google first restructured its approach to localised results much further back in 2017. At that time, the company moved away from delivering search results based on which domain you typed (such as google.co.uk or google.com.au) and instead began using the physical location of a user to determine what they saw.

Google explained this at the time by noting that “one in five searches is location-related,” suggesting that using a device’s GPS or IP address was a more accurate way to serve local content than relying on top-level domains.

Fast-forward to now, and Google believes its localisation technology has advanced far enough to render ccTLDs (country code top-level domains) obsolete. That includes not just .co.uk for the UK, but also .com.br for Brazil, .co.in for India, .fr for France, and so on.

In a statement issued on 15 April 2025, Google said: “Because of this improvement, country-level domains are no longer necessary. We’ll begin redirecting traffic from these ccTLDs to google.com to streamline people’s experience on Search.”

What Exactly Will Happen, and When?

Google says it’s rolling out the change gradually “over the coming months.” Users who continue typing local addresses like google.co.uk into their browser will automatically be redirected to google.com instead.

What’s important to note is that this redirection is cosmetic and, as such, it won’t alter the substance of search results. Google is keen to reassure users that location-based relevance will still be maintained, saying: “This update will change what people see in their browser address bar, but it won’t affect the way Search works.”

It should be noted, however, that in some cases, users may be asked to log back into their Google account or re-enter search preferences such as language, region, or safe search filters. These prompts are part of the transition and are expected to be minimal.

What About Businesses and Search Professionals?

While most casual users may hardly notice the difference, the change is likely to have more significant implications for businesses, advertisers, and SEO professionals.

For years, digital marketers and local businesses relied on country-specific domains as a signal for local intent. Seeing .co.uk in the address bar reassured UK users they were getting localised content. With that visual cue gone, it seems that businesses may need to work harder to communicate relevance to their audience.

Some SEO consultants have already raised concerns, that ccTLDs have long played a psychological role in establishing trust and a sense of local identity and that removing them could take away a small but meaningful visual cue that helps users quickly judge whether a result is relevant to their region.

On the technical side, it’s more of a mixed bag. For example, consolidating everything under google.com may mean less domain fragmentation and a cleaner search experience, but some businesses fear they’ll have less control over regional visibility.

That said, Google’s localisation signals are now based on far more than just the domain name. For example, language, browser settings, search history, and even device-level data play a role. From a technical standpoint, this change may encourage businesses to invest more in structured data, content localisation, and region-specific marketing rather than relying on domain-level cues.

Will It Save Google Money?

Although cost-cutting wasn’t mentioned in Google’s official statement, it’s difficult to ignore the potential operational efficiencies behind this move.

It’s likely that maintaining dozens of ccTLDs, each with separate infrastructure, legal requirements, and occasional localised content, is expensive. As Google streamlines its services across all its products, it’s plausible this change is part of a broader effort to reduce complexity and overheads.

Keeping a multitude of domains also introduces additional security considerations and potential legal complications in different jurisdictions. Consolidating to google.com, therefore, offers a more scalable, consistent platform from both a technical and administrative point of view.

A Brief History of ccTLDs on Google

Google’s use of country-specific domains stretches back to its early international expansion in the early 2000s. Back then, separate ccTLDs made sense as they helped users access locally relevant content and gave governments and regulators some measure of oversight.

In fact, ccTLDs were once a key part of Google’s global strategy. For example, there was google.ca for Canada, google.co.jp for Japan, google.co.za for South Africa (the list goes on). For over a decade, typing a country-specific address was the main way users navigated to “their version” of Google.

However, by 2017, the writing was already on the wall. As mobile use exploded and GPS-based location detection improved, ccTLDs became more of a legacy feature than a critical component of localisation. By delivering results based on physical location rather than the domain used, Google effectively decoupled the URL from the search experience.

As Google put it back then: “Typing the relevant ccTLD in your browser will no longer bring you to the various country services—this preference should be managed directly in settings.”

Now, eight years later, Google’s retiring those domains for good.

How Can Users Still Control Their Search Experience?

With the ccTLD route disappearing, users who want to customise their search region still have some options. For example, Google recommends visiting the settings on google.com, then selecting ‘Settings’ (bottom-right corner), ‘Search settings’, and then ‘Language and region’.

From there, users can select their ‘Results Region’ and confirm their preferences. It’s not quite as effortless as typing .co.uk into the address bar, but it gives users some control nonetheless. It’s worth noting that this could also become a more critical step for people who travel frequently or use VPNs, where physical location and desired results don’t always align.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Google’s move to retire country-specific domains marks the end of an era, but not necessarily a dramatic shift in day-to-day use. For the vast majority of users, the redirection to google.com will be seamless, with local results continuing to surface just as they did before. In that sense, the change is largely symbolic: a visible reminder of how far the technology has come since the days when a .co.uk domain was essential for getting UK-relevant content.

