Unnecessary innovation: how to protect yourself from unfair actions of a developer

The competition is aimed at developing students' practical skills in the field of international trade law and international commercial arbitration – from preparing memoranda to participating in oral hearings on complex, practice-oriented cases.

A special moment: just a few years ago, Ilona herself was a participant in this very competition, and today she evaluates student performances in oral hearings.

At Arzinger, we are convinced that investing in young professionals is an investment in the future of the legal profession. Supporting educational initiatives and passing on practical experience to the next generation of lawyers is an integral part of our work.

We thank the competition organizers for their contribution to the development of the legal community and the participants for their impressive level of preparation!

On November 15, 2025, the Lepel City Sports and Recreation Center turned into a real arena of sporting passion!

The Republican Open Championship of the Lepel District in handball among girls born in 2015-2017, for the prizes of Arzinger Law Offices brought together the best youth teams from all over Belarus.

Young handball players from different parts of the country took to the court to prove that Belarusian women's handball has a brilliant future!

The championship opening ceremony was attended by Boris Pukhovskiy, a legend of Belarusian and world handball, and Sergey Mashonskiy, Senior Partner at Arzinger.

For Arzinger it is a great honor to support youth sports. We are confident: these investments are the most important investments a business can make. 

Whether we want to accept it or not, artificial intelligence plays a moreimportant role in our society than ever before. From medical diagnoses tofinancial decisions — AI systems increasingly take on tasks performed bypeople.

I. What Can AI Errors in Production Lead To?

• Employee/consumer data breaches;
• Manufacturing errors that harm consumers — for example, defective goods;
• Workplace injuries;
• Financial losses (due to equipment downtime or increased product defects);
• And others

II. Subjectsof Liability

EU Regulation — at the forefront, but with its difficulties

In the EU, artificial intelligence is regulated by Regulation (EU)2024/1689 of June 13, 2024, which adopted the AI Act. This is the world's first comprehensive regulatory act governing AI. At the same time, this document essentially omits issues of liability for errors made by AI in its work, which raises many questions. To develop this issue, the EU prepared a draft AI Liability Directive, which was supposed to provide various liability measures for damage caused by artificial intelligence. However, in February of this year, the directive was withdrawn. The reason stated was the following — interested parties could not agree; calls for simplification of regulation in the digital sector also had an influence.

Thus, in the EU at the moment, the main regulation of liability for AI errors is a general act — the EU Directive on Liability for Defective Products (hereinafter — the Directive). The main provisions of the Directive to pay attention to:

• The Directive applies to autonomous software, including AI systems, with some exceptions;
• The liability measure under the Directive is compensation for damage;
• Any person entitled to compensation may bring an action against: (i) the manufacturer of the defective product; and (ii) the manufacturer of the defective component — in certain cases. If the manufacturer is located outside the EU, claims may also be brought against: (i) the importer; (ii) the manufacturer's authorized representative; or (iii) the fulfillment service provider. Joint and several liability is provided;
• The burden of proving the product's defectiveness, damage and causal link between defectiveness and damage lies with the injured party;
• Those who have paid compensation have the right to file a recourse claim against the party guilty of the damage;
• Interesting fact — as a ground for exemption from liability, the Directive provides the following circumstance: the objective state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time of placing the product on the market or putting it into operation, or during the period when the product was under the manufacturer's control, did not allow the defect that caused the damage to be detected.

It should be noted that the Directive does not have regulatory effect in member states and must be implemented into national legislation.

CIS Model Law — trends in regional legislation development

In April 2025, the CIS model law "On Artificial Intelligence Technologies" was adopted — a recommendatory act that can be used by member states in developing national legislation in the field of AI.

