The UK Government has announced the deployment of 10 new Live Facial Recognition (LFR) vans across seven police forces in England, saying the move will help officers track down suspects wanted for some of the most serious crimes.

What?

On 13 August, the Home Office confirmed that vans equipped with live facial recognition cameras will be shared between Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Bedfordshire, Surrey and Sussex (jointly), and Thames Valley and Hampshire (jointly). The rollout is part of the government’s wider “Plan for Change” in policing, which also includes neighbourhood policing guarantees and the recruitment of 13,000 more officers by 2029.

The new vans are expected to be deployed in the coming weeks. They will be coordinated nationally by the National Police Chiefs’ Council and South Wales Police, which has already led the way in using the technology. The government says each vehicle will be staffed with trained officers who verify every potential match generated by the software.

How Does the Technology Work?

Live facial recognition compares the faces of people passing by with those held on a police “watchlist”. These watchlists are drawn up for each deployment and include individuals wanted for offences such as sexual assault, violent crime, murder, and breaches of bail or court conditions.

The technology measures facial features such as the distance between a person’s eyes or the shape of the jawline, creating a digital signature that can then be matched against the watchlist. If a possible match is made, an officer on site reviews the image before deciding whether to stop the individual.

Why Is the Government Expanding It Now?

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said the expansion reflects both the need to modernise policing and the results already seen in London and South Wales. “Facial recognition will be used in a targeted way to identify sex offenders or people wanted for the most serious crimes who the police have not been able to find,” she explained, adding that the rollout will be backed by a new legal framework and public consultation on safeguards.

Only Intelligence-Led Use

It’s worth noting here that the government says that officers will only use the technology in intelligence-led deployments, and that strict guidance from the College of Policing and the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice will apply. It insists the aim is not mass surveillance but a proportionate use of new tools to protect the public.

What Have Previous Trials Achieved?

The Metropolitan Police and South Wales Police have been the two leading forces trialling LFR technology. According to the Met, 580 arrests were made in London over a 12-month period up to mid-2025, covering offences including rape, domestic abuse, robbery, and knife crime. Among those detained were 52 registered sex offenders who had breached their conditions.

South Wales Police has emphasised its record, reporting no false alerts since August 2019. Chief Superintendent Tim Morgan has argued the technology has been deployed ethically and lawfully, saying it has “never resulted in a wrongful arrest” in the force’s area. It has been used at large public gatherings such as football matches and concerts, where suspects for serious offences have been identified and detained.

However, these claims have not gone unchallenged. For example, earlier deployments in South Wales were the subject of a legal challenge brought by a Cardiff resident (Ed Bridges), who argued the technology was used unlawfully to scan him in public without consent. Although the Court of Appeal ruled in 2020 that South Wales Police’s use of LFR was unlawful on three grounds, including a lack of proper safeguards against arbitrary use, the force was later cleared to continue under revised guidance.

The Metropolitan Police has also faced criticism after individuals (including Londoner Shaun Thompson) were wrongly flagged by cameras during live deployments. Civil liberties groups say such errors highlight the risks of false positives, even if no wrongful arrests ultimately followed.

Examples of use include London deployments in violent crime hotspots and at high-profile events such as a Beyoncé concert, where police used the technology to search for individuals suspected of terrorism or child abuse offences. While supporters say these trials show the technology’s potential to locate dangerous offenders in crowded settings, opponents argue the risks to privacy and the possibility of misidentification remain significant.

The Case for Benefits

Proponents argue that live facial recognition allows officers to locate suspects more quickly than traditional policing methods. For example, Lindsey Chiswick, the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for facial recognition, said the new vans provide “an excellent opportunity for policing”, with every deployment being “targeted, intelligence-led, within a set geographical location and for a defined period of time”.

The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change has also supported its use, describing it as “a no-brainer” for catching violent offenders in crowded public places. They argue that those not on a watchlist will have their faces pixelated, with no data retained.

For police forces, the vans are expected to essentially act as a force multiplier, freeing up resources and providing a visible deterrent at a time when officers are under pressure to deal with rising violent crime and anti-social behaviour.

Criticism and Concerns

Civil liberties groups remain strongly opposed to the use of this technology. For example, Big Brother Watch described the rollout as “a significant expansion of the surveillance state” and has lodged a legal challenge against the Metropolitan Police’s use of the technology. Interim director Rebecca Vincent argued that police were treating the lack of a specific legal framework as “carte blanche” to expand the practice without democratic scrutiny.

