Why this passport is of interest. The main advantage is visa-free entry to the Schengen Area: up to 90 days in any 180-day period without obtaining a visa. Overall, the Argentine passport provides visa-free or visa-on-arrival access to more than 140 countries, and as a citizen of a Mercosur country (the economic union of South American countries), its holder can obtain a residence permit in Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay and other states of the bloc under a simplified procedure. Dual citizenship is permitted, so there is no need to renounce your current passport, and residence in Argentina is not required to obtain citizenship under the programme. The passport does not confer the right to live and work in the EU, but for business and personal travel to Europe it is a full substitute for a Schengen visa.

Legal basis

The programme is based on two legal acts. Decree 366/2025 amended Citizenship Law No. 346: foreign nationals who, regardless of the length of their residence, demonstrate a significant investment in the country become citizens by naturalisation. The procedure was set out in detail in Decree 524/2025 of 31 July 2025.

Under the standard procedure, Argentina requires at least two years of continuous legal residence for naturalisation, but where an investment has been approved, this requirement is waived.

Options and cost

The main applicant chooses one of two options: a non-refundable contribution of USD 350,000 to the National Treasury or the purchase of a government bond worth USD 800,000 issued specifically for the programme.

Family members apply together with the main applicant, with a separate contribution. For a spouse and for children aged 18 to 25 who are unmarried and have no children of their own, the contribution is USD 100,000 each; for children under 18, it is USD 25,000. As a result, a family consisting of the main applicant, a spouse and two minor children will be able to obtain citizenship for a total of USD 500,000. All funds must pass through the formal financial system in compliance with anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing requirements.

How the application is reviewed

The application is submitted to the Agency for Citizenship by Investment Programmes under the Ministry of Economy. The Agency engages the intelligence service (SIDE), Argentina’s financial intelligence unit (UIF, the equivalent of an FIU), and the Ministry of Security and the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the review. The Government states that the standards of due diligence, financial transparency and risk management will comply with the recommendations of the OECD and the FATF.

The review covers the applicant’s identity, the traceability and lawfulness of the origin of funds, assets and finances, jurisdictional risk, criminal records and reputation, as well as immigration history. Following the review, the Agency sends a recommendation to the National Migration Service, which takes the final decision. Under Decree 524/2025, it has 30 working days to do so from receipt of the Agency’s report.

Are there restrictions for citizens of any particular countries?

There is no direct prohibition. Neither Law No. 346, nor Decree 524/2025, nor the official announcement of the programme restricts the range of applicants by nationality.

The key point lies not in a list of countries but in the procedure itself. Under Decree 524/2025, the Agency requests opinions from the security, financial intelligence and intelligence agencies to ensure that the grant of citizenship ‘no represente un riesgo para la seguridad o los intereses nacionales’ – does not pose a risk to security or national interests. The criteria for this assessment have not been published, and the official announcement expressly lists the assessment of jurisdictional risk among the stages of the review. In other words, a dossier may be deemed unreliable at the discretion of the authorities, and it is impossible to influence this part of the process in advance.

What does depend on the applicant is how their dossier looks. We recommend that the dossier provide for the possibility of making the investment from banks other than those of countries regarded as sanctioned or high-risk.

The programme has not yet accepted a single application, and the secondary legislation setting out the review procedure has not been published. It makes sense to consider the programme now, but with the understanding that the first decisions and the actual criteria will only become clear once applications open in the fourth quarter of 2026.

Our advice is to wait for the regulations to be published – this is expected around December 2026. Once the application procedure and review criteria are known, we will analyse whether your particular case fits the programme. At REVERA, we offer clients only those options that actually work, and we do not take on programmes until we ourselves are confident of how they are applied in practice.

The post Argentine citizenship by investment: the essence of the programme and what you need to know appeared first on revera.legal.

Now the news on this topic comes out almost every week, and most of it is about the same thing: fraudulent schemes, criminal cases, cancelled passports and new exams. Countries that issued passports to descendants for decades have started tightening the rules. Some are introducing language requirements, some demand residence in the country, and some are discussing whether to remove the programme altogether.

Below, we look at what is happening in Romania, Moldova and Armenia, and why we believe it is not worth delaying if you have ancestry.

Romania: even the very possibility for descendants is in question

Article 11 of Romania’s Citizenship Law No. 21/1991 allows citizenship to be restored not only to former citizens, but also to their descendants up to the third degree of kinship, including people from present-day Moldova and parts of Ukraine. This mechanism became the basis for widespread abuse: in recent years citizenship was obtained on a mass scale through fake family histories, fictitious registration and forged citizenship certificates. Romania’s General Prosecutor’s Office is investigating citizens who used forged documents, and some unlawfully issued passports have already been cancelled.

On 15 September 2026, Bill B509/2026 was introduced in the Senate. It excludes descendants from the circle of persons entitled to restore citizenship. The simplified procedure would remain only for those who personally held Romanian citizenship and lost it. Everyone else would have to look for other grounds, while the general naturalisation procedure usually requires long-term residence in the country. In the explanatory note, the authors refer to the volume of applications, the difficulty of verifying documents across several generations and investigations into document forgery.

The bill contains no transitional provisions, so it is unclear under which rules already filed applications will be examined. The bill is still at an early stage and may change, but the direction is clear: Romania is moving from reviewing individual cases to reconsidering the very basis for acquiring citizenship.

Moldova: everyone now has to sit the exam

Moldova took a different path and did not close the programme, but it removed the simplified regime for descendants. Since 24 December 2025, a new citizenship law has been in force: an exam in the Romanian language and the Constitution is mandatory even for those applying by descent or for restoration, although they previously benefited from a simplified procedure. Applications may now be filed only in person, intermediaries have been removed from the process, and the vetting of applicants has become more thorough.

The reason is familiar. According to parliament, around 100 attempts to obtain citizenship using forged documents or documents of unknown origin were identified in the country.

The exam is manageable if you prepare systematically. But it is no longer a formality; it is a separate stage for which time and effort need to be planned.

