June 2025 Legal Insights and Updates

In the case of Federal Republic of Nigeria v Process and Industrial Developments Ltd and another [2025] EWCA Civ 715, the Court of Appeal denied an application for permission to appeal against adverse findings made against a non-party witness in a judgment that had set aside an arbitral award under Section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (“AA 1996”).

The application was submitted by Mr Andrew (“A”), a solicitor who had represented the defendant, Process and Industrial Developments Ltd (“P&ID”), in an arbitration against the claimant, the Federal Republic of Nigeria (“FRN”). FRN sought to challenge the arbitral award on several grounds, one of which included P&ID’s improper retention and use of FRN’s internal documents during the arbitration. The judgment concerning Section 68 AA 1996 included criticisms of A’s conduct regarding FRN's documents.

The Court of Appeal ruled that A’s permission application was submitted too late, finding that his failure to serve the Appellant's Notice on time was a significant violation of the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”). The court also determined that A had not provided adequate reasons to justify an extension of time for filing.

Additionally, the court held that it lacked the jurisdiction to hear the appeal as A had not obtained the necessary permission from the judge as stipulated in Section 68(4) AA 1996. It rejected A's argument that Section 68(4) should be interpreted in line with the Human Rights Act 1998 to circumvent this requirement, concluding that no violation of A's rights under Articles 6 or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had occurred.

The Court further affirmed that the grounds of appeal could be dealt with concisely, noting that the judge's reasons for dismissing A’s evidence were more than sufficient. Moreover, A had been given the opportunity to review the draft judgment before its formal release.

Regarding the findings against A concerning his use of FRN’s documents, the Court stated that A had ample opportunity to address the allegations, which were clearly outlined in the case. The judge's reasoning was considered adequate and based on A’s own evidence, it was inevitable that the conclusion regarding his conduct would be negative. Even if some of the grounds of appeal were arguable, the court would still refuse permission to appeal, given that the Section 68 application had been fully tried and A’s role as a witness in the proceedings had concluded. FRN had a strong interest in ensuring the finality of the judgment.

Finally, the Court underscored that challenges by non-party witnesses to adverse findings in litigation should generally be discouraged, unless in extraordinary circumstances. It clarified that A's right to practice as a solicitor had not been affected by these proceedings or the judgment and could only be addressed in any future proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

The Civil Justice Council (“CJC”) has released its Final Report after completing its Review of Litigation Funding. The report includes 58 recommendations, including a call for the reversal of the PACCAR decision through legislation that applies both retroactively and prospectively. It also suggests a "light-touch" statutory regulation for litigation funding and proposes a unified regulatory regime for Contingency Fee Agreements (“CFAs”) and Damages-Based Agreements (“DBAs”), implementing the 2019 Mulheron-Bacon reforms where consistent with the CJC’s broader recommendations.

Background on PACCAR

In R v PACCAR Inc and others [2023] UKSC 28, the Supreme Court ruled that litigation funding agreements (“LFAs”) linked to DBAs must comply with the DBA regulatory regime, causing many LFAs, including those in collective proceedings, to be potentially unenforceable. The government's response involved drafting the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill to reverse the impact of PACCAR, which had its first reading in March 2024. However, the Bill was delayed until the CJC completed its review.

CJC Review Scope

The CJC’s review examined third-party funding (“TPF”) in the UK, looking at TPF’s role, effectiveness in promoting access to justice and regulatory options. It included a detailed analysis of how TPF interacts with other funding sources and whether the current arrangements provide adequate access to justice.

Key Recommendations in the Final Report

The CJC’s Final Report, published on 2 June 2025, advocates for several reforms, including:

• Reversing the PACCAR decision: The CJC recommends legislative changes to reverse PACCAR's impact and to clearly distinguish between contingency fee funding and litigation funding, applying separate regulatory regimes for each.

• Light-touch regulation: A call for light-touch statutory regulation of litigation funding, avoiding Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) oversight but allowing for future review of this approach after five years.

• Single regulatory framework for CFAs and DBAs: The CJC proposes a unified contingency fee regime, implementing the 2019 Mulheron-Bacon reforms, with provisions for hybrid arrangements and DBAs in collective proceedings.

• “Twin-track” approach to reform: Immediate legislation to reverse PACCAR, with broader reforms requiring separate primary legislation and secondary legislation, such as new regulations for CFAs and LFAs.