Main provisions:

• The law extends its effect to AI technologies and systems using AI;
• The law introduces the principle of absolute and joint liability, according to which:

1. The principle of absolute liability is established (that is, liability occurs regardless of fault) in the sphere of relations related to high-risk AI technologies;
2. Joint liability of owners, possessors, developers and operators of AI technologies is established;

• The possibility of bringing to liability in accordance with the norms of criminal, administrative, civil and labor legislation is provided (while specific offenses must be determined by national legislation);
• The need to insure risks associated with AI errors is enshrined (the list of AI technologies subject to insurance must be determined based on national legislation by the authorized state body);
• Mutual insurance is allowed with the possibility of establishing special conditions for insuring risks of causing harm during testing and pilot operation of certain categories of AI technologies.

The situation in Belarus — how can an error madeby AI in production be regulated in theory now?

At the moment, Belarusian legislation lacks special regulation of liability for damage caused by errors of AI systems. There are many concepts about whether a person can be held liable for a robot's errors, especially when it comes to highly autonomous systems. The main approach currently is that a person/company bears responsibility for the actions of autonomous systems. Thus, those who may be held liable for the damage caused include:

• A company that created a defective product using AI that caused damage (for example, liability is possible under the Law "On Consumer Protection") / a company that introduced AI into production and is unable to ensure safe working conditions (when harming an employee of the enterprise). It is possible to hold the head of the organization or another person responsible for equipment safety, etc. liable (for example, a programmer in the company responsible for software technical support);
• An AI developer company integrated into production (it is possible to file claims in the order of recourse). An important point — the enterprise must be able to prove that defects in products / other errors were caused precisely by a poorly developed AI system.

III. Risk insurance

Today in Belarus there is no practice of insuring risks associated with the use of AI technologies.

At the same time, some countries have actively begun to implement insurance in the field of AI.

For example, in the Lloyd's of London insurance market, they began to offer insurance that covers risks and/or losses associated with errors of chatbot sand other artificial intelligence tools.

There is an opinion that liability insurance when using AI fits into the general concept of cyber risk insurance. The global market already has specialized insurance products, such as cyber insurance, professional liability insurance and technology risk insurance, which cover losses from incidents involving AI. For example, similar products already exist in Russia, and they can be adapted to cover risks associated with AI. However, the market is still at the beginning of its development.

At the same time, provisions on insurance of such risks are also enshrined in the CIS model law.

It can be expected that in the coming years, Belarusian legislation will be adapted taking into account global trends, and insurance organizations will begin to develop specialized products to cover losses arising from the use of AI in industry.

Even the most promising projects can encounter serious challenges, especially when a developer improperly fulfills its contractual obligations. This is exactly what happened with our client — a Belarusian company specializing in the production of industrial and household metering devices.

The client concluded a contract for research and development work. The goal was ambitious — to create an innovative device that meets modern requirements of industrial enterprises and can be sold in foreign markets as well.

However, it subsequently became obvious that the project implementation would not be simple. The developer deviated from the technical specification requirements without notifying the customer. Despite repeated attempts to resolve the problem peacefully, including negotiations and joint testing, the developer refused to acknowledge the validity of the customer's claims and demanded full payment under the contract.

For the client, this became a critical point: the developed product did not meet the contract requirements, and the developer, instead of constructive dialogue and problem resolution, took a "defensive" position, fearing court. Continuing cooperation under such conditions made no sense.

Legal Protection

Ultimately, the client decided to terminate the contract. Given the contract terms, this required going to court and proving violations by the developer. In addition to the need to explain technical nuances, an additional difficulty of the process was related to the client's signing of work completion certificates.

With the assistance of the Arzinger legal team, an analysis of the evidence base was conducted and a legal position and case strategy were developed. At the pre-trial negotiation stage, it was possible to obtain written confirmation from the developer about the existence of defects in the work, which was critically important fo rsubstantiating the customer's position in court. All this led to a successful result: the first instance court supported the client's stated claims.

The developer's attempts to challenge the court decision in appellate and cassation instances were unsuccessful: the judicial instances confirmed the validity of the decision.