Armenia: for now, it is still possible without the language

Against this background, Armenia currently looks like one of the most accessible options. Ethnic Armenians are exempt from the requirement to know the Armenian language, to have lived in the country for three years and to pass a Constitution test. Ancestry may be confirmed through oneself, a parent, a grandmother or a grandfather.

But the trend here is the same. On 10 September 2026, Armenia’s Ministry of Internal Affairs published a bill that changes the rules for the diaspora. For ethnic Armenians, it proposes at least two years of lawful residence and a minimum of 366 days of actual presence in the country, while ancestry would be confirmed by a special commission of the Ministry. The oath would be taken only in Armenia, and the state duty would increase fivefold, from 50,000 to 250,000 drams.

The motives are the same as in neighbouring countries. In 2025, more than 32,000 citizenship applications were filed in Armenia, a historic high, and the Ministry directly links that growth to applications from ethnic Armenians from Russia, who often seek a passport primarily for travel.

There is some good news in the transitional period. If the amendments are adopted in their current form, they will enter into force on 1 January 2028, and applications filed before that date will be examined under the old rules. In other words, there is still time to apply without the language and without relocation. How much time remains in practice depends on how quickly the bill passes parliament.

What follows from this?

The logic is the same everywhere. Ancestry-based programmes are not closed in a single day, but every wave of fraud adds a new barrier: an exam, mandatory residence, personal filing, a commission on ancestry. And in Romania’s case, even the very possibility for descendants is already in question.

Those who apply before the changes usually proceed under the old rules. Those who delay get the new ones. Yet the Romanian bill shows that even this is not a guarantee: if there are no transitional provisions, already filed cases may also fall under the new rules.

That is why, if you truly have ancestry, we do not see much sense in waiting. Searching for archival documents by itself takes months, and starting only after the law changes means almost certainly falling under the new requirements.

A separate note on “ancestry turnkey” offers. If you do not have genuine grounds, but someone promises you a passport in a couple of months and “documents for an ancestor”, that is not a service — it is participation in a scheme. The consequences can catch up with you even years later, up to cancellation of citizenship and criminal prosecution, and the Romanian story shows this very clearly.

And if there is no ancestry?

Then a second option may be citizenship by investment. The logic is different here: the criteria are set out in the law, the amount is known in advance, and the review concerns the origin of funds rather than archives that are a century old.

There are enough options on the market: Turkey, Vanuatu, São Tomé and Príncipe, the Caribbean countries, and Argentina may soon join them. But each programme has its own entry threshold, timeframes and restrictions, including those related to the applicant’s citizenship, so there is no universal solution.

Which route is right for you depends on your family history, citizenship and budget. Write to us: we will check whether you have real grounds for citizenship by ancestry, assess your documents, and if there is no ancestry, we will select an investment programme that truly works for your passport.

The post Citizenship by Ancestry: The Window Is Closing appeared first on revera.legal.

Project team: Kamal Tserakhau, Hleb Shumilau, Stanislau Tarmola

Case summary

Short single-word .com domains are almost impossible to find unregistered today. On the secondary market they sell for tens of thousands of US dollars, and for a brand that lives online its domain eventually does the job a high-street address does for a traditional business.

The client bought such a domain on an open marketplace in January 2019. The company that later filed the complaint did not exist yet, and neither did its trade mark. Over the following years the client built its own brand on the name and registered a trade mark for it.

The Arbitration & IT Disputes team of REVERA law group represented the domain holder in UDRP proceedings. The complaint came from a company in a different industry, which registered a trade mark identical to the domain name only in 2023.

The complainant was convinced the domain had changed hands only recently. It relied on technical changes that came with the launch of the client's project in 2025: the domain moved to new name servers and hosting, and then a launch page appeared on it. From this the complainant inferred both bad-faith registration and an intent to trade on its reputation, and it portrayed the client's business as a threat to its own brand.

The stakes in such a dispute are high. UDRP moves fast: once a panel orders a transfer, the registrar implements it after ten business days, and only a court action can stop that. A premium domain that has passed to another holder is almost impossible to recover in practice.

Losing would have cost the client the address its traffic and customer base are tied to, along with the money spent on the launch and marketing. The client would also have had to rebuild, almost from scratch, a brand the market already knows by that name.

Actions taken by the REVERA law group team

From the outset we knew the case would turn on the date the client bought the domain, and that we would have to prove that date with documents. So our first step was to reconstruct the domain's ownership history from the purchase onwards. The panel itself later called the acquisition date the key factual dispute in the case.

Our response included the marketplace's purchase confirmation dated 15 January 2019 and the registrar's record showing that the domain was added to the client's account the next day. Around the same time the client had bought several other domains built on the same word, and the panel treated this as further support for the date. The documents showed that the domain had passed to the client long before the complainant company existed, let alone filed its trade mark applications. The 2025 technical changes on which the complaint rested reflected the preparation and launch of the client's project, and the owner stayed the same throughout. Some of the evidence in our favour came from the complainant's own filing: the DomainTools report it attached recorded a change of registrar in January 2019 and included an October 2021 capture stating that the domain was no longer for sale.

The second line of defence concerned how the client uses the domain. It runs a licensed business under its own registered trade mark, does not imitate the complainant's product and never refers to it. Two companies in different industries share a name, and that coincidence alone does not make the use bad faith.

The response had to be prepared within the tight UDRP timetable: the rules allow 20 calendar days, and we obtained four more on request. We built the position on settled WIPO practice for domains acquired before a complainant's rights arose. In such cases panels do not normally find bad-faith registration unless the domain was bought in anticipation of the future mark (section 3.8.1 of WIPO Overview 3.1).

Outcome

The WIPO panel denied the complaint. It found that the client acquired the domain on 15 January 2019, before the complainant was incorporated, before it first used the name and before it filed its trade mark applications. In 2019 the client could not have targeted rights that did not yet exist, so the registration was not in bad faith. The panel held that using the domain for a licensed business under the client's own mark is a bona fide offering of services: the complainant had not made even a prima facie case to the contrary, and the client's UK trade mark is presumed valid unless shown otherwise.