Other Proposals

The report also highlights additional proposals for the regulation of TPF, including differential regulation for commercial and consumer parties, the introduction of a Consumer Duty for TPF and enhanced rules for pre-action costs and the management of funded claims. The CJC also recommends promoting Legal Expenses Insurance and establishing an Access to Justice Fund. The report further suggests establishing a Standing Committee on Litigation Funding to collect data and monitor ongoing funding practices.

In General Medical Council v Konathala [2025] EWHC 1550 (Admin), the High Court ruled that the failure to sign section 14 of an Appellant's Notice did not invalidate the appeal when the court office had sealed the notice within the required time for appeal.

The case arose from the General Medical Council's (“GMC”) appeal under section 40A of the Medical Act 1983, challenging a decision by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal to suspend a doctor for 12 months, arguing that the sanction was insufficient for public protection. Before addressing the substantive appeal, the court considered the procedural issue regarding the validity of the GMC’s appeal.

Under the Medical Act 1983, the GMC had to file the appeal within 28 days of receiving the defendant's notification of the decision. While the GMC filed the Appellant's Notice using the required Form N161, it did not sign section 14. Despite the omission, the Administrative Court Office sealed the Notice. The respondent later raised this issue following the judgment in Nathadwarawala v GMC [2025] EWHC 459 (Admin), where a similar unsigned form was returned due to the missing signature.

In the present case, the court acknowledged the omission but noted that the court office had sealed the form within the statutory 28-day period, effectively initiating the appeal process.

This was a key difference from Nathadwarawala, where the form was returned unsealed by the court after the deadline. The court used its general power under CPR 3.10 to remedy the omission, emphasising that the Appellant’s Notice contained all necessary details of the appeal, the legal representative's signature was included, no prejudice was caused to the respondent and the appeal raised significant matters of public interest.

In the case of W Clappison Ltd v Aldi Stores Ltd [2025] EWHC 1459 (Ch), the court granted an application by the Groceries Code Adjudicator (“GCA”) to intervene in a contractual dispute between a supplier and a supermarket. The court confirmed that its authority to allow the GCA's intervention was grounded in CPR 19.2(2)(a), rather than under CPR 3.1(2)(p) or the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The court concluded that the GCA’s intervention would add objectivity and aid in understanding the broader context and potential implications of different interpretations of the Groceries Code beyond the specific case at hand.

This judgment provides useful guidance on the court's jurisdiction to permit interveners to join proceedings under CPR 19.2(2)(a). The case hinged on whether the supermarket had violated a Code of Practice (“Code”) incorporated into the contract by statutory regulations. The GCA, having arbitrated Code-related disputes and issued relevant guidance in the course of its statutory duties, sought to contribute its expertise in resolving, for the first time, questions concerning the Code’s meaning and construction.

Master Bowles acknowledged that he had jurisdiction to allow the GCA's intervention under CPR 19.2(2)(a), which permits the addition of a party "if it is desirable […] so that the court can resolve all the matters in dispute in the proceedings". He disagreed with the notion that CPR 3.1(2)(p) or the court’s inherent jurisdiction applied to such cases.

He dismissed the suggestion from Golden Eye (International) Ltd v Telefonica UK Ltd [2021] EWHC 723 (Ch), which had argued that no express power under the CPR existed for this type of intervention. Instead, he affirmed that jurisdiction existed under CPR 19.2(2)(a) and in situations where a general power existed alongside a specific one, the specific power should be applied.

The court emphasised that the ability to permit intervention under CPR 19.2(2)(a) was not limited to cases where the intervener would be directly or indirectly impacted by the outcome. Interventions had been allowed by parties without such an interest when it was considered useful for helping the court resolve the issues in dispute.

The Court of Appeal had allowed similar interventions in cases such as Westlaw Services Ltd v Boddy [2010] 6 Costs LR 934 (with the SRA intervening) and Soleymani v Nifty Gateway LLC [2023] 1 WLR 436 (with the CMA intervening). Master Bowles saw no reason to approach intervention at first instance differently. He stressed, however, that interventions aimed at promoting the intervening party’s own interests would not be permitted.

In this instance, the court considered that the GCA’s intervention would offer objectivity and help the court better understand the broader implications of the Code's interpretation beyond the immediate case. To prevent duplication, the GCA's written submissions, limited to a maximum of 30 pages, were to be served before trial skeletons and the GCA was allotted one hour to present its argument during the eight-day trial.