Also, Baroness Chakrabarti, former director of Liberty, called the technology “incredibly intrusive” and warned that it posed risks to privacy, freedom of assembly, and the possibility of false matches. She welcomed the consultation but criticised the absence of legislation to date, saying the technology had so far been deployed “completely outside the law”.

Amnesty International UK has also criticised the move, describing LFR as “dangerous and discriminatory”. The group warns that even if algorithms are shown to be unbiased in laboratory tests, real-world deployments risk disproportionately targeting minority communities.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which regulates data protection, emphasised that facial recognition “does not operate in a legal vacuum” and must always be lawful, fair, and proportionate. The ICO is due to publish its findings on the use of the technology by South Wales and Gwent Police.

What Does Independent Testing Show?

To address bias concerns, the government commissioned the National Physical Laboratory to test the algorithms being used in the vans. The laboratory reported that at the settings used by police, the system was accurate and showed no bias by age, gender, or ethnicity.

Even so, critics argue that independent testing cannot address all the risks. The possibility of false positives, mission creep into less serious crimes, or erosion of trust in policing remain live debates.

Implications for Communities and Businesses

For the public, the presence of LFR vans is likely to be visible in town centres and at large public events. The Home Office has said that signage will make it clear when the technology is being used, and that data will only be retained for the period of the deployment.

Businesses in affected areas may see benefits if the vans deter shoplifting, robbery, or violent crime in retail and nightlife districts. However, there are concerns about potential impacts on footfall if people feel uncomfortable being scanned while shopping or socialising.

Neighbourhood organisations such as Neighbourhood Watch have broadly welcomed the balance between more officers and targeted technology. Chief Executive John Hayward-Cripps said the combination of “responsive policing that prioritises local relationships” with modern tools could help rebuild public trust.

For police officers themselves, the vans offer a new way to match intelligence with on-the-ground enforcement, but they also come with added responsibilities for transparency, proportionality, and accuracy.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The government’s decision to expand live facial recognition vans puts advanced surveillance tools directly into mainstream policing, but it also raises difficult questions about oversight. For police forces, the benefits are obvious, i.e., the vans make it easier to identify wanted suspects in crowded areas and allow officers to focus on other frontline duties. The record of arrests in London and South Wales shows the technology can be effective against serious offenders, yet the court rulings and cases of mistaken identification show why critics say it cannot be deployed without stronger safeguards.

For the public, the experience is likely to be mixed. For example, some will welcome the reassurance of extra tools against violent crime, while others will be uneasy at the idea of their faces being scanned in public. Public trust will hinge on whether officers use the vans in line with clear rules and whether those rules are seen to be independently enforced. Businesses in city centres may gain if the technology reduces theft, disorder and violence near shops and venues, although any perception of over-policing could also deter customers.

The government’s consultation on new legislation is, therefore, critical. Campaigners argue that police have been using LFR outside a proper legal framework for years, while ministers insist deployments will stay targeted and proportionate. The outcome will decide whether this expansion strengthens policing while protecting rights, or whether it fuels a deeper public backlash that undermines confidence across communities, businesses and other stakeholders.

Elon Musk’s Tesla has applied for a licence to supply electricity to British homes and businesses, a move that could see the US-based firm directly enter the UK’s highly regulated energy market from 2026.

What Has Tesla Done?

The application was formally submitted on 25 July by Tesla Energy Ventures Limited, a UK-registered company under the wider Tesla umbrella. Ofgem, the UK’s energy regulator, confirmed the licence request on its website and set a consultation period until 22 August for stakeholders to submit comments. In line with the Utilities Act 2000, Ofgem has only published the notice of application, limiting further detail. If approved, the licence would allow Tesla to operate as a retail electricity supplier across England, Scotland and Wales.

Extend Scope of Existing Licence

It should be noted here that Tesla already holds a generation licence in the UK (granted in 2020) which allows it to produce electricity. However, this latest move could extend its scope to selling power directly to households and businesses, in the same way as established suppliers such as British Gas, Octopus Energy and OVO.

Why Is Tesla Doing This?

Tesla’s decision comes at a time when the company is facing declining electric vehicle sales across Europe. UK registrations in July fell by almost 60 per cent compared to the previous year, while German sales dropped by 55 per cent. Across ten key European markets, Tesla’s sales were down by 45 per cent. Competition from rival EV manufacturers, particularly China’s BYD, has been a major factor in this slump.

Diversifying into energy supply, therefore, offers Tesla another route to growth, particularly given its sizeable existing footprint. More than 250,000 Tesla vehicles are on UK roads and tens of thousands of its Powerwall home battery systems have been installed. This customer base could provide a ready pool of households willing to adopt Tesla’s electricity supply, particularly if bundled with discounts for charging vehicles or exporting stored solar energy back to the grid.