The panel also rejected the tarnishment argument: a lawful business does not tarnish another's brand, even if the complainant disapproves of it. Nor did it accept the point about the privacy service, which is not in itself evidence of bad faith, especially as the operator's contact details are published on the website.

The decision was issued six weeks after the proceedings formally commenced, and the client's business operated as usual throughout.

Project highlights

The UDRP was designed to protect rights holders against cybersquatting, and WIPO statistics show year after year that the overwhelming majority of decided cases end with the domain being transferred to the complainant. Holders of premium domains therefore keep them comparatively rarely, and a complaint that fails on two of the three UDRP elements at once is rarer still.

The complainant did hold a trade mark and met the first UDRP element without difficulty. What decided the case was that the client's rights in the domain predated the complainant's trade mark rights, and that the client could prove it with documents.

The decision reaffirms two rules worth remembering for anyone who owns domains. Under the UDRP, what counts is the date on which the current holder acquired the domain, and the date of its original registration (2016 in this case) settles nothing on its own. Changes to name servers, hosting or website content do not, by themselves, prove that the domain has a new owner either.

For online businesses the practical conclusion is simple: a domain bought legitimately and used in good faith can be defended even against the owner of a registered trade mark, provided the holder's rights came first.

What brand owners should keep in mind

Keep the records of your domain purchases. The transaction confirmation and correspondence with the marketplace are worth keeping for years, together with registrar records. In this case the decisive evidence was a purchase confirmation more than seven years old.

Register your trade mark before your brand becomes visible. The panel treated the client's UK registration as valid, which helped show good-faith use of the domain. The earlier you file, the fewer grounds a future complainant has to portray you as a bad-faith acquirer.

Respond to demand letters on the merits. A chronology disclosed in good time often stops a dispute before a complaint is filed and spares both sides the time and cost of proceedings.

Bring in counsel from day one of the proceedings. The UDRP rules give 20 calendar days for a response (plus four more on request), and panels accept further submissions only at their discretion. In practice the response is the only chance to persuade the panel.

Why clients choose REVERA

The Arbitration & IT Disputes practice of REVERA law group has handled domain name disputes systematically for several years. Since the beginning of 2026, REVERA lawyers have represented clients in more than 100 proceedings, and 95% of them ended with the transfer or cancellation of domain names that infringed the clients' intellectual property rights.

We act on both sides of the dispute. Most often we represent rights holders recovering domains from cybersquatters, so we know which evidence persuades panels and where complaints usually fall short. That experience helps us find the weak points in an opponent's complaint and build a defence for the domain holder, as in the case described here.

The team also handles complex matters involving several domains and respondents. In one such case we consolidated ten domains held by several respondents into a single UDRP proceeding and secured the transfer of all ten to the client. The proceeding also helped identify who was behind the infringement, which gave the client a basis for a damages claim.

The team has collected this experience in REVERA's guide to the UDRP procedure, whose co-authors include the authors of this case study. The guide covers the timeframes and cost of proceedings, consolidating several domains in one complaint, and what to do after a denial.

We handle the whole case: we assess the prospects, gather evidence, represent the client before WIPO and see the decision through to implementation. If one procedure is not enough, we add pre-action correspondence and trade mark challenges before the EUIPO and national offices, and go to court in different jurisdictions where needed. Our clients include IT and e-commerce brands and game and app developers, for whom a domain is among the most valuable business assets.

Authors: Kamal Tserakhau, Hleb Shumilau, Stanislau Tarmola.

REVERA law group handles UDRP domain name disputes and brand protection online, from assessing the prospects of a case to representing clients before WIPO.

The post UDRP dispute over a premium .com domain: how REVERA defended its client’s domain appeared first on revera.legal.

Company registration: up to two weeks

Setting up a company takes from two weeks if the documents are prepared promptly and may take up to a month if data collection proceeds more slowly. The procedure is entirely online: the REVERA team selects the registered address, and the signing of the constitutional documents is confirmed via video call. The applicant needs to provide personal data and the parameters of the future company: a scan of their passport, city of birth, mother’s first name and surname (if not stated in the passport), the company name, which is checked for matches with existing names, the type of activity and the amount of share capital – from HUF 3,000,000 (approximately EUR 8,150). If there are two founders, for example spouses, both immediately become both founders and directors, without any additional procedures.

A curious detail of Hungarian bureaucracy: almost all registers, from company registration to bank forms, require not only the applicant’s name but also their mother’s first name and surname.

Residence permit documents: prepared in parallel with the company

The residence permit package can be put together at the same time as the business is being registered, which saves around a month. The client needs to provide existing contracts with partners, including those re-signed with the new Hungarian company, or letters of intent to cooperate – if there is no contract yet, current counterparties can be asked to sign such a letter. In addition, information on businesses already in operation is required, as well as a bank statement for the last three months issued no earlier than 30 days before submission. Meanwhile, we prepare a business plan based on the client’s business experience, proof of accommodation in Hungary, an insurance policy and a power of attorney for submission.

For approval, it is important to demonstrate financial solvency: monthly receipts to a personal account of at least EUR 3,000 over three months and account balances of at least EUR 30,000 per applicant. The source of these funds may be salary, dividends or interest on deposits – total personal income is taken into account, not just a single source. If you have a non-standard income or turnover structure, we analyse such cases individually, but the minimum personal income of EUR 3,000 per person is a requirement that does not change. If the company already has turnover on its corporate accounts, this can be added to the business plan as evidence of genuine activity in other jurisdictions.

Submission and receipt of the card: up to four months from the start

Documents for the company and the residence permit are submitted at the Hungarian consulate in your country, usually in a single session, and biometric data is taken at the time of submission. The review takes from one and a half to three months, around two months on average. Once approved, the residence permit card is produced by the immigration service in Budapest and arrives at the office in Hungary within two to three weeks – it is not forwarded to your country. There are two ways to collect the card: in person, or by issuing a power of attorney, in which case the REVERA team will collect it. There is no need to travel to Hungary separately for biometrics: the entire process, including fingerprinting, takes place at the consulate in your country. If you plan to enter in person, it is important to do so within the first three months of validity of the D visa issued by the embassy after approval – this is a separate requirement, unrelated to who collects the card itself.

