Digital taxation has moved from policy debate to regulatory reality. Governments across the world are implementing measures aimed at taxing revenue generated within their markets by digital businesses, regardless of their physical presence. These measures, including VAT on electronic services, digital services taxes and withholding-based mechanisms, are changing how digital commerce operates.

The rapid growth of the digital economy has fundamentally altered how goods and services are traded across borders. Businesses can supply digital products, services, and platforms into markets without establishing a physical presence in those markets, thus enabling unprecedented levels of cross-border e-commerce.

While digital taxes are often framed as a fiscal issue, their real impact is commercial. They are reshaping pricing, participation, and competitiveness in cross-border e-commerce markets, with implications for both multinational platforms and local businesses.

The economic logic behind digital taxes

Traditional international tax systems were designed around physical presence. A company paid tax in a country where it had offices, employees or tangible operations. The digital economy disrupted that model in ways that are now well understood, but still not fully resolved.

Social media platforms monetise user data without maintaining local offices. Streaming services generate subscription revenue from users across many countries. Online marketplaces facilitate transactions between buyers and sellers in countries where the platform itself may have no legal entity.

As digitalisation accelerated, governments became increasingly concerned about base erosion and profit shifting, loss of tax revenue, perceived inequities between local and foreign companies, and growing political pressure to tax large multinational technology firms.

Digital taxes have emerged as a response to these concerns. They are intended to both capture revenue and create parity between domestic and foreign businesses. However, in doing so, they inevitably change the underlying economics of how digital services are supplied across borders.

Global context: the OECD framework

The global response to digital taxation has been shaped in large part by the work of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Through its BEPS 2.0 initiative, the OECD has introduced a two-pillar framework. Pillar One seeks to reallocate taxing rights of large multinationals profits to markets where their goods or services are used, while Pillar Two introduces a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15%.

147 countries have committed to elements of this framework, although implementation remains complex and uneven. In the meantime, countries have continued to introduce unilateral or regional digital tax measures in their own markets.

For businesses, this creates a layered environment: global rules are emerging, but local regimes remain highly relevant and, in many cases, decisive.

The adoption of digital services taxes in Africa

Direct digital services taxes, i.e. turnover-based levies on gross revenue from digital services supplied by non-residents, remain relatively limited in Africa compared to VAT-based approaches.

A few African countries have implemented direct digital service tax regimes, including Kenya, Nigeria, Tunisia, Zimbabwe, Tanzania and Sierra Leone.

However, over 20 African countries have introduced VAT on electronic services supplied by non-resident providers, reflecting a more administratively straightforward first step in taxing the digital economy.

This shows that Africa is not creating a single model of digital taxation, but is rather experimenting with different approaches depending on administrative capacity, enforcement considerations and policy priorities.

The impact on pricing and market dynamics

One of the most immediate effects of digital taxation is on pricing.

Turnover-based digital services taxes, as well as VAT obligations on foreign suppliers, increase the cost of supplying digital services. In most cases, these costs are not absorbed entirely by the platform, but are passed on to consumers.

This is already visible across some digital services. Subscription prices, advertising costs and marketplace commissions are adjusted to accommodate digital service taxes. Although they are commercially rational, they have real implications for how businesses and consumers participate in digital markets.

The result is that digital taxes influence not only government revenue, but also consumer pricing and market demand.

For cross-border e-commerce, the effect is cumulative. Many African businesses rely on global digital platforms to reach their customers, advertise products and manage operations. As platform costs increase, so too does the cost of participating in those markets.

Cross-border e-commerce and structural friction

Digital taxes do more than increase costs. They introduce new forms of friction into cross-border trade.

The defining feature of digital commerce has been its ability to operate across borders with minimal structural barriers. Digital tax regimes are beginning to change that.

As countries introduce VAT, direct digital service taxes and withholding-based taxation of digital services, businesses must navigate:

• multiple tax regimes applied to the same transaction;
• differing definitions of taxable digital services. and
• varying compliance requirements.

This results in a more fragmented and complex cross-border environment.

From adoption to enforcement: evolving digital tax models in Africa

Beyond the question of adoption, a more important development is how digital tax frameworks are evolving in practice.

Across Africa, there appears to be a shift from relatively simple turnover-based models towards approaches that prioritise enforceability and broader jurisdictional reach.