What Other Clients Should Know

Key aspects of protecting customers' interests when developing innovative products:

1. Detailed Requirements and Project Stages

When agreeing on a contract, it is important to detail and unambiguously record product requirements, stages, criteria for accepting work results at each stage, consequences of deviations from contract requirements. Where possible — identify requirements whose deviations make the entire development meaningless. Any agreements on technical specification changes should be formalized in writing.

2. Timely Recording of Violations

When identifying deviations by the developer from contract requirements, document this (with letters, negotiation protocols, reservations in certificates).

3. Risk of Impossibility to Meet Development Requirements

As a general rule, the risk of impossibility to perform research and development work lies with the customer. However, the contract can transfer this risk to the developer. In any case, if the developer discovers that obtaining the required result is impossible or continuing the work is impractical, they are obliged to immediately inform the customer.

4. A Work Completion Certificate Signed Without Comments Is Not a Verdict

A certificate signed by the customer without comments certainly worsens their legal position. But even with such a document, a court case can be won, although it requires more serious preparation. It should be remembered: no evidence has a predetermined force for the court. The court evaluates evidence according to its internal conviction, based on a comprehensive, complete and objective examination of the presented evidence.

5. Engage Technical Experts

The essence of a dispute related to innovative development may lie entirely or partially in the technical plane. In this case, at the stage of preparation for court, it is necessary to involve external technical experts (if the competencies of the customer's employees are insufficient), and in court — to petition for the appointment of an examination and the calling of a specialist.

6. Don't Be Afraid of Judicial Protection

When constructive dialogue is exhausted and continuing cooperation is impractical, resolving the dispute in court is an effective tool for protecting business interests. And it should not be delayed. Yes, such a step entails additional costs and the need to find another developer, however, as a rule, this is inevitable anyway.

A European parent company due to the introduction of another package of sanctions, decided to distance itself from its Belarusian subsidiary structure and did so radically. It sold its share and sent a notification of complete debt forgiveness for goods supplied to Belarus. It would seem that freedom from debts is excellent news, but how can such a transaction be legally formalized in Belarus? And won't this turn into foreign gratuitous assistance (FGA), which is associated with a number of additional obligations and risks for the recipient?

We thoroughly studied the situation and identified key points to consider:

• Debt forgiveness can be a unilateral transaction, so concluding an agreement between the parties is not mandatory. However, there must still be a document confirming the transaction (for example, a letter from the counterparty about debt forgiveness);
• Formally, the debt write-off procedure goes through an order from the company director with mandatory execution of primary accounting documents;
• As a general rule, debt forgiveness should not be recognized as FGA. This follows from the fact that such a transaction does not fall under the definition of FGA contained in Decree No. 3 of May 25, 2020 "On Foreign Gratuitous Assistance." In addition, the procedure for handling FGA (acceptance of assistance, its registration) does not imply that forgiven debt on a commercial transaction can subsequently be qualified as FGA.

However, nuances are important here, as always in our work: each situation needs an individual approach. We recommend coordinating details with the Department of Humanitarian Activities to avoid unpleasant surprises.

Special attention should bepaid to preventing the requalification of debt forgiveness into a gift agreement, the conclusion of which between legal entities is prohibited. For this, it is necessary to collect maximum evidence of the parties' commercial interest in the transaction and the impossibility of debt repayment — for example, confirmation of sanction restrictions, impossibility of making payment, etc.

As a result of the work done, we helped our client resolve disagreements between the legal and accounting departments and properly formalize debt forgiveness without the risk of violating the law.

If you have encountered a similar situation or want to secure your transactions — contact us. We will turn complex legal issues into understandable solutions so that your business operates calmly and efficiently.

Klim Stashevsky, Partner at Arzinger Law Offices, spoke at the Priorbank corporate business event on the 9th of October and shared invaluable insights from recent Belarusian and Russian EU General Court cases, revealing what actually works when challenging sanctions listings.