Taking all the stages together, the realistic timeframe from the start of company registration to having the residence permit card in hand is up to four months, while the company itself and the account are already in place within the first month.

What a company in Hungary offers: taxes and banks

Hungary is one of the most tax-efficient jurisdictions in the European Union. Three reference points that matter for business planning:

• corporate profit tax (TAO) – 9%, the lowest corporate tax rate in the EU
• VAT – 27%, but reduced rates of 18% and 5% apply to certain categories of goods and services, and companies with a small turnover are exempt from VAT up to a threshold of HUF 20,000,000 (EUR 54,920) per year
• small businesses may opt for the alternative KIVA regime with a 10% rate on a simplified tax base instead of the standard corporate profit tax

Banking is usually straightforward: personal and corporate accounts with Wise are opened immediately after the residence permit is obtained, and accounts with traditional banks are also available, although the process takes longer and may require proof of the source of funds.

Turnkey support

The client does not need to deal with local procedures in Hungary on their own – the REVERA team handles the entire process, including presence in Budapest. We find office premises for rent to suit the needs of the business, deal with related organisational matters and handle communication with local authorities at all stages, from company registration to receipt of the residence permit card. Once the business has been set up, there is no need to look for an accountant separately: we provide a specialist who maintains the company’s reporting on an ongoing basis, so the client receives not a one-off registration but a working structure with ongoing support.

One solution – three objectives

This arrangement is particularly convenient when several objectives need to be achieved with a single action.

Firstly, if a European company is needed anyway to work with foreign clients, the Hungarian jurisdiction provides a practical business tool.

Secondly, the same company becomes a legal ground for remaining in the EU with resident status, and not only for one applicant but for each of the founders. If the company is set up for two people, for example spouses, both immediately become both founders and directors – and each receives their own residence permit card on this basis, without a separate procedure for the second family member.

Thirdly, a Hungarian company is entitled to hire employees, and as the business grows, residence permits can be obtained for the future team on the same basis – without having to look for a separate legal structure for each new person.

How to start

If you are considering a company and a residence permit in Hungary for yourself, a partner or your team, get in touch – we will look at your specific case and advise you on where to start. You can write to us at y.zadesenskaya@revera.legal.

The post A company in Hungary for non-EU citizens appeared first on revera.legal.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has approved the GBP 260 million (about USD 350 million) settlement between Google and the class of UK app developers. The approval hearing in case 1673/7/7/24, Professor Barry Rodger v Alphabet Inc and Others, was listed for 15 September with one day in reserve, and the approval became public on 16 September 2026. We covered the terms in our earlier alert, while the deal was still waiting for the tribunal’s review. It now binds every class member who has not opted out.

The split is unchanged. GBP 160 million goes into the compensation pot for developers, and GBP 100 million is set aside for the third-party funder (Bench Walk Advisors), the after-the-event insurers and the legal team. Google made no admission of liability. Class representative Professor Barry Rodger called the outcome historic and said it is the largest payout approved by the tribunal in the 11 years of the UK collective competition regime. By comparison, the Merricks v Mastercard settlement approved in May 2025 was GBP 200 million.

What the tribunal actually decided

Approval is a narrow exercise. The tribunal asks whether the terms are just and reasonable and controls how the money is distributed. The GBP 100 million for costs was only what the parties proposed. Under the funding agreement, the funder’s return cannot exceed the share of proceeds the tribunal approves, and that return was stepped: one times the capital outlay for the first 18 months, twice after that, and four times from the first day of a liability trial. The deal came about a month before the trial listed for 28 September, so the top step never applied. Whether Google’s commission was excessive, or its limits on other distribution channels unlawful, is a question this case will no longer answer.

Class arithmetic helps set expectations. Case materials put the class at roughly 2,200 UK developers, of whom 1,520 to 1,672 (70 to 77 percent) are estimated to have lost less than GBP 10,000. The aggregate claim was valued at GBP 374 million to 859 million before interest, and at GBP 425 million to 1.036 billion with compound interest. The GBP 160 million pot is therefore about 15 percent of the top valuation and about 43 percent of the lowest pre-interest figure.

Google’s attempt to reshape the class

The last six months of the case help explain why it ended in a payment. On 27 February 2026, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Evans v Barclays Bank [2025] UKSC 48, Google applied to move the highest-value developers onto an opt-in basis while the rest of the class stayed opt-out. The application first targeted the 25 largest claimants and was later cut back to five. The tribunal refused it on 4 June 2026, with reasons given in [2026] CAT 49. The concentration of claim value was already known at certification, and carving out the largest claimants risked the collapse of the funding and, with it, the proceedings.

On 10 June Google wrote to 17 of the 25 largest class members, 13 of them outside working hours, asking for a substantive response by 5pm the next day. On 12 June it filed 17 disclosure applications. Hodge Malek KC granted a narrowed application on 9 July ([2026] CAT 58) but recorded that such applications are not to be treated as routine and must not encourage class members to opt out. DAZN Group Limited opted out anyway, and other opt-out requests followed. Any company that may sit inside a class suing a platform should take note: a defendant can obtain disclosure from individual class members even in opt-out proceedings.

What this means for developers

Being in the class does not mean being paid automatically, a point we made when the deal was announced. Money will go to developers who submit a valid claim through the claims administrator, Angeion, so it is worth watching for class notices and filing within the deadline set for distribution.

Press coverage tends to describe the class period loosely. It starts in August 2018 (the tribunal’s documents give both 22 and 23 August) and, after an extension, ends on 31 July 2026 rather than on the claim date of 23 August 2024. Developers whose first qualifying sale fell between 23 August 2024 and 31 July 2026 have a separate domicile date of 31 July 2026. Their deadline to opt out was 4pm on 14 September 2026 and has now passed.