In some cases, this involves expanding the basis on which tax is imposed. For example, Kenya’s transition from a digital services tax to a significant economic presence framework reflects a move from transaction-based taxation to a model grounded in sustained digital participation within the local market. This broadens the scope of taxable activity and introduces greater complexity in determining exposure.

In other cases, the focus is on how the digital tax is collected. For example, Zimbabwe’s move toward a withholding-based model demonstrates a different strategy, i.e., incorporating tax collection within the payment system itself. By requiring intermediaries to collect the tax at the point of transaction, the framework reduces reliance on voluntary compliance by foreign providers and significantly enhances enforcement.

Nigeria’s application of economic presence rules reflects a similar objective of asserting taxing rights over digital activity without requiring physical presence, while Tanzania’s approach demonstrates how existing income tax frameworks can be adapted to capture digital marketplace activity.

From a practical advisory perspective, these developments indicate that digital taxation in Africa has not been static, but is evolving toward models that are both more comprehensive in scope and more effective in enforcement, with direct implications for how cross-border digital services are structured and delivered.

Community and market implications

Digital taxes are often framed as a corporate tax issue. In reality, their effects are felt much more broadly.

Consumers may have to pay higher subscription prices for digital services, increased online advertising costs and, in some cases, reduced service offerings. Where platforms pass on tax costs, the impact is felt directly by users.

Small and medium enterprises are also affected. Businesses that rely on digital advertising, online marketplaces and cross-border platforms may face higher operating costs as platforms adjust pricing in response to tax obligations. At the same time, digital taxes may help level the playing field by reducing advantages enjoyed by large multinational firms.

For governments, digital taxation presents an opportunity to strengthen domestic revenue bases and support broader policy objectives, including infrastructure development and digital inclusion.

At the same time, there are legitimate concerns that these unilateral measures can create trade tensions, introduce compliance complexity and, in some cases, affect investment decisions. In practice, both perspectives have merit, particularly in emerging markets where the balance between regulation and growth is more delicate.

 Balancing competing policy objectives

For emerging markets, the central challenge lies in balancing competing priorities.

Governments want to generate revenue while continuing to attracting investment, support local innovation and ensure that digital services remain affordable and accessible. Digital taxation therefore intersects directly with digital inclusion policy and broader economic development objectives.

In the African context, this balance is particularly important. Digital markets are still developing, and policy choices in this area will have long-term implications for growth and participation.

 Strategic implications

For businesses, the implications are clear. Digital taxes are not limited to large technology companies. They affect a wide range of sectors, including digital advertising, streaming and audiovisual services, gaming and betting platforms, e-commerce marketplaces, SaaS providers and data-driven platforms.

Even in countries without direct digital services tax regimes, VAT enforcement on foreign suppliers has intensified.

At the same time, unilateral digital tax measures, including those adopted in parts of the European Union, have introduced additional complexity for multinational businesses operating across multiple countries.

As a result, digital taxation must be considered as part of broader commercial and regulatory strategy. Pricing, market entry, platform design and transaction structuring all need to take into account the evolving digital tax landscape.

Conclusion

Digital taxation is reshaping the economics of cross-border e-commerce in Africa. While the adoption of direct digital services taxes remains relatively limited, the broader direction of travel is clear.

While the adoption of direct digital services taxes remains relatively limited, the broader trend is clear. African countries are expanding their ability to tax digital activity through a combination of VAT, income tax and withholding-based mechanisms.

For policymakers, the challenge is to balance revenue mobilisation and fairness with the need to promote digital inclusion and economic growth.

For businesses, the implication is that digital tax is not just a peripheral tax issue. It is a central factor in how cross-border commerce is structured, priced and executed.

Understanding and responding to these dynamics will be critical for any business seeking to operate successfully in Africa’s evolving digital economy.

The post Digital taxes are reshaping cross-border e-commerce economics in Africa appeared first on Werksmans Attorneys.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly becoming one of the most contested issues in copyright law worldwide. At the centre of this transformation is a fundamental question: can copyrighted works be used to train AI systems without permission? Recent developments, including litigation in the US and the UK and recent UK policy reports, highlight the growing tension between AI innovation and the protection of creative works. As Africa’s creative industries continue to experience significant global growth, these developments raise important legal and policy questions regarding the use of African content in AI training datasets.

The Global Debate on AI Training Data

Generative AI models are developed using text and data mining techniques, which involve copying and analysing large volumes of digital content to identify patterns. Training datasets often include copyrighted materials such as books, music, news articles and journalism archives, images and films.