Like In Texas

The company has already built up experience as an energy supplier in the United States. In Texas, Tesla Electric launched in 2022 as a retail provider offering households low-cost, 100 per cent renewable power. Customers do not need to own a Tesla product to join, though EV owners and Powerwall users are offered cheaper charging rates and the ability to sell surplus electricity back to the grid.

The Texas operation also supports the concept of a “virtual power plant”, where thousands of home batteries are linked together to provide grid stability. Tesla has suggested that similar models could eventually be deployed in other markets. In the UK, this would align with National Grid’s push for more flexible energy resources and time-of-use tariffs that encourage households to use power at off-peak times.

What Could This Mean for the UK Market?

If the licence is granted, Tesla would join a market that is both competitive and tightly controlled. The so-called “Big Six” suppliers, now expanded to include Octopus alongside British Gas, EDF, E.ON, OVO, ScottishPower and SSE, still dominate with more than 90 per cent of the domestic supply market. Smaller and newer entrants have struggled in recent years, especially during the energy crisis, which saw dozens of challenger firms collapse under pressure from soaring wholesale prices.

Some analysts have pointed out that Tesla is entering a highly regulated market where profit margins are already thin and most of the big suppliers have invested heavily in smart tariffs, making it difficult for new players to break through. However, others have highlighted how Tesla’s existing ecosystem could help it stand apart. For example, despite falling EV sales, Tesla still has a sizeable footprint in the UK, with more than 250,000 cars sold and thousands of Powerwall batteries installed. That existing customer base could give Tesla a natural advantage if it follows the same model as its Texas business, where households are offered cheaper charging and paid for feeding power back into the grid.

Potential Tariff Innovation

One area where Tesla may compete effectively is in smart tariffs for EV charging and home energy storage. Between 2020 and 2023, Tesla partnered with Octopus Energy on the Tesla Energy Plan, a smart import-export tariff that allowed customers with solar panels and Powerwalls to buy and sell electricity at the same rate. Although Tesla later withdrew from the partnership, Octopus continues to offer a similar tariff, demonstrating demand for such arrangements.

If Tesla can combine its EVs, batteries and potential supply licence into a single integrated offer, it could appeal strongly to existing customers. For example, discounted tariffs for charging Teslas overnight, coupled with payments for sending energy back to the grid from a Powerwall, would create a closed-loop system that few other suppliers could match.

Challenges

Despite the potential, the barriers are considerable. The UK retail electricity market is crowded, margins are slim, and switching rates are low compared with the period before the energy crisis. Many households are locked into dual-fuel contracts that combine gas and electricity, which may make a Tesla-only electricity offer less attractive.

There is also the question of public perception. Elon Musk’s increasingly political public profile has drawn strong criticism in Europe and the UK. Also, he has described Britain as a “police state” and criticised asylum and migration policies. His closeness to US President Donald Trump (although they have since fallen out) and his actions with DOGE in the US have further polarised opinion and appear to have caused huge damage to his personal brand (and his vehicle sales). In fact, some consumer groups have warned that Musk’s views could influence whether households are willing to sign up for Tesla-branded energy.

Tesla itself has remained quiet on its application. The notice submitted to Ofgem was signed by Andrew Payne, Tesla’s head of energy for Europe, the Middle East and Africa. No public statement has been issued by the company, which has said only that it continues to expand its energy services globally.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Tesla’s bid to supply electricity in the UK sets up a clear test of whether its brand strength and integrated technology can overcome the realities of a tightly controlled market. On paper, its combination of cars, home batteries and solar solutions could give it an edge in offering customers genuinely joined-up energy services. In practice, it faces the same pressures that have squeezed margins for existing suppliers, alongside the added complication of public sentiment about its founder.

For UK households, the offer of cheaper EV charging or the ability to trade surplus solar power back to the grid would be attractive, particularly at a time when energy bills remain under close scrutiny. For businesses, Tesla’s entry could bring new tariff models for fleets or for sites already investing in renewable generation and storage. If the model mirrors what has been developed in Texas, it may also open the door for companies to participate in virtual power plants that improve resilience and provide income streams from energy flexibility.

For the energy sector, the move signals that disruption could just as easily come from a technology giant as from a nimble start-up. Incumbent suppliers will be watching closely, both for the pricing strategy Tesla adopts and for the way it leverages its hardware base to win loyalty. Regulators, meanwhile, will have to balance innovation with consumer protection in a market that has already seen waves of supplier failures.