In AmTrust Specialty Ltd v Endurance Worldwide Insurance Ltd (t/a Sompo International) [2025] EWCA Civ 755, the Court of Appeal overturned a case management decision that denied Extended Disclosure under Practice Direction (PD) 57AD, ruling that the relevant documents should be disclosed. The case involved a failed litigation funding scheme, with AmTrust, the after-the-event (“ATE”) insurers, pursuing part 20 proceedings against the professional indemnity (“PI”) insurers of the scheme solicitors under the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010.

The PI insurers denied liability and the policies incorporated the SRA Minimum Terms, with wording stating that pre-contract information, including written proposals, was part of the insurance contract. AmTrust sought disclosure of pre-contract correspondence, but the judge refused, doubting its relevance to the construction of the policies.

Asplin LJ, delivering the lead judgment, concluded that the judge had erred by applying the wrong test, overemphasising the likelihood of relevance. The court clarified that Extended Disclosure involves multiple factors, including identifying key issues in dispute that need to be assessed through contemporaneous documents.

The overriding objective, as stated in PD 57AD, must be considered to ensure fair proceedings. There is no minimum relevance threshold for ordering Extended Disclosure; the likelihood of documents having probative value is just one factor among others. In some cases, documents that may seem unlikely to affect the trial should still be disclosed to avoid prejudging the issues.

The judge had pre-empted the trial judge’s decision and restricted AmTrust’s argument. The Court referenced McParland & Partners Ltd v Whitehead [2020] EWHC 298, noting that the question is not about definitively determining relevance, but whether there is documentation that could potentially be relevant. Additionally, since the PI insurers had access to the documents, fairness required that AmTrust, as statutory assignee, should also be granted access.

On 14 May 2025, the Shanghai International Commercial Court (“SICC”) issued its first investigation order in support of a Shanghai-seated foreign-related arbitration. This follows a request from the Shanghai International Arbitration Centre (“SHIAC”) for a factual investigation, marking a significant step forward in judicial assistance for foreign-related arbitrations in China. This case is the first under the Measures on Issuance of Investigation Orders in Support of Factual Investigations in Arbitration (Trial Version), introduced by the Shanghai High Court in 2023.

The SICC issued the order under these newly established regulations, which allow competent Shanghai courts to assist domestic and foreign-related arbitrations seated in Shanghai, with the SICC holding exclusive jurisdiction for foreign-related disputes.

The arbitration at the centre of the case involved a cross-border data transfer agreement between a Hong Kong company, a foreign company and a Mainland China company. The dispute concerned the identity of individuals who negotiated the contract via WeChat and whether they had the authority to bind the parties. The SHIAC tribunal had requested evidence on the identity of the WeChat users, but the application operator refused to cooperate. The tribunal then issued an interim decision under SHIAC’s rules supporting the request for a factual investigation, which was subsequently transferred to the SICC.

In accordance with PRC Arbitration Law, which limits the authority of arbitral tribunals to issue binding interim orders, the tribunal's decision was presented to the court for consideration. The SICC granted the investigation order based on several factors, including the relevance and necessity of the evidence for resolving the dispute, the unsuccessful efforts made by both the parties and the tribunal to obtain the evidence and the tribunal’s due process in issuing the interim measures.

As a result, the operator was compelled to disclose the requested identities to the requesting party. This case represents the first instance of judicial assistance provided by Chinese courts for a factual investigation in a foreign-related arbitration, thereby establishing a significant precedent.

In the case of Rodamco Projekt AB v Peab Sverige AB (Case No T 10465-23), the Svea Court of Appeal partially annulled an SEK1.5 billion construction award, including the tribunal's decision on cost allocation, but upheld the majority of the award. The court refused to reassess the tribunal's substantive findings.

The dispute arose from an SCC arbitration between Peab, a Swedish construction firm, and Rodamco, a subsidiary of a French real estate group, concerning the construction of a shopping centre. Peab sought additional payments, while Rodamco requested damages and penalties for delays in the work. The tribunal’s award partially supported both parties' claims.

Rodamco challenged the award before the Svea Court of Appeal, alleging several errors, including exceeding the tribunal’s mandate and procedural irregularities. The court granted Rodamco’s request to stay enforcement of the award while the challenge was being determined. Most of Rodamco's claims were dismissed by the court. Specifically, the court ruled that the tribunal had assessed the evidence and applied legal principles and whether the conclusions were correct pertained to the merits of the case, which fell outside the court's jurisdiction.