The central legal question is whether this use of copyrighted material constitutes copyright infringement, or whether it falls within permissible exceptions such as fair use.

Globally, several broad approaches are emerging:

Global Litigation Shaping the Legal Landscape

Courts are beginning to define how copyright law applies to AI training.

In Getty Images v Stability AI, Getty alleges that Stability AI used millions of its copyrighted images to train an AI model without permission. The UK High Court dismissed certain copyright claims on jurisdictional grounds, noting insufficient evidence that the relevant acts occurred in the UK. However, the case highlighted the cross-border complexity of AI training, where datasets may be compiled and processed across multiple jurisdictions, and did not finally determine the substantive copyright issues.

In The New York Times v OpenAI and Microsoft, the newspaper alleges that millions of its articles were used to train AI systems without authorisation. The case raises important questions about the legality of training on copyrighted journalism, potential market substitution and liability for AI-generated outputs. This case is particularly important for news publishers globally, including in Africa, where digital journalism increasingly relies on subscription and advertising revenue.

Similarly, in Andersen v Stability AI, visual artists allege that AI models were trained on scraped images without consent, raising questions about whether such datasets infringe on copyright and whether AI models may constitute derivative works.

These cases are likely to play a significant role in shaping how courts approach AI training globally.

Policy Direction: UK and Global Signals

Recent UK developments provide useful insight into how governments may approach these issues.

In its Report on AI, Copyright and the Creative Industries, the UK House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee adopts a strongly pro-creator stance, emphasising that generative AI systems rely extensively on human-created content, cautions against weakening copyright protections and emphasises the need to ensure that creators are compensated for the use of their works.

The, the UK Government’s Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence (March 2026) confirms that there is currently no consensus on how copyright law should apply to AI training and that further evidence is required before legislative reform. It stepped back from its earlier proposal for a broad opt-out exception, following strong opposition from the creative industries. It is now exploring more balanced approaches, reflecting the evolving and contested nature of the issue.

The UK is increasingly focusing on:

• supporting licensing frameworks
• improving transparency in AI training data
• encouraging market-led solutions

This reflects a broader global trend towards balancing innovation with protection of creative industries.

Why This Issue Matters for Africa’s Creative Industries

Africa’s creative industries have grown rapidly over the past decade and are increasingly integrated into global digital markets.

Music: African music has achieved global prominence, with genres such as Afrobeats and Amapiano reaching international audiences. Artists such as Burna Boy, Wizkid, Tyla and Black Coffee have gained global recognition, while streaming platforms distribute African music worldwide.

Film and Television: Nigeria’s Nollywood remains one of the largest film industries globally, producing thousands of films annually. South Africa’s television and broadcasting sector continues to produce locally relevant content, distributed through platforms such as DStv. Global streaming service providers are also investing in African content.

Digital Media and Journalism: African publishers such as Nation Media Group (Kenya), Daily Maverick (South Africa) and Premium Times (Nigeria) have built significant digital audiences. Their business models rely heavily on content monetisation through subscriptions and advertising.

As African content gains international reach, it is increasingly likely to be incorporated into global AI training datasets.

This creates a structural risk: African creative works may be used to train AI systems without the knowledge, consent or compensation of creators.

At the same time, African creators and businesses may have limited visibility into how their content is used in AI development, particularly where training occurs across multiple jurisdictions.

Most African copyright regimes were developed prior to the emergence of generative AI and do not expressly address the use of copyrighted works in AI training datasets. Copyright laws in most African jurisdictions do not yet directly regulate text and data mining or AI training.

Strategic Opportunity: African Data as an Asset

While much of the debate focuses on risk, AI training also presents a potential commercial opportunity.

Generative AI systems require large volumes of high-quality data, and AI developers are increasingly entering into licensing agreements with content owners.  African datasets that may become particularly valuable include language datasets (given the diversity of African languages), music catalogues (particularly in globally popular genres such as Afrobeats and Amapiano) and    media archives (including film, television and journalism).

This suggests that African creators and institutions may be able to participate in emerging markets for licensed AI training data.

What Businesses Should Do Now

The evolving legal landscape requires action from both AI developers and creative industry participants.

AI developers should:

• Ensure that training datasets are lawfully sourced.
• Implement governance processes to track data provenance.
• Monitor regulatory developments across jurisdictions.