Tesla is attempting to diversify at a time when its automotive business is under pressure, and the UK market will be an early test of whether energy supply can deliver the growth it now seeks. If it succeeds, it could accelerate the shift towards more dynamic and decentralised energy systems. If it fails, it will underline how difficult it remains to challenge the dominance of established players in one of Europe’s most heavily regulated markets.

AI start-up Perplexity has made a surprise $34.5 billion bid for Google’s Chrome browser, a move that has shocked the tech industry and raised questions about antitrust pressure, corporate ambition, and whether such a deal could ever succeed.

Perplexity

Perplexity is a San Francisco-based company founded in 2022 by Aravind Srinivas, a former Google and OpenAI researcher. Despite being just three years old, the firm has already become one of the highest-profile challengers in the generative AI space. Its core product is a real-time AI-powered search engine that provides conversational answers with source links, setting it apart from rivals like OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini.

The company has attracted major backing, including funding from Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, chipmaker Nvidia, and Japan’s SoftBank, and was valued at around $18 billion as recently as July. Perplexity says it now serves around 30 million monthly active users and has partnerships with publishers such as Time and the Los Angeles Times.

Last month, it launched Comet, an AI-native browser designed to help users summarise web content, manage tabs more intelligently, and automate tasks such as scheduling and online shopping. Comet combines local device processing with cloud-based models, including GPT-5, Anthropic’s Claude, and Google’s own Gemini. Srinivas has described it as a “cognitive operating system” rather than a conventional browser.

The Offer For Chrome

On 12 August, Perplexity confirmed that it had made a formal $34.5 billion all-cash offer to acquire Chrome, the world’s most widely used browser with an estimated three billion users. The offer was unsolicited, and Alphabet, Google’s parent company, has not indicated any willingness to sell Chrome.

Perplexity framed the bid as an effort to preserve the principles of the open web, pledging to keep Chromium, the open-source foundation of Chrome that also underpins Microsoft Edge and Opera, fully maintained. It also promised to invest $3 billion over two years in development and to retain Google as the default search engine inside Chrome, while allowing users to change provider more easily.

Why Make This Move Now?

The timing is no accident. Google is awaiting the outcome of a major US antitrust case that found it had unlawfully monopolised the search market by locking in default search agreements with device manufacturers and browser developers. Judge Amit Mehta is due to decide on remedies, and one of the Justice Department’s proposed options is that Google could be forced to divest Chrome.

By making its bid public now, therefore, Perplexity is positioning itself as a ready buyer if regulators force a sale. The company has argued that moving Chrome into independent ownership would be in the “highest public interest” and would protect user choice.

It also reflects a broader shift in how browsers are seen in the AI era. For example, with the rise of conversational search, browsers have regained importance as gateways to traffic, data, and default search settings. Controlling Chrome, which has more than 60 per cent of the global browser market, could give Perplexity a huge distribution advantage for its own AI search technology.

Could It Succeed?

It appears that many analysts remain highly sceptical about Perplexity’s chances of success. For example, Perplexity’s own valuation is only about half the size of the bid it has put forward, and while the company has claimed that multiple funds are willing to finance the deal, it has not named them.

Estimates of Chrome’s true value vary, with some industry figures suggesting it could be worth $50 billion or more, far higher than Perplexity’s offer. Even if regulators order a sale, Google has said it would appeal, warning that divestiture would damage innovation, user privacy, and security. Legal experts believe that a final decision could take years to resolve, possibly extending through appeals to the Supreme Court.

For now, Google has given no indication it would entertain the bid. Alphabet executives have consistently argued that Chrome is central to its strategy, not just as a browser but as a linchpin connecting billions of users to its search engine and advertising business.

What Would It Mean for Perplexity?

If Perplexity somehow succeeded, acquiring Chrome would instantly transform it from a rising AI challenger into a dominant player in the internet ecosystem. Chrome’s reach would provide an unrivalled platform to push its AI search engine, while the promise to maintain Google as the default search provider could ease antitrust scrutiny.

It would also allow Perplexity to leapfrog competitors like OpenAI, which has been working on its own AI browser, and other search challengers such as DuckDuckGo. Integrating Chrome’s scale with Perplexity’s AI could accelerate the shift toward AI-native browsing, potentially changing how users interact with information online.

However, absorbing Chrome’s three billion users would also pose huge operational and financial challenges. For example, maintaining a browser of that size requires vast infrastructure, security resources, and compliance mechanisms. For a start-up, even one backed by high-profile investors, this would be an extraordinary undertaking.