However, the court partially set aside the award concerning a contractual penalty claim for late completion. The tribunal had only partially granted this claim to Rodamco and the court found that the tribunal failed to fully consider Rodamco's arguments, which created a procedural error that likely influenced the outcome. The court determined that this part of the award could be separated from the rest, which should be upheld.

Regarding the tribunal’s decision on cost allocation, the court ruled that it would not be appropriate to partially set aside the decision. Instead, the future tribunal should determine how costs should be apportioned, as the court would need to make a substantive assessment of the costs between the various claims in the arbitration.

This decision reinforces Swedish courts' commitment to the principle of finality in arbitration, as seen in the court’s reluctance to review the tribunal's merit-based decisions or interfere with cost allocation. It also shows that Swedish courts will annul an award if a procedural irregularity affects the case outcome and clarifies when an award can be partially set aside.

Case: Rodamco Projekt AB v Peab Sverige AB (Case No T 10465-23) (Svea Court of Appeal) (28 May 2025)

In DOM v DON [2025] SGHC 103, the Singapore High Court partially annulled an arbitration award in a construction dispute, ruling that the tribunal's decision to award a percentage of consultancy fees lacked a sufficient connection to the arguments presented by the parties.

The dispute stemmed from a construction contract where DOM, the claimant, was the main contractor for work on DON's factory building. After completion, several disputes arose concerning variation orders (“VOs") claimed by DOM and counterclaims from DON regarding rectification costs for defects.

The contract included an arbitration clause and arbitration took place in Singapore. The tribunal directed both parties to prepare detailed Scott Schedules and ultimately awarded sums to both DOM (for the VOs) and DON (for defects and consultants' fees). DOM applied to the High Court to set aside nine portions of the award, citing breaches of natural justice, fraud and public policy.

The High Court rejected most of DOM’s claims but partially set aside one portion of the award, which required DOM to pay a percentage of DON’s project manager fees. The tribunal had previously stated that a project manager was not necessary but still awarded the fees without adequate explanation, reducing them by half due to insufficient evidence. The court found that the tribunal’s reasoning lacked a sufficient connection to the parties' arguments on the justification of the consultants' fees. It concluded that the decision violated natural justice and that part of the award was annulled.

This case provides a rare example where a court found that a tribunal’s reasoning lacked a sufficient connection to the parties’ arguments. The inconsistency in the tribunal’s conclusions was noted, particularly in fact-intensive cases involving multiple distinct issues. Tribunals should ensure that each conclusion is firmly grounded in the issues and evidence presented by the parties.

The case also highlights the growing complexity of setting aside awards and the challenges faced by judges, who may need to conduct an in-depth review of the arbitration material. Construction disputes, especially those involving delays, defects and Scott Schedules, are particularly susceptible to such issues, as tribunals often adopt approaches not fully put forward by either party.

Case: DOM v DON [2025] SGHC 103 (28 May 2025) (Wong Li Kok, Alex JC)

We are pleased to share that Belgravia Law co-hosted two exclusive and successful events during the London International Disputes Week 2025. These events featured in-depth discussions on the latest developments and emerging trends in international arbitration law.

Case study on the impact of sanctions, ASIs and insolvency in dispute resolution between Russian and Western companies

On Wednesday 4 June 2025, Belgravia Law hosted a special event in collaboration with Radcliffe Chambers and KK&P Trial Lawyers.

Experts, María Beatriz Burghetto, Benjamin Wells, Shantanu Manjumdar, KC Maxim Kulkov and Nikolay Pokryshkin discussed the growing phenomenon of Russian courts issuing judgments in favour of sanctioned persons against international companies and banks, such as Google, Linde, Citibank, JP Morgan, etc., for billions of USD.

Key discussion points during the Case Study:

• Current case law on disputes with international companies/banks

• The extent and scope of efforts to access justice in Russian courts

• Goals for international companies to litigate in Russia

• Alternatives to litigation in Russia

• Effectiveness of Anti-Suit Injunctions in English and other Western courts

• Risks of commencing insolvency proceedings in Russian courts against international companies/banks

• Enforcement of Russian courts' judgments abroad

The event was a great success, thanks to the invaluable contributions of our expert speakers and the engaging participation from all attendees.