The main takeaways of Klim’s speech:

• The reality check: EU institutions protect EU institutions. Formal arguments rarely succeed – the Court follows "substance prevail over form”

• What can work: Demonstrating actual absence of connection/control and highlighting the EU Council's assessment errors – particularly effective when the evidence base is weak.

• The evidence challenge: The burden of proof largely falls on the applicant, while the Court doesn't require "ironclad" evidence from the Council.

• Critical lesson: Failing to disprove even one point means staying on the list. But the appeal process itself creates space for negotiations and reputational defense.

Winning is extremely difficult, but when the evidence base is genuinely weak, exclusion is possible. The sanctions landscape remains unstable, and the relevant practice continues to evolve.  Stay turned!

With the growing integration of international markets and the active development of investment projects involving Chinese partners, risk management is becoming particularly important for law firms and their clients.

Investments from China bring not only great opportunities for business expansion, but alsospecific challenges related to the legal, economic and cultural characteristics of the interaction.

Arzinger is a team of investment lawyers who are deeply immersed in the specifics of large investment and construction projects and have extensive experience working with foreign partners, including those from China.

We offer a comprehensive approach that goes beyond standard legal support: we manage risks, develop strategies and ensure reliable interaction with investors, customers,  contractors and regulatory authorities. Our goal is to guarantee the legal, financial and economic stability of the project by maintaining effective dialogue at all stages.

Drawing on many years of practical experience in supporting the most complex and large-scale construction projects, as a senior partner at Arzinger with experience as a diplomat, investment consultant and banker, I would like to share key risk management methods in construction.

Our approach is based on risk management through control points – key stages at which interim results are recorded and risks are assessed, ranging frompolitical risks to the risk of commercial information leaks. For ease of analysis, we use a ‘traffic light of success’: green for minimal risks,  yellow for insignificant risks, and red for significant risks requiring management decisions.

At Arzinger, we are confident that the success of large projects is born precisely where people know how to manage risks and transform them into competitive advantages.

Key stages (control points) of risk management:

1.Project financing

At this stage, the main focus is on a comprehensive analysis of the risks associatedwith project structuring. Inconsistencies between the legal and financial structures must be avoided, as they are a red flag that can lead to conflicts. We carefully check the possibility of carrying out planned control measures toidentify and eliminate threats in a timely manner.

We also analyze the terms of return on investment and investor guarantees, assess insurance policies and obligations, as well as the credit worthiness of key counterpartiesto reduce the risk of their failure to fulfil their contractual obligations.

2.Selection and delivery of complex technological equipment

Risks are associated with the technical compliance of equipment with declared standards affecting the quality and safety of the project. We monitor prepayment and return conditions, recommending optimal security measures, including advance payment guarantees, contract performance guarantees and warranty obligations.

Particular attention is paid to procurement procedures, marketing research, logistics, customs and sanctions risks that could complicate delivery. It is important to correctly formalize the transfer of ownership in the case of phased deliveries in order to protect the customer's interests.

This systematic approach helps to identify threats and create a reliable legal foundation for the successful implementation of projects.

3.Design

At this crucial stage, we focus on assigning responsibility for the accuracy of the initial data and correctly formulating the technical specifications. It isi mportant to monitor the execution and acceptance of design work, as well as to obtain a positive expert opinion and approval of the design documentation.

In legal support, we check the legal status of the designer, land documents, permits and expert documentation, including state construction and, if necessary, environmental expertise. We pay special attention to contracts with designers, copyrights, agreements on the transfer of rights and non-disclosure agreements to protect technical information and maintain competitive advantages.

As implified scheme for designing and commissioning facilities is actively used with clients who are residents of Great Park – see our previous article.

4. Synchronizationof key processes

The successful implementation of a project largely depends on the coordination of financing schedules, equipment delivery and construction work. We monitor this process to prevent downtime and ensure the precise timing of all stages.