Each developer’s payout depends on its qualifying sales on Google Play during the class period. A claim is easier to support when revenue and withheld commission data have been reconstructed and documented for every year.

What comes next

The settlement resolves developer claims only. A parallel collective action for UK Android users, brought by Elizabeth Coll, covers about 20 million consumers and is valued at around GBP 1 billion. According to the class representative’s team, the trial starts on 5 October 2026 and is due to finish in December. Its class period runs from 1 October 2015 to 31 July 2026, so it targets the same commissions, looked at through pass-on to consumers. The tribunal had originally listed both cases for a joint trial from 28 September.

The Apple case also continues, and our earlier alert covers it in detail. On 23 October 2025 the same tribunal, in Dr Rachael Kent’s claim, held that Apple’s 30 percent App Store commission was an excessive and unfair price ([2025] CAT 67), putting class damages at around GBP 1.5 billion. The CAT refused Apple permission to appeal, and Apple turned to the Court of Appeal, which has listed a rolled-up hearing in a window between 2 November 2026 and 24 March 2027 to decide permission and the appeal together.

Claims against Google are also moving beyond app stores. On 5 August 2026 the tribunal certified on an opt-out basis a claim of around GBP 5 billion brought by Or Brook Class Representative Limited for some 880,000 UK advertisers that paid for Google search ads between 2011 and 2025. Here, too, the tribunal rejected Google’s push for opt-in.

Practical takeaways

A GBP 260 million settlement against a top valuation of about GBP 1 billion shows how far the pleaded figure can sit from the actual recovery. The valuation in a claim form works better as an opening position in negotiations than as a forecast of what class members will receive.

The parties set aside up to GBP 100 million, about 38 percent of the settlement, for funding and litigation costs, and the tribunal controls the final share. That ratio is a useful benchmark when deciding whether joining collective proceedings, or bringing your own claim, makes economic sense.

Google settled about a month before trial, so the case contains no findings on the market or on the level of the commission. Developers looking for judicial findings to rely on in other disputes will get more from the Kent v Apple judgment, which analyses the market and the commission in detail. That judgment is under appeal, though, and has no binding force outside the UK.

The class period runs to July 2026 and takes in years when Google had already changed its rates: from July 2021 it cut the fee to 15 percent on a developer’s first USD 1 million of annual revenue. Lower rates going forward do not close off claims for earlier periods.

How REVERA can help

The Arbitration & IT Disputes practice at REVERA Law Group can check whether your company falls within the class definition, prepare the claim and document the amount. We can also assess your position in other collective proceedings against platforms and review your distribution and monetisation terms on Google Play and the App Store.

The post UK tribunal approves Google’s GBP 260 million settlement with app developers, closing the case without a ruling on the merits appeared first on revera.legal.

How the situation developed

In her State of the Union address of 10 September 2025, Ms von der Leyen said she was following Australia’s under-16 social media ban and announced an expert panel to advise on the EU approach. The Special Panel on Child Safety Online published its report on 13 July 2026. It recommended an EU-wide restriction for children under 13 until services show they are safe by design, with staged use by age: no screens under three, supervised use from 3 to 12 and growing autonomy from 13 to 18. The panel also wanted games and AI chatbots covered alongside social media, and left member states free to set a higher age.

The European Parliament had gone further. In its resolution of 26 November 2025, adopted by 483 votes to 92 with 86 abstentions, it called for an EU-wide digital minimum age of 16 for social media, video-sharing platforms and AI companions, with access from 13 allowed with parental consent and 13 as the absolute floor. MEPs also asked for a ban on engagement-based recommender systems and the most harmful addictive practices for minors, and wanted the future Digital Fairness Act to deal with dark patterns and persuasive design.

The technical groundwork started in July 2025, when the Commission released the first version of its open-source age-verification blueprint, piloted by Denmark, France, Greece, Italy and Spain. Zero-knowledge proofs came in later versions, so a platform receives only confirmation that the user has reached the required age. In April 2026 the Commission declared the app technically ready, and its Recommendation of 29 April 2026 asks every member state to offer at least one such solution by 31 December 2026, either as a stand-alone app or inside the European Digital Identity Wallet.

Member states have not waited for Brussels. On 14 August 2026, France’s Conseil constitutionnel, in Decision No. 2026-911 DC, struck down the blanket under-15 ban in Article 1 of the law adopted on 21 July. The Council held that the ban was not necessary, appropriate and proportionate as a limit on freedom of expression, and it found no legal safeguards for the age checks the ban required. Paris has since prepared a narrower text, reported to bar children under 13 and let 13- to 15-year-olds in with parental consent, and President Macron is now pressing for an EU-wide rule. Denmark sent its under-15 bill to consultation in September 2026 with a planned start on 1 July 2027. Austria is consulting on an under-14 limit, Greece has announced an under-15 ban from 1 January 2027, and Spain’s under-16 bill is still in parliament. Italy, Slovenia and Poland are at earlier stages, while a German expert commission recommended 13 in June 2026. On 11 September 2026, the Netherlands and Spain circulated a joint proposal for a harmonized EU minimum age that would also cover games and AI chatbots.

The Commission has used the notification procedure under Directive (EU) 2015/1535 to question several of these national measures, and the prospect of 27 different regimes is one of the main arguments for an EU act.

Outside the EU, Australia’s under-16 ban has applied since 10 December 2025, and by mid-January 2026 more than 4.7 million accounts had been deactivated, removed or restricted. Norway plans to let children join social media from 1 January of the year they turn 16. In the United States, Meta agreed on 26 August 2026 to settle claims brought by 51 attorneys general, including those of 47 states, over allegedly addictive design. The settlement is worth up to USD 17.1 billion over ten years, of which about USD 12.1 billion is guaranteed and the rest depends on other platforms accepting similar terms. Meta denies the allegations.

What the draft proposes

Scope. According to the leaked drafts, the act would cover social media, video-sharing platforms, AI chatbots and companions, and online games that pose risks to children. Education services, services run by public authorities and AI tools for office or industrial use are reported to be excluded.