What Would It Mean for Google?

For Google, losing Chrome would, of course, be a major blow. The browser is not only a product in its own right but also a strategic entry point for its search business, helping to sustain its advertising revenue. Chrome also serves as a platform for integrating new AI features such as generative overviews within search results.

Without Chrome, Google would be forced to rely more heavily on agreements with rival browsers and devices, weakening its distribution power. That is precisely why regulators see divestiture as one of the strongest remedies to restore competition in the search market.

Reactions and Criticisms

Reactions to the bid have been mixed. For example, some industry observers view it as a bold statement of intent from a company looking to define the future of web search. Others see it as unrealistic, pointing out that Perplexity has not disclosed firm financing and may simply be using the offer to raise its profile.

Scepticism has also focused on whether Perplexity’s promise to keep Google as the default search engine would truly benefit competition, or whether it is more about reassuring regulators. Critics argue that Chrome’s value lies not only in its codebase but also in its role as a pipeline for search and advertising data, which cannot easily be separated from Google’s wider ecosystem.

Business users are also likely to be watching closely. Chrome is the default browser in many workplaces, chosen for its compatibility, speed, and integration with enterprise tools. Any change of ownership could raise questions about data handling, support, and continuity, particularly if Perplexity sought to integrate more AI-driven features.

For now though, the move has generated significant debate about the future of browsers, competition, and AI in the digital economy, regardless of whether the deal itself has any chance of success.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Perplexity’s bid may be as much about timing and visibility as it is about ownership. With Google under pressure in the US courts, the possibility of a forced sale has moved from theory to something regulators may genuinely consider. By stepping forward now, Perplexity is signalling that it wants to be part of the solution if Chrome is prised away from Google, even if the financial and legal obstacles make that outcome unlikely in the near term.

For UK businesses, the implications are not trivial. For example, Chrome dominates the workplace browser market, and any change in ownership could alter how security, updates, and AI integrations are delivered. A Perplexity-controlled Chrome might accelerate the introduction of AI-native features into day-to-day browsing, offering new efficiencies but also raising fresh questions about data handling and reliance on emerging players. IT teams and decision-makers would need to weigh the potential benefits of AI-powered functionality against the stability that comes with Google’s long-established stewardship.

Investors and regulators will also be watching carefully. If a start-up with a fraction of Google’s size and revenue can credibly put forward an offer of this scale, it signals how central browsers have once again become in the race to dominate AI-driven search. It also shows how antitrust scrutiny is changing the competitive landscape, opening the door to bids and proposals that would once have been unthinkable.

In practical terms, Google’s strong resistance and the length of any appeals process mean Chrome is unlikely to change hands quickly. However, the bid alone has reframed the conversation about the browser’s future. Whether as a serious takeover attempt or as a calculated move to raise its profile, Perplexity has forced the industry to imagine what a post-Google Chrome might look like, and to consider how that could reshape competition, innovation, and user choice across the digital economy.

Wikipedia has lost its High Court challenge against the UK’s Online Safety Act, a ruling that could have far-reaching implications for how the online encyclopaedia operates in Britain and how the wider internet is regulated.

What Was the Challenge About?

The case was brought by the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organisation that runs Wikipedia, alongside a UK-based volunteer editor. Their legal challenge focused on a specific part of the Online Safety Act known as the Categorisation Regulations. These rules decide which websites and online services fall under the law’s most stringent requirements, known as Category 1.

Category 1 platforms face additional obligations designed to curb harmful online content. For example, they must put in place systems to prevent children from accessing illegal or harmful material, enforce stricter moderation policies, and verify the identities of contributors. For Wikipedia, which relies on anonymous and pseudonymous volunteers to write and update its 65 million articles across 300 languages, this requirement was seen as fundamentally incompatible with how the site functions.

Wikimedia argued that being classified as Category 1 would undermine the privacy of its 260,000 active volunteer editors worldwide, exposing them to risks ranging from harassment to potential prosecution in authoritarian countries. The Foundation also warned that complying with such rules would require major changes to Wikipedia’s open model and could restrict access for UK users, either by cutting off large parts of the site or disabling core editing functions.

Wikipedia’s Challenge Dismissed

The case was heard at the High Court of Justice in London in July, with the ruling delivered on 11 August. Mr Justice Johnson dismissed the challenge, ruling that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology had acted lawfully when deciding how the regulations should be applied.

