Instead of the typical dystopian scene of flames, wastelands of shattered buildings, and robotic overlords policing the remaining humans, our actual dystopian future may be a workplace filled only with men named Jared who once played lacrosse in high school. This may sound far-fetched, but one resume-screening tool was found to be using an algorithm that concluded two factors were most determinative of job performance: the name Jared and a history of playing lacrosse in high school. The frailties of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in recruitment and hiring could transform our workforces in unpredictable ways. If employers blindly follow AI outcomes without a deeper examination of how the algorithmic decision is reached, hiring outcomes may be not only ridiculous but also discriminatory. Risks of AI-Reliant Hiring Some employers have enthusiastically embraced AI as a way to reduce costs and replace human bias in the recruitment process. Human recruiters do not have a great track record; for example, in France, discrimination in recruitment has posed such a serious problem that the government submits false work biographies with ethnic names to identify and punish employers that unreasonably reject qualified ethnic applicants. Unfortunately, AI is modeled on human thinking, so it may amplify our own prejudices and errant conclusions while giving the appearance of providing a fair and clean process. AI typically learns inductively by training on examples and historical data. Factors such as exclusion of certain groups from educational or career opportunities has often shaped this data, so AI’s decisions may amplify this past prejudice. For instance, Amazon experimented with mechanized recruitment in 2014, but abandoned these efforts prior to implementation after the AI tool selected a predominantly male workforce. The AI learned by analyzing patterns in resumes submitted to the company over the last 10 years. Since over this period men submitted the most

Thailand’s legal system is based on European continental civil law systems, with a three-tier court system. Precedents set by the Thai Supreme Court are merely considered as examples of the application of laws and are not binding on Thai courts. While the country’s judiciary and dispute resolution mechanisms are well developed, some aspects can be unfamiliar or even surprising to counsel unfamiliar with the Thai court system. This article introduces some of the Thai civil court procedures and practices, and covers several key issues it is important to understand regarding civil litigation in Thailand. Offers of compromise or settlement In Thailand, there is no such thing as an ‘offer without prejudice’. Anything put in writing can be used against the offering party. Therefore, compromises, settlements, and offers to compromise or settle should not be made before consulting with legal counsel. Similarly, parties at trial or anticipating litigation should be cautious in all communications with the opposing party. Location of assets Before initiating litigation, plaintiffs should investigate the nature and extent of the defendant’s assets in Thailand and abroad. A monetary judgment is of limited value if the defendant has little or no recoverable assets. Therefore, any information a claimant has on the opposing party should be assessed at the beginning of the case or as soon as is reasonably possible. Language of documents All documents submitted to a Thai court must be in the Thai language. Foreign documents must be the originals or certified copies, and certain documents also need to be notarised and then authenticated by a Thai consular official. Court costs A plaintiff must pay a court filing fee when submitting a case. This is usually 2% of the claim amount but will not exceed THB 200,000 per action for claims of up to THB 50 million. There is an additional 0.1% calculated on the amount

On March 28, 2023, Cambodia’s Ministry of Economy and Finance and Ministry of Commerce issued Inter-Ministerial Prakas No. 168 on Penalties for Persons Violating the Law on Competition. This release was in line with the country’s recent establishment of a framework and thresholds for merger filings. The penalties for violating the Law on Competition center on the following three offenses: 1.  Entering into vertical agreements. This can be done by: requiring buyers to resell goods or services in limited geographic locations; requiring buyers to resell goods or services to specific customers or specific types of customers; requiring buyers to purchase goods or services from one seller only; preventing sellers from selling goods or service to other buyers; or requiring buyers to buy additional goods or services that are not related to the goods or services being sold. 2. Abusing a dominant market position. This can be done by: requiring or persuading suppliers or customers to not do business with competitors; refusing to supply goods or services to competitors; selling goods or services subject to commercial terms that require buyers to buy other goods or services separately that are not related to the purpose of the transaction; selling goods or services below production cost; or refusing to give competitors access to the necessary means of selling their goods and services. 3.  Undertaking a business combination that actually or potentially restricts or distorts market competition. Each of these violations is punishable by a fine of 3% to 10% of the infringer’s total turnover during the period of violation, limited to three years. Next Steps The first half of 2023 has seen three new regulations strengthening Cambodia’s competition law framework, as noted above. Although certain unclear terms do remain, regulators are expected to issue additional decisions in 2023. For more details on competition regulations or the legal framework for corporate transactions in Cambodia, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].