Even so, the impact will be felt in some corners. For businesses and SEO professionals who have built strategies around ccTLDs, there’s now a need to refocus efforts. Visibility in local search will depend less on the domain in the address bar and more on how well a business optimises its content for a specific region using technical signals and structured data. That may be more work in the short term, but it could ultimately lead to a more level playing field, particularly for smaller businesses that don’t operate country-specific sites but still want to compete in local markets.

For UK businesses in particular, there’s a communications challenge. Losing the .co.uk cue means finding other ways to demonstrate relevance and trust to a local audience. Whether through clear regional language, local contact details, or targeted content, companies will need to be intentional about showing that they’re rooted in the UK market. It may also prompt more attention to things like Google Business Profiles, location-based advertising, and hyperlocal content strategies.

For Google, this is as much about simplification as it is about modernisation. By consolidating its domains, the company reduces redundancy, eases infrastructure demands, and likely saves money, all while continuing to meet legal obligations in different countries. It also fits neatly with Google’s wider goal of delivering a consistent user experience across its ecosystem, from Search to Maps to AI-powered features.

Ultimately, this change reflects how the web, and the way we use it, has evolved. Search is no longer bound by the old rules of geography and domain suffixes. It’s now driven by data, context, and personalisation. This means that while the disappearance of google.co.uk from the browser bar may feel like a nostalgic loss for some, the mechanics of search will continue to evolve around us, often invisibly, and usually with far-reaching implications.

A rise in parking scams is catching out UK drivers, with criminals using fake fines, phishing texts and QR codes to steal money and personal data.

Cyber security experts report that scammers are leaving fake tickets on windscreens with QR codes linking to fraudulent payment sites. Others are sending texts claiming a fine is owed, often using real location data and links to gov.uk pages to appear legitimate. Victims who pay are unknowingly handing over their personal or financial details.

Bitdefender has identified six of the most common scams — fake windscreen tickets, bogus parking attendants, fake QR codes, phishing texts, fake emails, and fraudulent apps. In some cases, scammers have even posed as attendants in uniform, directing drivers to unauthorised spaces before vanishing with their cash.

The National Cyber Security Centre advises the public to avoid clicking on links in unexpected messages and to check all URLs carefully. Legitimate parking services will not request payment by SMS or through unverified apps. Tools like Scamio can help verify QR codes or suspicious links before any action is taken.

These scams rely on creating a false sense of urgency and trust, making them particularly effective in busy areas such as city centres or event venues.

For businesses, this trend highlights the need to keep employees informed about evolving threats. Promoting secure payment practices, encouraging the use of official apps, and protecting all work devices from phishing and malware can help reduce the risk.

A Ukrainian company is reimagining urban waste by transforming fallen leaves into eco-friendly pulp and packaging paper, thereby cutting carbon, saving water, and leaving forests untouched.

Growing Without Cutting Down Trees

Releaf Paper, based in Kyiv, Ukraine, is exploring an alternative approach to sustainable packaging by turning urban leaf litter into recyclable paper products.

Launched only a few years ago, the startup has gained attention across Europe for its circular economy model, which centres on using fallen leaves (typically seen as municipal waste) as a raw material. A pilot production line is already operating near Paris, and further expansion plans are in progress.

The concept is relatively straightforward, i.e. leaves gathered from streets and parks are cleaned, dried, and processed into pulp. That pulp is then used to produce kraft-style paper, which has been adopted by several major brands, including Chanel, Samsung, and Uber Eats.

Why?

Traditional paper manufacturing is resource-intensive. For example, virgin kraft paper (paper made from freshly harvested wood pulp) typically has a carbon footprint of around 1,500 kg CO₂e per tonne. Even recycled paper clocks in at 1,300 kg CO₂e per tonne, depending on the energy mix used.

By contrast, Releaf Paper says its product emits just 303.77 kg CO₂e per tonne, which is four to five times less than its conventional competitors. It should be noted that this figure has been independently verified by ClimatePartner.

It seems also that the savings in Releaf’s manufacturing process don’t stop at emissions. For example:

– Water usage. Just 0.002 litres per kilogram of paper, compared to thousands of litres in traditional processes.

– Transport emissions. Leaves are collected from within 20km of production sites.

– Decomposition rate. Releaf paper biodegrades in 30–55 days—much faster than standard paper, which can take up to 270 days.

“By transforming fallen leaves into pulp, we’re proving that sustainable materials can be locally sourced, high-quality, and scalable,” says CEO Alexander Sobolenko. “This isn’t just a packaging solution—it’s a shift in mindset.”

How It Works

The process begins with green waste that would normally be burned or landfilled. Leaves are collected from urban areas by public utility services, then cleaned and dried. Releaf then uses its proprietary combination of mechanical and thermo-chemical methods to convert this biomass into paper-grade pulp.

This pulp is then blended with recycled fibres (usually around a 40:60 mix) to create the final product, which is ‘Releaf Natural Kraft’. This is a durable, recyclable paper used in everything from retail bags and ecommerce mailers to wrapping paper and corrugated boxes.