The judge rejected Wikimedia’s claim that the rules were inherently irrational or too broad. However, the judgment stopped short of granting the government and Ofcom (the UK’s communications regulator) a “green light” to impose obligations that would significantly damage Wikipedia’s operations. Instead, the court emphasised that regulators still have a duty to ensure that public interest platforms such as Wikipedia are not unfairly harmed as the Act is implemented.

Wait Until Next Year

Importantly, Ofcom has not yet confirmed whether Wikipedia will be designated as a Category 1 service. That decision is expected later this year. The court noted that if Wikipedia is classified in this way and can no longer operate effectively, Wikimedia may have grounds to bring a fresh legal challenge.

What Happens Next?

For now, Wikipedia remains accessible to UK users as normal. However, the outcome of Ofcom’s categorisation process will be critical. If the encyclopaedia is placed in Category 1, the Foundation would face the unenviable choice of either overhauling its model by introducing identity checks for editors and stricter content controls or risking fines and potentially being blocked in the UK.

Will Keep Engaging With Ofcom and the Government

Wikimedia has said it will continue engaging with Ofcom and the government to find a workable solution. The Foundation also stressed that it views the ruling as a signal that regulators must tread carefully in applying the Act. The judgment recognised the “significant value” of Wikipedia and the risks to human rights if its contributors were forced to give up anonymity.

The UK government, however, welcomed the decision, arguing that the Act is essential for creating a safer online environment. Ministers have repeatedly said the law is not intended to target smaller or non-profit platforms, but rather to hold the largest and most influential services accountable.

Why Does This Matter for Wikipedia and the Internet?

At its core, this case reflects the tension between child safety and free knowledge online. Wikipedia is the fifth most visited website in the world, drawing more than 15 billion views every month. In the UK alone, its content is accessed hundreds of millions of times per month, including through school curricula such as the Welsh-language version, which is the most popular Welsh website globally.

The concern is that sweeping rules designed with large commercial platforms in mind, such as social media networks or adult content sites, could inadvertently capture collaborative knowledge projects. By forcing identity verification, the law could undermine the very openness and volunteer-driven nature that has made Wikipedia one of the most trusted sources of information.

Digital rights organisations have warned that the Act’s broad scope risks collateral damage. Groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Open Rights Group have argued that blanket obligations may erode free speech, privacy, and editorial independence. They note that anonymity is not just a shield for trolls, but a lifeline for vulnerable people, including dissidents, journalists, and LGBTQ+ individuals who may otherwise be unable to contribute safely.

What Do Privacy and Child Safety Advocates Say?

Privacy campaigners have said that forcing contributors to hand over identity documents or undergo verification could expose them to data breaches or surveillance. In the worst cases, it could make volunteers targets for legal action in countries with harsh censorship laws. For example, Robin Wilton of the Internet Society has warned that weakening online anonymity often “exposes everyone, not just bad actors”.

Child Safety Charities Pleased

On the other side of the debate, child safety charities have welcomed the Act, arguing that the internet has long lacked accountability. They believe stronger rules are necessary to protect young people from harmful material, ranging from self-harm forums to violent pornography. These groups argue that platforms with significant reach and influence (whether commercial or not) must share responsibility for ensuring that harmful content is not easily accessible.

The Wider Implications

The High Court’s decision has sparked broader debate about the future of the internet in the UK and beyond. For example, if Wikipedia is required to comply with obligations designed for commercial giants, it raises questions about whether other non-profit or community-led platforms could face similar challenges. Some small forum operators have already shut down message boards, citing an inability to pay for age verification systems or the risk of large fines.

For businesses, the ruling highlights the increasing complexity of operating online services in the UK. Companies that rely on Wikipedia as a knowledge resource, including schools, libraries, and media outlets, could face disruption if the site is restricted. More broadly, the case demonstrates how regulatory approaches intended to improve online safety may reshape the digital environment for all stakeholders, potentially reducing openness and participation in favour of stricter control.

In practical terms, Ofcom now faces the task of balancing the government’s safety objectives with the need to protect platforms that serve the public interest. The regulator’s decisions later this year will determine not only Wikipedia’s future in the UK but also how flexible the Online Safety Act can be in practice.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

What happens next will depend heavily on how Ofcom interprets its role. The court appears to have placed the responsibility squarely on the regulator to ensure that the Act is not applied in ways that damage public-interest resources such as Wikipedia. If Ofcom takes a strict line and categorises the site as Category 1, it would trigger requirements that may be unworkable for a volunteer-driven encyclopaedia. If it takes a more flexible approach, or recommends changes to Parliament, it could preserve both the goals of online safety and the principle of open access to knowledge.