As in many countries around the world, IP laws in Southeast Asia do not currently specify whether works generated by artificial intelligence (AI) are protected by copyright, and there is also uncertainty surrounding the issue of ownership with respect to works created by AI. While changes to the IP legal framework are expected to respond to the rapid development of AI technologies, existing copyright laws of most countries in Southeast Asia explicitly impose the requirement of a human author for copyright protection to arise. AI-Generated Works and the Law This is similar to the position in the United States, where the US Copyright Office issued a policy statement in March 2023 reiterating the US Copyright Act’s requirement of human authorship to register copyright works. The policy document states that when an AI technology determines the expressive elements of the output, the generated materials do not fulfil the human authorship requirement. However, the US Copyright Office also clarified that certain works containing AI-generated materials may nonetheless contain sufficient human authorship for a copyright claim, such as when a human selects or arranges the AI-generated materials in a sufficiently creative way for the resulting work as a whole to constitute an original work of authorship, or when an artist modifies material originally generated by AI technology to a degree that meets the standard for copyright protection. This is distinguishable from the position in countries such as the UK and Hong Kong, where absent specific provisions addressing AI-generated works, such works may arguably be considered by some as computer-generated works, with authorship assigned to the person who arranges for creation of the work. New Challenges from Generative AI The ongoing legal uncertainties surrounding the ownership and protection of AI-generated works create practical challenges for businesses that use or develop generative AI tools. This includes infringement risks related

After a protracted period of deliberation, the Vietnamese government ultimately passed the country’s “historic,” first-ever Personal Data Protection Decree (“PDPD”) on April 17, 2023, as Decree No. 13/2023/ND-CP. The PDPD is a landmark legal instrument that integrates all of Vietnam’s disparate data protection legislation, with the potential to bring them closer to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) requirements. (The PDPD, however, will not replace these existing regulations but will concurrently exist with them.) Scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2023, with basically no grace period (save in limited cases), the PDPD will apply to both domestic and foreign individuals/entities that directly engage in or relate to personal data processing activities in Vietnam. As the PDPD continues to be a magnet for public attention, we take a closer look at its key provisions and some initial implications for businesses below. 1. Definition and Classification of Personal Data The PDPD defines personal data as information on an electronic medium in the form of symbols, letters, numbers, photos, sounds, or the like that is associated with or helps to identify a specific individual. Information that helps to identify a specific individual is further clarified as information generated from an individual’s activities that, when combined with other data and stored information, can identify a particular person. Personal data is split into two different categories—basic personal data and sensitive personal data. Basic personal data includes name, date of birth, gender, nationality, personal photos, phone number, identification number, marriage status, history of one’s cyberspace activities, and so on. Sensitive personal data, on the other hand, is more private and, if violated, will jeopardize a person’s legitimate rights and interests. Accordingly, sensitive personal data comprises, among other things, political and religious views, health status and private life information as recorded in medical records, racial or ethnic origin,

