As PFAS become subject to increased regulation in the United States, European Union and UK, we anticipate more related injury and environmental claims. Recent technological breakthroughs for the destruction of PFAS have provided a glimmer of hope for addressing the 'forever' impact of the chemicals from an environmental standpoint, notwithstanding their bio-accumulative nature. These removal treatments come at considerable cost, potentially borne by manufacturers responsible for environmental contamination and their insurers. In the United States, settlements totalling nearly US$11 billion have been agreed to resolve one manufacturer's liability for PFAS contamination in drinking water and specific environmental claims. For injury-related actions, despite the first bellwether trial for the Aqueous Film-Forming Foams multidistrict litigation recently being postponed, we expect to see further injury-related PFAS claims in the United States and beyond. In France, activist groups have announced they are preparing to bring an action on behalf of citizens alleging injury from PFAS contamination caused by chemical and petrochemical manufacturing in the Rhone valley. In the UK, two leading claimant firms announced investigations into possible environmental and injury claims caused by PFAS contamination in North Yorkshire.

Regulation of, and litigation over, ultra-processed foods (UPFs) is expected to gain traction in 2026. Mounting evidence linking UPFs to chronic diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease is intensifying regulatory scrutiny and fuelling litigation. Political rhetoric, including references to UPFs as 'poison' has emboldened US states to introduce restrictions on UPFs. While federal regulation remains uncertain, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) are actively considering a uniform definition, which is expected to provide greater legal and regulatory certainty regarding the scope of UPFs. UPF class actions and personal injury claims are increasing, targeting alleged deceptive marketing and the intentional design of UPFs to be 'hyper palatable' or addictive. However, plaintiffs will continue to face significant challenges in establishing causation, with alternative legal theories being explored. The forthcoming FDA/USDA definition is likely to spark further claims activity and heighten exposure for food manufacturers and distributors.

Microplastics are a significant emerging environmental and public health risk. Businesses involved in manufacturing, packaging, and food production could see heightened scrutiny, with underwriters demanding more rigorous risk disclosures and sustainability practices. Regulatory developments, such as the EU microplastics regulation, may drive insurers to adjust policy wordings and exclusions. Litigation risk will only grow as public awareness evolves, leading to class actions and reputational damage. While litigation in this area has largely focused on greenwashing and public nuisance, the next steps would be personal injury claims, which is where the traditional issues around causation start to arise.  The industry should effect a wide review of exposures now to understand the long-tail risks microplastics present.

The rise of popular GLP-1 drugs for obesity management comes with substantial litigation risk. Increased use has sparked a wave of litigation in the United States, with over 2,190 lawsuits consolidated in a multidistrict litigation class action. Plaintiffs allege manufacturers failed to adequately warn of severe side effects, including gastroparesis (delayed stomach emptying), vision loss (notably NAION) and suicidal thoughts. Recent regulatory developments, including the European Medicines Agency’s mandate for updated warning labels, and new findings cited in the Journal of the American Medical Association regarding vision loss have shifted litigation focus towards vision-related claims. These regulatory actions may be used by plaintiffs as evidence of known risks. Gastroparesis claims now require confirmation by gastric emptying study, potentially excluding some cases. Overall, these product liability exposures are expected to increase, with continued volatility as regulatory scrutiny intensifies and as the multidistrict litigation progresses.

The rise of AI shows no signs of abating, and the potential use cases are exponential. For athletes, data will increasingly be used alongside AI to prevent welfare issues, be they physical, mental or emotional. From mental health monitoring to bio-mechanical data to detect the risk of injury, and from wearables that warn of fatigue and poor recovery to instrumental mouthguards capable of detecting potential head injuries, expect technology to become increasingly prevalent in proactively managing welfare in elite sports.  Technological change, particularly where it is likely to filter down from elite to lower and grass-roots level, will be a game changer for individuals, clubs and associations.

With the advent of hotter and drier summers, workplaces are becoming increasingly susceptible to heat-stress related claims, with those working in vulnerable sectors such as agriculture, construction and frontline services particularly at risk. Without a legal maximum safe working temperature, and with increased awareness resulting in an increase in reporting of hazardous conditions, employers in high risk environments should review risk assessments and heat mitigation protocols in order to safeguard the health and safety of employees, and mitigate the risk of personal injury claims and regulatory prosecutions. Increased sun exposure is also likely to require employers to consider protective measures, including limiting the time workers spend in the open air and providing appropriate protective equipment, as well as utilising advances in wearable health monitoring devices.

Further to the Ministry of Justice's 2024 consultation looking at the adequacy of the law on apologies, expect stronger safeguards to ensure an apology cannot be misconstrued as an admission of liability. Section 2 of the Compensation Act 2006 already states that an apology, offer of treatment or other redress does not amount to an admission of liability, but new legislation could see the introduction of a statutory definition of complaint (as is the case in Scotland), underpinned by a broad acceptance that the use of apologies in highly sensitive cases such as those involving child sexual abuse can aid the healing process for victims.