Creative industries should:

• Strengthen copyright notices and licensing terms to include an express provision on whether content may be used for AI training.
• Implement technical measures to restrict unauthorised scraping, including tools that allow websites to block AI crawlers or charge for access to content.
• Embed copyright metadata or invisible watermarks into their content, which can help identify unauthorised use, prove ownership and track where works appear online.
• Collaborate through industry bodies to advocate for regulatory frameworks, negotiate licensing frameworks or developing collective rights management models.
• Explore opportunities to license content for AI training.

These steps can help mitigate risk while positioning businesses to benefit from emerging opportunities.

Conclusion

The global debate on AI training data remains unresolved, but its direction is becoming clearer. Governments are increasingly focusing on licensing, transparency and market-based solutions.

For Africa, the key question is how creative industries can both protect their content and participate in emerging data markets. The outcome of this debate will play a critical role in shaping the future of the continent’s creative economy.

As global approaches begin to converge around licensing and transparency, early strategic positioning will be critical for African creators and businesses.

The post Generative AI and Copyright: Emerging Legal and Policy Questions for Africa’s Creative Industries appeared first on Werksmans Attorneys.

Direct-to-device (“D2D”) satellite connectivity is emerging as one of the most consequential developments in the global telecommunications landscape. By enabling standard mobile devices to connect directly to satellites, D2D introduces a fundamentally different model of connectivity-one that is particularly relevant in regions where traditional network deployment has proven challenging, or infrastructure is unreliable or vulnerable to disruption. While this has the potential to expand coverage in underserved and remote areas, it also challenges long-standing regulatory frameworks built on a clear separation between satellite and terrestrial networks.

A Potential New Layer of Connectivity for Africa

Although mobile network coverage has expanded considerably across Africa, gaps remain in rural and hard-to-reach areas, and network resilience continues to be tested by environmental and other disruptions.

D2D introduces regulatory complexity that existing frameworks, historically based on a clear distinction between satellite and terrestrial services, were not designed to address. As these boundaries blur, regulators, operators and investors are confronted with evolving questions relating to spectrum use, licensing models, and market structure. These questions remain unsettled and are being approached differently across jurisdictions.

This article considers the key regulatory issues arising in relation to D2D across Africa, and where the technology may have the most meaningful impact.

Understanding D2D: The Convergence of Satellite and Mobile Networks

At its core, D2D refers to satellite-enabled communications services that connect directly to standard consumer devices, such as smartphones and Internet of Things (“IoT”) devices, without the need for terrestrial base stations or specialised equipment.

Two broad deployment methods are emerging.

• The first relies on spectrum traditionally allocated to mobile satellite servicers (MSS), typically requiring compatible device chipsets and operating within established international regulatory frameworks.
• The second involves the use of terrestrial mobile spectrum, usually through partnerships with licensed mobile network operators (“MNOs”), and raises more complex regulatory questions on spectrum sharing, licensing and competition.

Key Regulatory Issues

The emergence of D2D satellite connectivity raises a number of interrelated regulatory questions for African regulators, spanning several areas of telecommunications regulation.

Spectrum assignment and interference

The use of terrestrial mobile spectrum by satellite systems lies at the centre of current regulatory discussions. Although use of terrestrial mobile spectrum enables seamless connectivity using standard devices, it introduces the risk of interference with existing mobile networks. Regulators must therefore consider how to balance the efficient use of spectrum with the protection of incumbent licensees. For example, in Kenya, the Communications Authority of Kenya has initiated a technical review of satellite-to-device services, including assessing whether transmissions from low Earth orbit satellites to mobile devices could interfere with existing terrestrial mobile networks.

Licensing framework:

A key issue is whether existing licensing frameworks can accommodate D2D services, or whether new approaches are required. Traditional regimes distinguish clearly between satellite operators and terrestrial network operators. D2D, however, sits between these categories.

Some countries have indicated that existing frameworks may be capable of accommodating D2D, particularly where services are delivered through partnerships with licensed mobile operators. For example, in the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa authorised the use of MNO-licensed spectrum for testing purposes, suggesting a degree of adaptability within the current framework.

In other jurisdictions, there is less certainty. Questions remain regarding direct service provision to end-users, the form of authorisation required, and the regulatory treatment of user devices. These issues are still being actively explored in several countries, including Zambia, where a consultation process on the interim procedure to facilitate D2D has been initiated by the Zambia Information and Communication Technology Authority, but a D2D specific framework has not yet been finalised.