For UK businesses, the outcome is likely to be more than a theoretical concern. For example, many companies, particularly in research, education, media and publishing, depend on Wikipedia as a readily accessible knowledge base. Any disruption to the platform’s availability could make training, communications and fact-checking more difficult. Schools and universities would also be affected if the site was restricted or stripped of key features. For firms operating online platforms themselves, the case is a reminder that compliance burdens are growing and that regulation designed for large tech firms can have unintended knock-on effects across the wider economy.

Campaigners argue that the stakes go further still. If collaborative projects such as Wikipedia are forced into compliance regimes built for social media giants, smaller online communities will almost certainly struggle to survive. That risks narrowing the diversity of online voices and discouraging innovation. On the other hand, advocates for stronger safety measures insist that the internet cannot continue to operate on principles designed in an earlier era, and that accountability must be applied across the board if young people are to be protected from harmful content.

The balance now lies in how regulators and government choose to enforce the Act. The High Court has made clear that there are limits to what can reasonably be demanded of platforms like Wikipedia. Whether those limits are respected will shape not only the future of the world’s largest encyclopaedia, but also the broader character of the internet in the UK.

Average ransomware payments have more than doubled in the past quarter, while stolen credentials are driving a sharp rise in breaches.

Coveware by Veeam reported the average ransom payout in Q2 2025 hit $1.13 million, up 104 per cent on the previous quarter. The median payment also doubled to $400,000, with larger organisations paying out in data exfiltration-only incidents, where files are stolen rather than systems encrypted. Data theft was a factor in 74 per cent of cases.

Criminal groups such as ‘Scattered Spider’, ‘Silent Ransom’ and ‘Shiny Hunters’ are using targeted social engineering to impersonate staff, trick helpdesks, and exploit third-party providers. “Attackers aren’t just after your backups – they’re after your people, your processes, and your data’s reputation,” warned Coveware CEO Bill Siegel.

At the same time, Check Point found credential theft has surged 160 per cent in 2025, now causing one in five breaches. Many businesses take months to revoke exposed logins, giving attackers time to exploit them.

Security experts advise organisations to enforce multi-factor authentication, tighten password policies, and train staff to spot social engineering. Treating stolen credentials and data theft as primary risks is now seen as essential.

A Hamburg–Lisbon startup is turning agricultural waste into protein powder using microbes, producing vegan dog treats today and working towards reshaping tomorrow’s food system.

MicroHarvest

MicroHarvest was founded in 2021 by Katelijne Bekers, Luísa Cruz, and Paulo Teixeira, and operates between Hamburg and Lisbon. The company specialises in microbial fermentation, a process that uses bacteria to convert by-products from the agricultural industry into protein-rich biomass.

At its Lisbon pilot plant, based in a former military food factory now known as the Unicorn Factory, large fermenters are filled with microbes and fed residual sugars from crops. Within 24 hours, those microbes multiply rapidly, creating a thick broth that is harvested, inactivated, and dried into a beige powder resembling flour. The result is a product with over 60 per cent protein content, alongside fibre, essential amino acids, iron, and vitamin B2.

MicroHarvest describes its approach as sustainable, scalable, and highly efficient. A life-cycle analysis suggests its process generates only 1.4 kg of CO₂ per kilogram of protein, two to three times less than most plant-based proteins and dramatically less than beef or dairy.

What Products Are Already on the Market?

While human consumption awaits regulatory approval, MicroHarvest has already moved into the pet-food sector. For example, in 2024, the company partnered with German brand VEGDOG to launch Pure Bites, a dog treat made with microbial protein, potato, and apple pomace. The snack was introduced at Interzoo Europe, one of the continent’s largest pet-food trade events, and is marketed as hypoallergenic, nutritious, and suitable for dogs with intolerances.

Dogs More Receptive To Microbial Protein Treats

Interestingly, palatability trials carried out by MicroHarvest found that dogs were more receptive to microbial protein treats than to poultry-based alternatives, with 85 per cent acceptance compared to 75 per cent. Also, a consumer survey across the UK and Germany showed similar openness, with around 78 per cent of dog owners saying they would consider buying pet food containing microbial protein.

This early focus on pet nutrition appears to make sense for the company as the animal feed and pet food sectors are less tightly regulated than human products, thereby enabling a faster route to market. They also represent a growing sector where sustainable, alternative protein sources are in high demand.

How the Technology Works

MicroHarvest’s process is based on microbial fermentation, a technique familiar from traditional foods such as yoghurt, kefir, and sauerkraut. The company cultivates specific bacterial strains in bioreactors, using agricultural by-products like molasses or other sugar streams as feedstock.