The Employment Rights Bill is a key priority for the UK government and reflects many of its manifesto commitments to strengthen workers' and trade union rights. The first changes will be introduced shortly after Royal Assent (expected late 2025) but there are more significant changes happening in April and October 2026, followed by a raft of changes in 2027, including the abolition of two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, which will inevitably increase claims. In 2026, all businesses will need to deal with trade unions having the right to access their premises as well as having digital access too. They will also have to increase steps to prevent sexual harassment, as well as facing potential liability for the harassment of employees by third parties such as customers, clients and suppliers. Large employers will be expected to produce gender equality action plans in 2027, even though there may be a roll-back on diversity, equity and inclusion in the United States. All these changes are significant and, when coupled with the doubling of employment tribunal time limits from three months to six months, mean the exposure to claims is equally increased.

The effectiveness of the UK's opt-out class action regime in the Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT) is under the spotlight. A decade on from the introduction of the opt-out collective actions regime in competition law, the government has launched a review of its operation. Concerns exist that consumers are not obtaining meaningful redress and businesses are being disproportionately burdened. These have been heightened by the nine year legal battle in Merricks v Mastercard, which settled for just 2% of the pleaded claim value, and the CAT's dismissal of its first consumer trial (Le Patourel v BT Group PLC) which found that BT's pricing was not unfair or an abuse of dominance. The government is now exploring alternative dispute resolution and voluntary redress schemes to better balance consumer justice with business impact. This review comes swiftly after the Civil Justice Council (CJC) recommended in June 2025 that legislation be introduced swiftly to clarify litigation funding agreements  are not damages-based agreements, reversing the impact of the Supreme Court decision in PACCAR and the significant uncertainty created. The CJC also recommended the 'light-touch' regulation of the litigation funding market with enhanced regulation in consumer claims. The CJC proposals are likely to lead to continued growth of litigation funding in the UK and provide for a more stable, regulated environment in which funders have confidence in the enforceability of funding agreements.

The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 provides data subjects with a new statutory "right to complain". Once the relevant provisions are effective, controllers will need to ensure they have a complaints policy in place which meets the new requirements (including mandatory acknowledgement within 30 days). While many controllers will already have a complaints process in place, all will need to review these policies to ensure compliance with the new regime. This will ease the growing workload of the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), particularly as data subjects will be formally required to raise a complaint with the relevant controller prior to pursuing a complaint with the ICO, but it is likely to have the opposite effect on controllers. This may be exacerbated by the recent significant increase in the use of generative AI by data subjects to submit complaints more quickly and in greater volume. If controllers are not prepared for the potential tidal wave of complaints, the mere failure of adequately handling complaints could result in further ICO investigations and liability beyond the subject of the original complaint.

The current system for funding special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) support faces significant challenges, with increased demand and substantial funding deficits in local authority budgets. The recent Education Committee report called for mainstream education settings to become more inclusive, with access to specialist staff, appropriate equipment and an inclusive physical environment with a sustainable funding model. At the time of writing, a White Paper is expected which will propose reforms to the SEND system, particularly in relation to education, health and care plans. This uncertainty will continue to cause concern to parents and campaigners and we expect significant reforms will be made.

While the High Court declined to make any finding in relation to universities' duty of care in the Abrahart decision (in which the court found that a university had failed to make reasonable adjustments, which contributed to a student's death), this issue remains in the spotlight. A petition, led by the campaign group For The 100, calling for a statutory duty of care for students in higher education, was signed by over 128,000 and triggered a debate in Parliament in 2023. However, the government declined to take any further action citing the duties already held by universities. The extent of universities' duty of care towards students therefore remains unclear and will remain a live issue for some time with further claims likely to come.

Although government and regulators have stated a continuing commitment to the development of sustainable finance, the approach to environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations generally is now only through the lens of promoting growth and competitiveness of UK markets. It is perhaps notable that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Strategy for 2025-2030, published in June 2025, makes no reference to ESG.  In March 2025, the FCA announced that it would not be proceeding with proposed diversity and inclusion requirements for regulated firms.  In August 2025, it further announced that it is considering how to streamline the existing sustainability reporting requirements on firms.  For the year ahead we expect this trend to continue, with no new regulatory initiatives and a focus on streamlining existing requirements.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) will continue to look closely at the impact of premium finance on consumers, particularly vulnerable customers.  Insurers and brokers should review their premium finance products, looking particularly at the APRs charged and whether the decision to pay monthly is also factored into the setting of the underlying insurance premium (so-called 'double-dipping').  They should be prepared to justify their approach to the FCA if required and to show that it is objectively justified and reasonable. In addition, the long-awaited overhaul of the UK's fifty year old consumer credit laws has begun, and will eventually result in a more flexible regime, better suited to today's products and sales channels.  Firms should engage with this process so they can benefit from all of the expected changes.