In the context of low investor confidence in the bond market due to recent negative news and the difficulties in cash flow of bond issuers, especially those in the real estate and banking sectors, the government of Vietnam has taken action to address legal bottlenecks in order for the bond market to recover and develop sustainably. In contrast to the gentle hand offered to bond issuers shouldering the debts of corporate bonds, a more stringent approach is being applied to bond purchases by banks. This is being done to mitigate the negative impact of the bond market on Vietnam’s banking health. New Decree Loosens Requirements for Bond Issuers On March 5, 2023, the government promulgated Decree No. 08/2023/ND-CP (“Decree 08”), which took effect immediately, loosening requirements for bond issuers. The key changes under Decree 08 include the following: 1. Ability to negotiate repayment of bonds with in-kind payment: For corporate bonds in the domestic market, Decree 08 allows the bond issuer to negotiate with bondholders to make payment in assets other than cash if the bond issuer is unable to make full and timely payments of bond principal and coupon in VND according to the announced bond issuance plan. There are certain conditions which must be satisfied, such as bondholders’ consent, disclosure of the changes, and legal status of the assets used for payment (e.g., title, encumbrances, and material agreements involving the assets). 2. Ability to change terms and conditions of bonds: Previously, while, bond issuers were able to change the terms (such as extension of the term or use purpose of the bond proceeds) for corporate bonds issued after September 16, 2022, they were not allowed to do so for older corporate bonds. Now, Decree 08 allows the bond issuers to change the terms and conditions of the older bonds, subject to

In 2018, following enactment of the Myanmar Companies Law (MCL), the Directorate of Investment and Company Administration (DICA) launched Myanmar Companies Online (MyCO), an official online platform for corporate registration. The MCL required companies to re-register in MyCO, but some companies did not complete this step within the date provided by the law. In addition, the MCL introduced a requirement for companies to file an annual return through MyCO. Some companies have also failed to do this, which can eventually lead to DICA automatically striking the company’s name from the register. If a company has not re-registered, it must follow specific administrative procedures to “activate” the company in MyCO. There are also administrative procedures allowing for restoration of companies that have been struck from the DICA register. This article considers the ramifications of each of these scenarios and outlines potential next steps for companies facing these challenges. Activating a Company Not Yet Re-registered Prior to enactment of the MCL, all companies were formed under the Myanmar Companies Act 1914, which was the primary law governing registration and operation of companies in the country. Once the MCL was passed, companies were required to re-register online via MyCO by January 31, 2019. For companies that did not re-register on MyCO, the company’s name, old registration number, and registration date under the Myanmar Companies Act 1914 was recorded in MyCO, and the status of the company was set as “Not Yet Re-registered.” Companies assigned this status should not assume that it means the company was struck off the DICA register. Rather, the DICA states that if a company is listed as not re-registered on MyCO, it can still re-register by fulfilling the requirements specified in the MCL. In order to re-register under the MCL, the company must obtain a court order to proceed with the re-registration process

Food safety is one important area of focus as Cambodia continues to improve its regulatory framework surrounding consumer protection. Last year, the new Law on Food Safety set out the main principles to regulate the food sector, providing general rights and obligations of food businesses and requirements for food products traded in Cambodia. Then in the first months of 2023, two implementing regulations were issued to clarify the overarching principles of the Law on Food Safety, as well as its enforcement mechanisms. The adoption of these enforcement-related regulations is once again a clear signal to the market that the Cambodian government is taking the enforcement of consumer protection laws seriously. Food Surveillance, Seizure, and Recalls The first of these implementing regulations was Sub-Decree No. 13 on the Conditions, Formalities and Procedures for Food Surveillance and Seizure, dated January 6, 2023 (SD 13), followed the next month by Prakas No. 080 on the Forms and Procedures to Seize Unsafe Foods or Foods Not Complying with Technical Regulations, dated February 22, 2023 (Prakas 80). These implementing regulations give clarity on how the authorities will monitor and inspect the food sector, and in what cases the authorities may resort to recalls or seizure of foods. Prakas 80 also provides the necessary paperwork for both inspecting officers and companies to use when reporting on unsafe foods to authorities and the public. Lastly, the regulations further clarify the obligations for food businesses and the penalties for noncompliance. The Consumer Protection, Competition, and Fraud Repression Directorate-General (CCF) of the Ministry of Commerce takes a key role as the main enforcement authority under the regulations. The CCF receives reports on unsafe foods, manages voluntary recalls, publishes warnings to the public regarding unsafe foods, seizes unsafe or otherwise noncompliant goods, and applies the administrative fines and penalties provided under the Law on