The New Arbitration Act, English Forum and Jurisdiction in Cross-Border Disputes

Belgravia Law co-organised a high-level discussion with Lawlex on Thursday 5 June 2025, as part of London International Disputes Week 2025.

This session explored the impact of the newly reformed Arbitration Act and examined England’s continuing role as a leading forum for international disputes. Benjamin Wells from Belgravia Law, Ruslan Ughrelidze, Barry Coulter and Boris Lazic assessed the evolving jurisdictional landscape and provide insights on drafting arbitration agreements, managing enforcement risks and navigating competing legal systems.

The session covered the key points below:

• The impact of the Arbitration Act 2025 on cross-border disputes

• London’s strengths and shifting perceptions as a dispute resolution forum

• Jurisdictional challenges and the arbitration-litigation interplay

• Enforcement strategies under the new Arbitration Act

• Emerging trends: from AI-assisted arbitration to global enforcement risks

We sincerely thank all those who joined us for our thought-provoking and engaging sessions.

As artificial intelligence (“AI”) continues to transform industries worldwide, Belgravia Law is uniquely positioned to help clients harness AI’s potential through tailored services for both developers and users.

Belgravia Law’s team of experts offers strategic guidance and services to ensure your firm meets up to date legal standards while preparing for future challenges in AI governance. Our specialist AI lawyers provide comprehensive support across all facets of AI, from development to deployment, ensuring AI assurance and ongoing governance.

Our full suite of services is designed to navigate the complexities of AI compliance across multiple jurisdictions, providing legal advice and safeguarding firms against AI-related risks.

More details on our AI consultancy services include:

AI Governance Framework Development

Belgravia Law assists clients to develop and implement tailored AI governance frameworks which align with industry standards and regulatory requirements across the UK, EU, US and beyond. We help design governance structures which support your firm’s AI strategy, objectives and operational needs, ensuring seamless integration with existing compliance frameworks. Additionally, we develop actionable policies and guidelines to establish best practices and compliance standards.

Our team is closely monitoring key AI regulatory initiatives, including the UK Parliament's Private Members’ Bill on Artificial Intelligence (Regulation), the European Union AI Act, the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF) and ISO/IEC 42001, ensuring clients stay ahead of evolving regulatory changes.

Documentation and Compliance: Contracts, T&Cs and Policy Guidelines

Belgravia Law assists clients to manage AI-related documentation and ensure regulatory compliance. We develop AI governance policies, risk assessment frameworks and compliance documentation, such as audit trails. Our team also supports the development of customised contracts, terms & conditions, and internal policies such as generative AI workplace policies, AI system procurement due diligence questionnaires and supplier codes of conduct.

EU AI Act Compliance Consulting

Our expert consulting services help clients to navigate the EU AI Act. We offer risk assessments, categorise AI applications by risk level and provide sector-specific advice, particularly for industries such as healthcare, finance and transportation. We also assist in creating actionable roadmaps for compliance with the EU AI Act, including policy development and training programs.

Generative AI Usage Support

We provide consultancy services for firms in integrating generative AI technologies while ensuring compliance with regulatory frameworks. Our services address risk management and ethical considerations, helping clients navigate the evolving landscape of generative AI.

Contract Law Support for AI

Our team helps to ensure AI-related contracts comply with legal standards and address all relevant parties. We provide bespoke agreements between developers, licensors and users, addressing complexities such as risk allocation, intellectual property and data privacy. We also help negotiate essential contractual provisions, including indemnity clauses, dispute resolution mechanisms and liability frameworks, while addressing ethical, reputational and competition-related risks.

Risk Management

We offer extensive support for ensuring data protection and privacy in AI deployments. Our team ensures compliance with data protection regulations, including GDPR and CCPA, conduct Data Protection Impact Assessments (“DPIAs”) and help safeguard data subject rights, such as access, retention and consent.

Thought Leadership and Publications

We actively contribute to the AI conversation through our publications. In addition, our newsletter features an AI section focused on key developments in AI and evolving regulatory trends. Our team regularly publishes articles, reports and case studies on the EU AI Act and its business implications, offering thought leadership and practical insights into AI governance.

Dispute Resolution

Belgravia Law assists clients to resolve disputes arising from AI technology, including issues of liability, intellectual property and compliance. Our dispute resolution team is equipped to handle the legal complexities of AI-related conflicts, ensuring efficient and effective resolution.