5.Equipment testing and acceptance

For complex technological equipment, we organize testing to achieve guaranteed technical performance. The result is an equipment acceptance certificate after comprehensive testing, which confirms that the facility is ready for the next stage.

6. Acceptance and commissioning

Once construction is complete, we assist with the customer's acceptance of the facility and obtain all necessary official approvals from the relevant government authorities. This is an important final legal and technical step before launch.

7. The final milestone – a successful launch

And, of course, nothing compares to the moment when the facility is commissioned – when the red ribbon is cut and the team and investors can celebrate the beginning of a new success story.

This step-by-step, detailed and legally sound approach helps Arzinger ensure the stability and success of even the most complex investment and construction projects.

On 19 January 2023, Belarus has officially permitted the use of design documentation developed in foreign countries, including the People's Republic of China. This rule is confirmed by the Decree of the President No. 9 dated 17 January 2023 and established in a number of national regulations.

A special procedure for the adaptation and acceptance of facilities applies within the framework of international agreements, for example, for the Great Stone China-Belarus Industrial Park. This approach not only integrates Chinese construction standards with Belarusian requirements, but also significantly reduces construction time and costs.

Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. 87 dated 31 January 2018, as amended, regulates the simplified procedure for the design and acceptance of facilities into operation. Design documentation developed in accordance with Chinese standards undergoes expert review in the PRC and mandatory adaptation by Belarusian designers, followed by state construction expertise on key criteria: mechanical strength, stability and environmental protection.

Acceptance of facilities is carried out according to special rules. Requirements relating to architectural, urban planning and construction activities are excluded, and the assessment of the facility focuses on three main aspects: compliance with the approved design documentation, achievement of technical and economic indicators, and readiness of the engineering infrastructure for operation.

Quality and safety are confirmed by the conclusions of state bodies such as the Department of Construction Control and Supervision, the Ministry of Emergency Situations and the Republican Centre for Environmental Expertise (the Department of Nuclear and Radiation Safety of the Ministry of Emergency Situations - when accepting facilities under its control into operation).

Among the facilities already commissioned are modern production complexes, logistics centers and sports facilities that meet international standards.

The experience of successful cooperation with Chinese partners and the gradual harmonization of the legislation of the two countries confirm that the influence of the ‘Chinese architectural style’ in Belarus has become a symbol of openness, innovation and mutual respect, reflecting the strategic partnership between the two nations and the spirit of the times.

VAT on the purchase of services from a foreign company and assignment of claims

In Belarusian business, there are often situations where services are purchased from foreign contractors. At first glance, it may seem that the tax implications are obvious. But in practice, there are many nuances. One of them is related to the assignment of claims.

Client's situation

A Belarusian organization (the Customer) concluded an agreement with a Serbian law firm (the Contractor). Services were provided inthe amount of  1,000 euros.

Under the terms of the agreement:

• the place of performance of the services is the Republic of Belarus;

• the currency of the agreement is the euro, the currency of payment is the Russian rouble;

• the Contractor assigned the right to claim payment to a Russian individual entrepreneur.

The client had the following questions:

• Is it necessary to charge VAT when concluding a claim assignment agreement?

• How to correctly determine the tax base if the agreementis in euros and the payment is in Russian roubles?

Our tax practice position:

• the date of the claim assignment agreement is the date of actual performance, on which date the Belarusian customer is obliged to charge and pay VAT to the budget;

• the tax base is determined based on the cost of services under the agreement;

• if the agreement is concluded in EUR and payments are to be made in Russian roubles, the VAT tax base is determined based on the amount of remuneration under the agreement converted at the official exchange rate of the Belarusian rouble to the Russian rouble set by the National Bank of the Republic of Belarus on the date of assignment of the claim.

In this case, the tax base includes the entire amount of remuneration without reduction by the amount of tax on the income of foreign organizations.