Role of MNOs

D2D also raises important questions regarding the role of MNOs in the evolving telecommunications ecosystem. While some models envisage direct service provision by satellite operators, industry stakeholders have consistently emphasised the importance of maintaining a role for licensed MNOs, particularly where terrestrial spectrum is used, both to ensure regulatory alignment and to support efficient spectrum management.

This is not only a regulatory issue, but also a commercial one. MNOs have made substantial investments in infrastructure, and there is concern that allowing satellite operators to bypass existing frameworks could disrupt established market dynamics. As a result, partnership-based models are increasingly being viewed as a practical means for aligning innovation with existing regulatory and commercial realities.

Competition and regulatory parity

The expansion of satellite operators into markets traditionally served by MNOs introduces a new competitive dynamic. Satellite operators may not be subject to the same regulatory obligations as local licensees, while MNOs are typically subject to licensing requirements, spectrum fees, consumer protection rules, and infrastructure commitments. This raises concerns that permitting comparable services without equivalent obligations could distort competition and undermine investment incentives.

Regulators must therefore strike a balance between encouraging innovation and protecting the integrity of their domestic telecommunications markets.

Cross-border and jurisdictional issues

Satellite services there are inherently cross-border, in contrast to the national focus of telecommunications regulation in Africa. As a result, operators must navigate fragmented regulatory regimes across jurisdictions, each with distinct licensing requirements and policy priorities.

For investors seeking to deploy D2D services at scale, this fragmentation presents a practical challenge. While harmonisation efforts may develop over time, current approaches remain largely country specific.

Regulatory Timing and Global Developments

The question of timing is also significant. A further issue is whether national regulatory approaches should be aligned with international developments, particularly the outcomes of the International Telecommunication Union’s World Radiocommunication Conference in 2027 (WRC-27), where aspects of non‑terrestrial network integration are expected to be considered.

Pending WRC-27, regulatory flexibility and interim measures may be required to enable testing and early deployment of D2D, particularly in markets where connectivity gaps remain significant. For example, the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority published guidelines for the provision of D2D, which it designed to serve as an interim measure until the global framework is finalised at WRC-27.

This divergence reflects a broader tension between the need for regulatory certainty and the desire to support innovation in a rapidly evolving technological environment.

Opportunities for Africa: Where D2D Could Have the Greatest Impact

While much of the focus has been on challenges, D2D also presents significant opportunities for Africa.

Its most immediate impact is likely to be in extending coverage to rural and underserved regions, where traditional network deployment remains economically challenging.

It also has potential use in sectors such as agriculture, mining, and logistics, where connectivity in remote locations is often critical.

D2D may further enhance emergency communications and disaster response, by providing connectivity where terrestrial networks are unavailable.

Conclusion

D2D satellite connectivity presents both significant opportunities and complex regulatory challenges for Africa. It has the potential to extend connectivity to underserved areas, but also raises important questions relating to spectrum, licensing, the role of MNOs, competition, regulatory parity and cross-border coordination.

Regulatory approaches across African jurisdictions are still evolving. While the outcomes of WRC-27 are expected to provide important international guidance, national regulators will continue to play a critical role in shaping frameworks that can support the effective deployment of D2D services.

Against this backdrop, a key question remains: will existing regulatory frameworks prove sufficiently flexible to accommodate D2D services at scale, or will more deliberate regulatory evolution be required?

The post Direct-to-Device Satellite Connectivity: Regulatory Implications for Africa’s Digital Future appeared first on Werksmans Attorneys.

In Africa, where satellite connectivity is increasingly relevant to digital infrastructure strategies, the central policy question is not simply how to enable deployment, but how to do so in a manner that balances investment, competition and national regulatory priorities. As satellite technologies evolve, regulators are reconsidering whether existing licensing frameworks remain fit for purpose. This requires navigating the intersection between globally coordinated satellite systems and domestically regulated communications markets, and determining how international frameworks can be aligned with national policy objectives.

Global Policy Direction and the GSOA Framework

Satellite connectivity is increasingly recognised as an important component of modern communications infrastructure. Against this backdrop, the GSOA Satellite Licensing Best Practices Report (January 2026) makes a compelling case for regulatory frameworks that simplify licensing processes, promote open skies policies and align national regulatory approaches with international coordination mechanisms, reducing regulatory barriers and enabling satellite capacity to be provided across borders more efficiently.

These principles are particularly relevant in the African context, where satellite connectivity is increasingly being considered as part of national digital infrastructure strategies.