Once the microbes have multiplied, the biomass is separated, the cells are inactivated through heat treatment, and the material is dried into a stable protein powder. The entire cycle takes less than a day, compared with months for growing soy or years for raising livestock.

According to the company, the method reduces land use by up to 99 per cent and cuts carbon emissions by more than 70 per cent compared to beef. Also, because the process is carried out indoors, it can be established close to existing food or feed industries, bypassing the need for extensive farmland.

Why It Matters for Sustainability

The global demand for protein is expected to increase by around 50 per cent by 2050. Meeting that need through conventional farming would intensify deforestation, water use, and greenhouse gas emissions. Alternative proteins are seen as essential to bridging the gap without worsening environmental pressures.

A 2022 study in Nature suggested that replacing just 20 per cent of global beef consumption with microbial proteins could halve annual deforestation rates by mid-century. For companies like MicroHarvest, these figures highlight the potential of microbial protein to play a serious role in climate and food-security strategies.

MicroHarvest’s stated aim is to deliver protein that is not only sustainable but also versatile. Beyond dog treats, the company is developing applications in aquaculture feed, livestock diets, and eventually human food products such as shakes, protein bars, and dairy alternatives.

The Wider Landscape of Fermentation-Based Proteins

It’s worth noting here that MicroHarvest is certainly not alone in pursuing microbial solutions. The sector has attracted nearly $1 billion in global investment over the past year, with Europe claiming close to half of that. Examples of other companies in this space include:

– Finland’s Solar Foods, which has developed Solein, a protein made from microbes fed with hydrogen and carbon dioxide captured from the air. Its first commercial facility is under construction and it has received approval for human consumption in Singapore.

– Germany’s Formo, which is using precision fermentation to produce casein proteins for dairy-free cheese.

– Dutch company Vivici, which has raised over €30 million in 2025 to scale animal-free whey proteins made with microbes.

– UK-based Enough cultivates fungi to create mycoprotein, used in plant-based meat substitutes.

Also, large food companies such as Nestlé and Unilever are partnering with startups to explore microbial protein for mainstream products, seeing the potential for lower-impact ingredients that can appeal to sustainability-minded consumers.

Hurdles

Despite the momentum, microbial protein faces some serious hurdles. The first is, of course, regulation. MicroHarvest has already submitted a full dossier to the European Food Safety Authority seeking approval for human use. The process involves extensive safety and DNA screenings, and while the company is optimistic, approval timelines remain uncertain. Other alternative-protein startups have seen years of delay in Europe, forcing some to launch in more permissive markets such as Singapore.

Cost is another key concern. While microbial fermentation is highly efficient, building large-scale production plants requires significant capital investment. MicroHarvest has announced plans for a 15,000-tonne facility by 2027, more than 40 times its current output, but scaling to that level will test both its technology and its financial backing.

Consumer perception is a further challenge. For example, although microbes are commonplace in familiar foods, the idea of eating “bacteria powder” may not appeal to all shoppers. Industry observers note that how the products are framed, whether as “fermented protein” or as “next-generation ingredients”, could influence public acceptance.

The competitive landscape is also intensifying. For example, dozens of startups are experimenting with different microbes, feedstocks, and fermentation technologies. At the same time, insect protein, cultured meat, and plant-based innovations are all vying for space in the growing alternative-protein market.

What Does This Mean For Your Organisation?

The balance for MicroHarvest and its peers lies in proving they can deliver at scale while keeping costs competitive and building trust with regulators and consumers. If they succeed, microbial proteins could become more than a niche ingredient, offering a reliable and efficient source of nutrition at a time when global demand is set to rise sharply. For UK businesses in particular, this could mean opportunities in supply chain partnerships, retail adoption, and product innovation across both pet and human food markets. It also raises questions for existing agricultural producers, who may need to adapt to the emergence of new protein streams that use fewer resources and appeal to environmentally conscious buyers.

For policymakers and regulators, the challenge will be how quickly they can evaluate and approve these technologies without compromising safety. Investors, meanwhile, will be watching closely to see which companies can move from pilot plants to full commercial output. MicroHarvest’s ambition to open a 15,000-tonne facility in just two years will be one such test.

The future of food will not be decided by a single technology, but microbial protein now has a seat at the table. Whether it becomes a mainstay of diets or remains limited to specialist markets will depend on cost, regulation, and public acceptance. For now, the evidence suggests it has the potential to deliver real sustainability gains, and businesses across Europe and beyond are positioning themselves to find out just how far this promise can go.