Tiered access. There would be no access below the age of three. Children aged 3 to 12 could use only child-friendly services through parent-controlled accounts. At 13 and 14, parents could open “introductory” accounts with limited contacts, time limits and parental controls, and from 15 teenagers could hold their own accounts, still protected by the safe-by-design rules until 18. The top threshold remains disputed. The expert panel proposed 13, France and Greece favor 15, and Spain and the European Parliament have backed 16. Estonia opposes access bans and wants platform obligations enforced instead. Belgium, the only other member state that did not sign the October 2025 Jutland Declaration, objected to the proportionality of age verification, although the Flemish government has since set its own minimum age of 13.

Safe by design. The drafts would prohibit infinite scroll, streaks, artificial notifications and certain reward mechanics for minors, require recommender systems that do not lead children into “rabbit holes”, make minors’ accounts private by default and block contact from unknown users. The largest platforms would reportedly need the Commission’s approval before launching new features that could affect children. All of this would come on top of Article 28 of the DSA, which already prohibits advertising based on profiling to users known to be minors.

Age verification. Services would check age when an account is opened and, for games, at the point of download from an app store. The accepted tools are reported to be the EU app, national solutions and equivalent public tools such as digital identity wallets, all of which confirm age without revealing other data. Existing accounts would be checked proportionately. The leaked texts do not list commercial facial age estimation or ID uploads among the accepted methods.

Enforcement and fees. Reuters quotes the draft as providing for “a supervisory fee to fund regulators’ enforcement and supervision”. Press reports describe a DSA-style split, with the Commission supervising the largest platforms and national authorities handling the rest. If the fee copies the DSA model, the drafters will have to take into account the General Court’s judgments of 10 September 2025 in T-55/24 Meta and T-58/24 TikTok, which annulled the Commission’s DSA fee decisions because the calculation method should have been laid down in a delegated act.

Legislative status. The text published on 17 September will be a proposal, not law in force. It must pass the ordinary legislative procedure in Parliament and the Council, where Ireland holds the presidency until the end of 2026. The legal form (regulation or directive), the legal basis and the transition periods have not been confirmed, and adoption before 2027 looks unlikely.

Open questions and pushback

Four points will decide how much the proposal changes in practice: the final age threshold, the balance between access limits and design duties, whether age checks sit with each service or with app stores and operating systems (the approach Meta has backed since 2025), and what the act adds to the Commission’s pending DSA cases against Meta and TikTok.

Civil society is split. EDRi and more than 130 other organizations oppose access bans, and EDRi argues that age verification should not be built at all. Its fallback position is that, if age gates come, the zero-knowledge-proof model should be mandatory for national versions of the app rather than merely recommended. The app’s security has also been questioned. In April 2026, security researcher Paul Moore bypassed the demo version in under two minutes; the Commission answered that it was still a demo.

Regulatory context

The proposal builds on Article 28 of the DSA and the Guidelines on the protection of minors of 14 July 2025. The guidelines are non-binding, but the Commission already uses them as its enforcement benchmark. In 2026 it issued preliminary findings against TikTok on addictive design (6 February) and on minors’ default settings (24 July), against Pornhub, Stripchat, XNXX and XVideos for failing to keep minors away from adult content (26 March), against Meta for not keeping under-13s off Instagram and Facebook (29 April) and against Meta again on addictive design (10 July). It also opened formal proceedings against Snapchat on 26 March. None of these cases has yet ended in a non-compliance decision, which can carry a fine of up to 6% of worldwide annual turnover.

On 31 August 2026, the Commission designated ChatGPT as a very large online search engine and Roblox and Reddit as very large online platforms, so AI chatbots and games are already moving into the DSA’s risk-assessment regime.

The new act will also have to be read with the GDPR, in particular the data minimization principle and the EDPB’s Statement 1/2025 on age assurance, and with the Digital Fairness Act, which the Commission plans to propose by the end of 2026 to tackle addictive design and dark patterns. How the two proposals will fit together is not yet clear. Until the Commission adopts its text, everything above rests on leaked drafts and press reports.

REVERA Recommendations

1. 1. Map which of your products (social networks, video-sharing features, AI chatbots and companions, games with chat or social functions) could fall within scope, and which age groups actually use them. Obligations will depend on the type of service and the age of its users.
2. 2. Review age-assurance options against the leaked text, which points to the EU app, national tools and public digital identity wallets rather than commercial facial scans or ID uploads. A proprietary tool built now may have to be replaced, and collecting more data than needed creates GDPR exposure.
3. 3. Audit features used by minors, such as infinite scroll, streaks, push notifications, autoplay and personalized recommendations, against the July 2025 Guidelines. The Commission is enforcing them under Article 28 of the DSA today, without waiting for the new act.
4. 4. If your launch plans rely on a national rule in France, Denmark, Austria, Greece or Spain, check how an EU act could replace or reshape it.
5. 5. Follow the legislative procedure instead of planning compliance around one draft. The age threshold, the split of enforcement powers and the fee are all still open.

REVERA’s Arbitration & IT Disputes practice has previously written on regulatory requirements for digital platforms, including the FTC action on deceptive subscriptions. We are ready to assess your company’s risks under the EU Kids Act and review your products and data flows against the DSA and the GDPR

The post EU Kids Act: European Commission Set to Propose Limits on Minors’ Access to Social Media, AI Companions and Games appeared first on revera.legal.

As part of the official visit of the Deputy Chairman of the PRC Han Zheng to Belarus on June 6, 2026, the Belarus–China Forum on Industrial and Investment Cooperation was held.

Participation in the forum marked a natural stage in REVERA’s systematic development of expertise in legal support of Chinese investment projects implemented within the framework of international initiatives (see link to article to be inserted below).

Supporting such a high-level dialogue confirms REVERA’s status as a reliable bridge for business between the two countries.

REVERA’s Expertise in Advising on Chinese Projects

In a previous article, we analyzed the key provisions of the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Belarus and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on trade in services and investment.