Expansion On The Cards

The current production facility in Zmiiiv, Ukraine, can handle up to 3,000 tonnes per year, but it looks as though expansion is firmly on the cards. A €3.5 million EU-backed pilot line in Les Mureaux, just outside Paris, opened in late 2024, and Releaf also plans to raise €8 million in Series A funding this year to expand its footprint across Europe and into North America and Asia.

Why It’s Proving Popular

According to Releaf, it’s not just the environmental numbers that are getting attention. In an era where consumers increasingly demand sustainability (and are willing to pay for it), Releaf Paper is able to help brands make good on their green promises. For example, according to data from the company:

– 82 per cent of consumers are now willing to pay more for sustainable packaging.

– Among Gen-Z, that figure rises to 90 per cent.

– 71 per cent of all consumers say they’ve chosen a product based on its sustainability credentials in the last six months.

It seems that from luxury retailers like Chanel to tech brands like Logitech, companies are turning to Releaf to help meet both regulatory and reputational pressures.

In France, for example, Uber Eats recently partnered with Releaf to deploy nearly 100,000 biodegradable bags across select restaurants in Paris, helping to reduce single-use plastic waste in food delivery.

“For us, this is more than just sustainable packaging—it’s about helping businesses shift their entire mindset towards the circular economy,” explains Valentyn Frechka, Releaf’s 23-year-old Head of Technology and the inventor behind the leaf-to-paper process.

The Changing Paper Industry

Releaf’s rise also shines a light on a sector undergoing major transformation. For example, the global green packaging market is projected to grow at 6.1 per cent CAGR from 2020 to 2028, fuelled by both consumer pressure and legislative crackdowns on plastics and unsustainable materials.

Other Companies Making Similar Products

It should be noted here that other companies are also starting to explore similar bio-based materials. For example, in India, Craste is making packaging from agricultural waste like wheat and rice straw. In the US, Sway has created seaweed-based plastic alternatives, and Notpla is producing biodegradable packaging from seaweed and plants. Also, Green Banana Paper in the Pacific Islands is turning discarded banana stems into paper products.

However, Releaf appears to be the only player working at scale with urban foliage. It seems that their approach has the advantage of being able to uniquely intersect municipal waste management, carbon reduction, and packaging innovation, all while tapping into a free, abundant, and renewable feedstock.

Still Some Challenges

Despite its success to date, Releaf’s business model is not without potential limitations. For example, some of its key challenges include:

– Supply chain variability. Fallen leaves are seasonal, and their availability varies by climate and geography. To ensure consistent production, Releaf must build a robust storage and logistics infrastructure, something that can be expensive and operationally complex.

– Scaling up. While the company’s innovation centre in France is promising, widespread adoption will require building multiple decentralised facilities close to raw material sources. That means further investment, local partnerships, and navigating regulatory frameworks in different markets.

– Public perception. While the idea of paper made from leaves sounds appealing, some buyers may question its durability or suitability for certain applications compared to traditional materials.

However, Releaf’s early customer list, which includes Chanel, Schneider Electric, BNP Paribas and LVMH, suggests those concerns can be overcome, especially with clear data and product performance guarantees.

What Does This Mean For Your Organisation?

Releaf Paper’s approach may not yet be mainstream, but it appears to offer a compelling glimpse into what the future of packaging could look like. By turning a common urban waste product into a viable raw material, the company is challenging assumptions about where value can be found, and how sustainable innovation can be embedded into everyday supply chains. For a sector long associated with high resource use and deforestation, it introduces a practical alternative that doesn’t rely on virgin materials, heavy water usage, or long transport routes.

For UK businesses, particularly those in retail, ecommerce, or food delivery, the model could offer a timely opportunity. With mounting pressure from customers, investors, and regulators to reduce environmental impact, adopting packaging solutions like Releaf’s could help demonstrate real progress toward net-zero goals. The fact that the paper can be used across multiple formats, from retail bags to corrugated boxes, also makes it commercially adaptable. If UK import partners or local versions of this technology emerge, the shorter supply chain distances could amplify its appeal.

That said, this is still an emerging solution. The long-term scalability of leaf-based pulp remains to be proven, particularly in regions with less consistent leaf collection systems or more limited municipal infrastructure. Also, while early adopters are finding success with the material, broader uptake may depend on further evidence of performance, durability, and cost competitiveness over time.

Even so, it seems that Releaf Paper has changed the conversation to one that invites competitors, cities, and entire industries to reconsider what we throw away and what we could be putting to better use. If paper doesn’t have to come from trees, and if waste can become a resource, then the packaging industry may be on the cusp of something genuinely transformative. Whether Releaf leads that charge, or whether others follow with similar ideas, the direction of travel is becoming clearer. Urban waste may no longer be seen simply as a problem to manage, but as part of the solution.