What this means for business

• The obligation to pay VAT arises on the date of assignment of the claim.

• The currency of the agreement and the currency of payment are important. Errors in determining the tax base due to exchange rate differences can result in additional charges for the company.

• It is necessary to record the moment when the obligations cease. Payment, set-off, assignment ‒ each of these actions may become the moment of actual realization for VAT calculation purposes.

Our comment

We recommend that companies working with foreign counterparties:

• analyze the tax implications of the agreement in advance;

• take into account the difference between the agreement currency and the settlement currency;

• record the date of termination of obligations;

• if in doubt, seek clarification from consultants.

This approach reduces the risk of tax claims and avoids additional VAT charges.

If your company has questions about contracts with foreign partners and the tax implications of such transactions, contact us.  We are ready to help.

Klim Stashevsky and Vladislav Korzun , Arzinger lawyers, commented on the decision and discussed how the case would have turned out if it had been heard in Belarus.

The main outcome for Google: the company retained its Chrome browser and Android mobile operating system, but must comply with serious restrictions in the area of data sharing and exclusive agreements.

WHAT THE COURT RULED

• •No need to sell the business

The Department of Justice demanded the forced sale of Chrome and Android, but the judge ruled that such a measure was excessive and harmful to the rapidly developing market. The ruling explicitly states that Google ‘will not be forced to sell Chrome; nor will the court include the conditional sale of Android in its final decision.’ This is a significant victory for the company, which has avoided a forced break up of its business and retained control over its key products.

• Mandatory Data Licensing

Instead of a division, the court ordered Google to open access to its search index and click data to ’qualified competitors"of the IT giant. Advertising data is excluded. This measure should ‘open up the market for general search services’ and increase competition. As the judge notes, without access to the search index and click data, no competitor will be able to develop a full-fledged search engine.

• Ban on Exclusive Agreements

Google will no longer be able to enter into or renew contracts that require manufacturers to install Chrome, Google Search, Google Assistant or Gemini in exchange for access to Google Play. Previously, this practice effectively cemented the company's monopoly: in 2020, Google accounted for 95% of mobile search queries in the United States. Now, smartphone manufacturers will be able to pre-install third-party services without the risk of losing Google's app store..

• Maintaining Payment Agreements with Apple and Other Partners

Google is permitted to continue making billion-dollar payments to device manufacturers for distributing search services. However, exclusive payments remain prohibited: partners will be able to work with Google, but without any obligation to ignore competitors. The judge explained this by the need to maintain balance – a complete ban on remuneration would harm users and the market. It is estimated that Apple alone receives around $20billion from Google annually.

• Focus on the Development of Generative AI

The judge emphasized that the emergence of powerful generative models such as ChatGPT has transformed the competitive landscape. In the court’s view, it is crucial to prevent Google’s dominance in traditional search from extending to the market for generative AI services. This consideration was one of the key factors behind the choice of more moderate remedies: the judge acknowledged that he had to “dip into the future,” anunusual task for the judiciary.

REACTION OF THE PARTIES AND POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS

Google viewed the decision as a partial victory but warned of risks to user privacy. The company said in a statement: ‘The court has restricted the distribution of our services and requires us to share search data with competitors. We are concerned about how this will affect user safety.’ The corporation intends to appeal the decision, which could delay its implementation for years.

The US Department of Justice welcomed the decision, noting its importance for ‘opening up the market for general search services. ’The agency is simultaneously considering additional measures to prevent Google's dominance in the field of artificial intelligence.

The decision can be called a compromise: the court sought a balance that would allow the ruling to stand up in the Supreme Court. At the same time, it is part of a global trend towards increased antitrust pressure on Big Tech. Meta, Amazon and Apple are also under investigation. Another case is also ongoing against Google itself – regarding its monopoly in the advertising technology market.