In this article, we demonstrate REVERA’s real practice in supporting Chinese companies as our clients.

Rule-making: general and individual

REVERA lawyers were part of the working group developing investment legislation at the Ministry of Economy of Belarus. They analyzed Belarusian and foreign law, WTO regulations, participated in drafting a Presidential Decree regulating benefits and preferences for the China–Belarus Industrial Park “Great Stone,” and contributed to amendments aimed at improving it.

Their understanding of the regulatory framework allowed REVERA to support more than 10 companies in obtaining resident status in the “Great Stone” park and to assist them in project implementation.

Many investment projects require targeted incentives to ensure successful execution, faster production launch, and return on investment. REVERA has prepared a number of individual legal acts granting benefits and preferences to Chinese investors.

Construction and investment

Construction projects represent one of the most intensive areas of cooperation with Chinese companies.

This includes corporate structuring, contract law, FIDIC contracts, land issues, permits, disputes with counterparties., contractors, and suppliers.

For a Chinese state construction corporation, REVERA prepared a legal opinion on issues arising during the construction of the surface complex of the Nezhinsky mining and processing plant (potash fertilizers).

The firm also supported the same client in the construction of the BELGEE automobile plant (a localized production of Geely vehicles in Belarus), advising on contracts, regulatory compliance, and coordination with government authorities.

Legal support was also provided to Chinese state-owned companies engaged in the construction of boiler plants (financed by the IBRD under FIDIC contracts), as well as hydro and infrastructure projects under PowerChina, and engineering companies involved in land acquisition and industrial construction.

Corporate law

REVERA advised on labor and migration law, developed HR documentation for Chinese state conglomerates, and analyzed preferential regimes in different free economic zones.

Projects included large Belarus–China joint ventures in biotechnology, agrochemicals, feed production, and industrial manufacturing.

The firm also supported creation of joint ventures between Chinese machinery producers and Belarusian state enterprises.

Banking, finance and sanctions compliance

REVERA acted as local legal counsel for Chinese banks in financing industrial projects, prepared credit documentation, conducted due diligence, and advised on Belarusian law.

One notable case involved structuring a transaction for a Chinese holding company under sanctions-related risks, enabling full project implementation while minimizing exposure.

The firm also analyzed credit agreements for major Chinese development banks financing infrastructure projects.

Technology, telecom and e-commerce

REVERA advised Chinese telecom corporations on disputes with counterparties.

It also supported a Chinese online platform in assessing Belarusian regulation of advertising, e-commerce, payment systems, consumer protection, and taxation.

Additional consulting was provided to Chinese digital media and social networking companies entering the Belarusian market.

Dispute resolution and IP protection

REVERA represented Chinese manufacturers in Belarusian courts in commercial disputes involving the CISG (Vienna Convention), achieving full recovery of payments and costs.

The firm also handled arbitration cases in ICAC at the Belarusian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, CIETAC, SIAC, and other arbitration institutions.

It successfully resolved domain disputes (.BY domains) and supported debt recovery across the post-Soviet region.

Regulatory compliance and ongoing support

REVERA provides full-cycle legal support (“one-stop-shop”) to major Chinese companies and banks operating in Belarus and other Eurasian countries.

This includes corporate, regulatory, labor, tax, land, sanctions compliance, IP protection, and dispute resolution services.
The firm emphasizes continuous legal support for large-scale infrastructure and investment projects.

Conclusion

Author: Sergey Suschenya.

For cooperation inquiries, please contact us info@revera.legal or PR _revera@revera.legal

The post REVERA Law Group’s Experience in Providing Legal Support for China-Related Projects appeared first on revera.legal.

Despite faster development and reduced costs, it is a mistake to view open-source as software without legal restrictions. On the contrary, the use of open-source code is always governed by a license that sets specific conditions for use, modification, and distribution. Failure to comply with these conditions may lead to legal disputes.

For example, in the United States case Jacobsen v. Katzer (Federal Circuit, 2008), the court confirmed that open-source license terms are legally binding, and their violation may constitute copyright infringement. In Germany, in the series of cases Welte v. D-Link, initiated by Harald Welte, courts repeatedly upheld the enforceability of GPL requirements and ordered cessation of distribution in case of license violations.

How to identify an open-source license

1) Check the repository

The first step is to review the hosting platform (e.g., GitHub), where the license type is usually displayed.

2) Check the LICENSE file

The main source of legal information is the LICENSE, COPYING, or similar file in the root directory of the project. It contains the legally binding license text.

3) Review project metadata

License information may also appear in configuration or build files such as package.json (JavaScript), pyproject.toml or setup.py (Python). However, these are secondary sources; the license text itself prevails.

4) Check licensing history

It is important to determine whether the license has changed over time and which version applies to the specific component being used.

Types of open-source licenses: 

• Open-source licenses are generally divided into two groups:
• permissive licenses
• copyleft licenses
• Copyleft licenses can further be classified into weak copyleft and strong copyleft.
• Permissive licenses – minimal restrictions
• Examples: MIT License, BSD License (2-Clause, 3-Clause), Apache License 2.0, ISC License.

These licenses allow use, modification, and distribution with minimal restrictions. Typically, the only obligations are preserving the license text and copyright notices.

From a business perspective, permissive licenses pose the lowest legal risk and rarely conflict with commercial models.

Weak copyleft licenses – limited restrictions

Copyleft licenses (both weak and strong) may impose obligations such as:

• disclosure of source code
• redistribution under the same license
• restrictions on proprietary use in certain cases
• Weak copyleft licenses apply these requirements only to the licensed component or its modifications, not necessarily to the entire product

For example, with LGPL libraries used via dynamic linking, a commercial application may remain closed-source, while modifications to the LGPL component itself must be released under the same license. MPL 2.0 is even more granular, applying copyleft obligations mainly at the file level.

Strong copyleft licenses – “viral” licenses
 

These licenses may require that derivative works be distributed under the same license, potentially affecting the entire product. This is the so-called “viral effect”: under certain integration models, use of GPL components may trigger an obligation to disclose the source code of the entire software product. AGPL extends these requirements to network use cases, including SaaS models.
Therefore, both weak and strong copyleft licenses require careful legal analysis before use.