By combining legal expertise with a deep understanding of AI technologies, Belgravia Law helps clients leverage AI to drive business innovation while navigating complex legal and regulatory risks.

For inquiries or more information on how we can assist you, please contact Ceyda@belgravia.law or Benjamin@belgravia.law.

The BBC is threatening legal action against US-based AI company Perplexity for allegedly using its content without authorisation. The BBC claims that Perplexity’s chatbot is reproducing its content "verbatim" and has demanded that the company cease using the material, delete any copies and propose financial compensation for its previous use.

This is the first time the BBC, a major global news organisation, has taken legal action against an AI company. In its letter to Perplexity's CEO Aravind Srinivas, the BBC stated that the use of its content violated UK copyright law and breached its terms of use. The BBC also referenced a study highlighting that Perplexity, along with other AI chatbots, inaccurately summarised news stories, including BBC content and failed to meet BBC Editorial Guidelines for impartial and accurate reporting. This, the BBC argued, damages its reputation and undermines audience trust, especially among UK licence fee payers.

The issue of AI bots using existing material without permission has raised concerns, as many generative AI models rely on vast data from web scraping, where bots automatically extract information from websites. The Professional Publishers Association (“PPA”) has expressed concerns over AI platforms violating UK copyright laws and harming the publishing industry. It also criticised the practice of bots scraping content without compensation, which threatens the £4.4 billion UK publishing sector.

In response to the BBC’s claims, Perplexity denied that its crawlers ignored the “robots.txt” file, a tool used by websites to block bots from scraping content. The company further clarified that it does not use website content for pre-training its AI models. Perplexity’s AI chatbot, which describes itself as an “answer engine” that synthesises information from trusted sources but advises users to verify the accuracy of its responses.

Some users of Meta AI may unknowingly have their search prompts and results made public, as their interactions with the AI tool are posted on a public feed. This includes searches that could be easily traced to their social media accounts.

An internet security expert has described this as a "huge user experience and security issue", as some posts can be directly linked to users' identities. As a result, individuals may inadvertently expose personal queries, such as requests for AI to generate revealing characters or assist with cheating on exams.

Meta claims that chats are private by default, but users can choose to make their posts public and later retract them. A warning message appears before a post is shared, notifying users that "prompts you post are public and visible to everyone […] Avoid sharing personal or sensitive information". However, it remains unclear whether users fully realise that their searches are being added to a public ‘Discover’ feed on the Meta AI app and website. It may also be connected to their other social accounts through their usernames and profile pictures.

The BBC discovered several instances where users uploaded images of school or university exam questions, seeking answers from Meta AI. Other conversations included personal topics, such as gender identity exploration and searches for scantily-clad characters.

Meta AI, launched earlier this year, is accessible through Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, as well as a standalone product with a public ‘Discover’ feed. Users can adjust their privacy settings to make their searches private.

In a press release, Meta reassured users they were "in control" of what was shared, stating that nothing would be posted unless they chose to do so. However, cybersecurity expert Rachel Tobac pointed out that when users' expectations do not match how the tool functions, it leads to significant security risks. She emphasised that users do not expect their AI chatbot interactions to be shared publicly, resulting in the inadvertent exposure of sensitive information tied to their identity.

WhatsApp has defended its new AI feature, which the company claims is "entirely optional", despite users being unable to remove it from the app. The feature, marked by a blue circle with pink and green splashes in the bottom right of the Chats screen, opens a chatbot designed to answer questions. However, it has caused frustration among users who cannot disable it.

WhatsApp compared the feature to other permanent app functions, such as 'channels' and 'status'. The company acknowledged user feedback but emphasised that the feature was optional, like the Microsoft Recall feature, which was previously criticised for being always-on before the company allowed users to disable it.

Meta, WhatsApp’s parent company, states that the feature is rolling out gradually and not all users may have access to it yet. The AI chatbot is powered by Llama 4, one of Meta's large language models and can be used across platforms like Facebook Messenger and Instagram. However, users have raised concerns, especially in Europe, where many are unhappy about the inability to turn off the feature.

Some critics, like Dr Kris Shrishak, a privacy and AI adviser, have expressed concern that Meta is "exploiting" its user base for AI testing, accusing the company of privacy violations through the use of personal data and pirated books in training its AI models.

Meta assures that personal messages on WhatsApp remain end-to-end encrypted and that the chatbot only processes messages users share with it. The company also warns users to be cautious about sharing sensitive information, as the AI could retain and use it.