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR BELARUS

• Perspective under National Law

In our previous article the lawyers analyzed in detail how such violations could be classified under Belarusian law. At that time, it was expected that the court might order the forced sale of the Chrome browser, prohibit payments to partners, and oblige Google to license search data. However, in the end, the court limited itself to requiring Google to share data and refrain from exclusive agreements.

For small markets, this approach can be particularly effective: transferring data to competitors allows the market to be balanced without painful business divisions. However, it is extremely important to ensure the protection of personal information.

The emergence of generative models, which the court cited as a key factor, indicates that competition in the search market is moving into new areas. This is also relevant for regulators around the world: regulation must keep pace with technology to prevent dominance from shifting from one area to another.

Overall, the court applied measures to Google that are similar to those that could be applied in Belarus in a similar situation.

• Belarusian Practice: Can a Court ‘argue’ with MART?

In the American case, many noted an interesting point: the regulator insisted on a strict separation of the business, while the judge proposed a different, less destructive option.

In Belarus, this combination – the antitrust authority and the court – works a little differently. In our legal system, MART has broad powers and can issue decisions and binding orders requiring the violator to take any action that the regulator deems necessary to ensure compliance with antitrust legislation, with the exception of the requirement for forced separation, which MART can only request in court.

Such decisions and orders by MART can be challenged in the economic court, but statistics on appeals show that such attempts are extremely ineffective. According to MART data, only 15-20% of its decisions are appealed in court, and in approximately 90% of cases, the court upholds there gulator's position. In 2021, for example, all appealed MART rulings were upheld, except for one: the case of cartel collusion in the plant protection products market. In this case, the Supreme Court recognised that the agreement between August-Bel CJSC and its dealers on market sharing had not been proven, and the relevant part of the MART decision was overturned. However, the court confirmed the existence of price collusion and upheld the fines imposed on the cartel participants. It is noteworthy that the court ordered MART to reimburse part of the legal costs incurred by the applicants in appealing the regulator's decision, restoring the balance of interests in this part.

Other attempts by businesses to challenge MART's conclusions were less successful. For example, companies involved in a cartelcase in the veterinary drugs market filed complaints, but the Supreme Court upheld the regulator's ruling. In the dispute over unfair competition between Krinitsa OJSC and MART over the Buratino product brand, the court also upheld the agency's position.

Thus, there are no precedents in Belarusian practice where the court has radically revised the competition protection measures proposed by the agency, as has happened in the United States. Courts usually review evidence and procedural aspects, but do not take the initiative or formulate alternative ‘remedial’ measures.

WHAT BUSINESSES CAN LEARN FROM THIS COURT DECISION

The US court's decision in the Google case reflects a global trend towards tighter antitrust regulation of technology companies, but with consideration for the specific characteristics of rapidly developing markets. Judge Mehta chose ‘treatment’ over ‘amputation’ – he banned anti-competitive practices but preserved the company's innovative potential, without forgetting the interests of ordinary users.

• Data is a key asset

An American court has recognised that access to data is critical for competition in the digital age. This could become an important tool in the arsenal of Belarusian regulators and a positive incentive to update legal regulation in relevant areas.

• Balancing competition protection and innovation is the main goal

Measures should prevent the transfer of dominance to new technological areas, especially in the field of artificial intelligence, but in no case should they limit the potential of technology. Regulation must be impartial, fair, preventive, and any punishment must be proportionate to the violation.

• Keeping up with the times is one of the main tasks of legislators and regulators

The case against Google is not yet closed: the company intends to appeal the decision in the court of appeal. The outcome could set a precedent for other countries and influence approaches to regulating digital markets. However, this case already confirms that the legal instruments for influencing violators of antitrust legislation are becoming increasingly sophisticated and technology-oriented, and even IT giants are forced to adap ttheir business models in order to maintain fair competition.

Belarusian businesses should keep a close eye on such cases, as in the era of globalisation and digitalisation, national approaches to antitrust regulation are increasingly influencing each other, forming new standards of fair competition.