How to minimize risks when using copyleft components

1) Isolate the component from the main product

For example, run it as a separate service with a defined interface, reducing the risk of the entire system being treated as a derivative work.

2) Avoid modifying copyleft components

Using components in their original form usually reduces compliance obligations.

3) Check for dual licensing options

Many projects offer dual licensing (copyleft + commercial or permissive option). In some cases, purchasing a commercial license is more cost-effective than managing compliance risks.

4) Consider alternatives

Before adopting a copyleft component, evaluate whether equivalent permissively licensed alternatives (MIT, Apache 2.0, BSD, etc.) exist.

Practical recommendations for Open-Source compliance

1) Open-source inventory

Companies should maintain an up-to-date register of all open-source components, including:
component name

• license and version
• usage type
• repository link
• compliance status

2) Regular audits

Periodic review of dependencies and licenses is essential, especially when updating or adding new tools.

Open-source is a critical part of modern software development, but its use requires the same structured approach as intellectual property, data protection, or cybersecurity management.

The key goal for businesses is not to avoid open-source, but to build a transparent license management system. Maintaining a component register, conducting regular audits, and ensuring compliance allows companies to benefit from open-source while minimizing legal risks.

The post Open-Source in Software Products: How to Use Without Legal Risks appeared first on revera.legal.

In this article, REVERA explains why the introduction of alternative iOS app distribution in another major jurisdiction is important and how this new framework may affect app developers and businesses in general.

What happened and why does it matter?

Apple’s App Store has historically been the sole gateway for distributing iOS applications worldwide, a model that has drawn sustained regulatory scrutiny across multiple jurisdictions. The European Union was the first major market to legally compel Apple to open iOS to alternative distribution channels through the Digital Markets Act (DMA), resulting in analogous changes introduced in the EU in early 2024. Brazil now follows a similar path, although through a different mechanism: a negotiated settlement with CADE rather than a legislative mandate.

The practical effect is largely the same as in the EU. As of iOS 26.5, developers with apps in Brazil may distribute those apps outside the App Store, operate their own app marketplaces, and process payments for digital goods and services through payment providers other than Apple’s built-in In-App Purchase system.

New options for developers

1.    Alternative App Distribution

Developers may now list their iOS apps on third-party marketplaces operating in Brazil, in addition to or instead of the App Store. To do so, they must register their apps in App Store Connect, provide their Developer ID to the chosen marketplace, and configure which apps are eligible for alternative distribution. Importantly, App Store features such as Apple In-App Purchase are not available when distributing through alternative channels, a point developers should factor into their product and commercial architecture.

2.    Operating an Alternative App Marketplace

Companies may also apply to operate their own iOS app marketplace in Brazil. This requires prior authorization from Apple, based on specific eligibility criteria and ongoing compliance obligations. Authorized marketplace operators gain access to dedicated APIs enabling them to receive notarized apps from other developers, manage user downloads and installations, handle backup and restore functionality, and integrate with relevant iOS system features.

3.    New Payment Options

Developers distributing on the App Store in Brazil now have access to alternative payment processing for digital goods and services. This means they may integrate third-party payment processors directly into their apps or direct users to external websites to complete purchases. However, Apple requires that wherever an alternative payment option is presented within an App Store app, Apple In-App Purchase must also be offered simultaneously.

Crucially, these alternatives come with revised commission structures. Apple will charge a 15% Store Services Commission, or 10% for small developers, on web-linked transactions, while traditional App Store distribution now carries a 21% base commission plus a 5% payment processing fee if Apple’s IAP is used.

The Cost of Alternative Distribution

Moving outside the App Store does not mean operating free of charge. Apps distributed through third-party marketplaces in Brazil will be subject to a 5% Core Technology Commission (CTC) on the sale of digital goods and services, including paid app purchases. Furthermore, direct downloading from the web, commonly referred to as sideloading, remains restricted. Alternative distribution is strictly tied to authorized third-party marketplaces.

Other Key Provisions

Notarization

All apps distributed outside the App Store must pass Apple’s Notarization, a baseline security and integrity check covering accuracy, functionality, security, and privacy. It is a lighter process than full App Store Review and does not enforce content or commerce policies. However, apps found to contain malware after installation can be remotely blocked.

Child safety requirements

Apps in the Kids category must gate alternative payment flows behind parental approval and may not offer out-of-app purchasing links. All other apps must support parental purchasing controls and obtain parental consent before offering alternative payment options to users under 18.

Agreement deadline

All current members of the Apple Developer Program must agree to the updated Apple Developer Program License Agreement by July 6, 2026. The agreement incorporates the new terms for Brazil-based distribution and payment options. The agreement must be accepted by the Account Holder of each developer membership. Failure to agree by the deadline may affect access to distribution tools and eligibility to use the new options.

REVERA Comments

Brazil’s move mirrors, yet does not fully replicate, the EU’s approach under the Digital Markets Act. In both cases, the outcome is a loosening of Apple’s exclusive control over app distribution on iOS. The mechanism in Brazil is a negotiated regulatory settlement rather than legislation imposing hard obligations, which gives the arrangement a somewhat different legal character.

Apple has embedded its own conditions within this opening. Notarization, marketplace authorization, financial reporting obligations, and child safety requirements are all Apple-imposed requirements rather than direct regulatory obligations.

This pattern, where regulators compel Apple to open its ecosystem while Apple determines the framework governing that opening, is likely to be repeated in other markets where competition authorities are examining platform gatekeeper power. Developers and entrepreneurs active across multiple jurisdictions should anticipate that the landscape will continue evolving, with different rules applying on a market-by-market basis.

The REVERA team supports technology companies, app developers, digital platforms, content providers, and businesses engaged in app distribution in navigating the evolving regulatory landscape.

The post Apple Introduces Alternative App Distribution on iOS for Brazil appeared first on revera.legal.