At the same time, the implementation of such frameworks inevitably takes place within broader national policy contexts. Regulators across the continent therefore often consider how enabling satellite deployment can be achieved while remaining aligned with domestic regulatory responsibilities and policy priorities.

Satellite Connectivity and Africa’s Digital Infrastructure

While mobile network coverage in Africa is relatively high, structural constraints continue to limit the expansion of terrestrial broadband infrastructure in certain regions. In many areas, extending fibre or mobile networks may not be commercially viable in the near term.

Satellite systems complement terrestrial networks by enabling connectivity in areas where traditional deployment models are less viable. Satellite broadband can support access to essential digital services, including education platforms, telemedicine, financial services and e-government systems.

In this sense, regulatory frameworks that facilitate the rapid deployment of satellite services can support the advancement of national digital development strategies across the continent.

Open Skies and Market Access

One of the key themes highlighted in the GSOA report is the concept of “open skies” policies, under which satellite operators can provide satellite capacity across borders without requiring extensive national licensing procedures.

From a market perspective, such approaches may enable domestic telecommunications operators to access satellite infrastructure more easily, potentially increasing competition and expanding infrastructure choices for service providers.

For African regulators, the discussion often centres on how such frameworks can be implemented in a manner that facilitates market access while ensuring appropriate regulatory oversight of communications services provided within national territories.

In some jurisdictions, this may involve simplified landing rights regimes or registration mechanisms that enable satellite operators to provide capacity while maintaining regulatory visibility over services offered in the market.

Spectrum Management and International Coordination

Satellite communications operate within a global spectrum coordination framework managed by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The GSOA report emphasises the importance of aligning national regulatory frameworks with international coordination mechanisms, including the use of the ITU Master International Frequency Register (MIFR), which underpins the global coordination of satellite spectrum resources.

Greater reliance on international coordination processes can reduce regulatory duplication and facilitate cross-border satellite operations.

At the same time, national regulators remain responsible for managing spectrum use within their jurisdictions, including coordination with terrestrial services, mitigation of harmful interference and compliance with national regulatory requirements.

As satellite and terrestrial networks become increasingly integrated, spectrum coordination between these systems may become an increasingly important regulatory consideration. These considerations are particularly important in the context of large-scale satellite deployment, where cross-border consistency can significantly affect investment and service rollout.

Licensing Frameworks and Regulatory Oversight

Many African telecommunications markets operate under unified licensing frameworks that apply to both network operators and service providers. These frameworks typically include obligations relating to consumer protection, competition, spectrum management and lawful interception.

As satellite services expand within national markets, regulators may consider how existing licensing frameworks interact with satellite network architectures, which differ in several important respects from traditional terrestrial communications networks.

Satellite systems often operate across multiple jurisdictions, rely on globally coordinated spectrum resources and may not require the same physical infrastructure within national borders as terrestrial networks. Regulatory frameworks that recognise these characteristics while maintaining appropriate oversight may help support the efficient deployment of satellite services.

This raises a broader question as to whether existing licensing frameworks should be adapted to reflect the operational characteristics of satellite systems, or whether satellite services should continue to be accommodated within existing regulatory structures.

Regulatory Efficiency and Deployment Enablers

In addition to broader policy considerations, the GSOA report also emphasises the importance of regulatory efficiency in enabling the deployment of satellite services. This includes streamlined licensing processes, predictable approval timelines and regulatory fees that are limited to administrative cost recovery.

From a practical perspective, these measures may play a significant role in determining how quickly satellite services can be introduced into national markets. Lengthy approval processes, duplicative licensing requirements or high regulatory fees may delay deployment and increase the cost of satellite connectivity.

The report also highlights the role of blanket licensing frameworks for user terminals, which allow large numbers of satellite devices with similar technical characteristics to be authorised under a single licence. Such approaches can facilitate the rapid expansion of satellite connectivity, particularly in underserved areas.

For African regulators, these considerations are particularly relevant in assessing how regulatory frameworks can support both the availability and affordability of satellite-enabled services.

In this context, regulatory efficiency is not only an administrative consideration, but a key determinant of investment attractiveness and the pace of satellite deployment in national markets.

A Continuing Policy Conversation

The policy direction outlined in the GSOA report reflects broader global trends toward simplified licensing frameworks and greater regulatory harmonisation in satellite communications.

For African regulators, the discussion may increasingly focus on how these principles can be implemented in ways that support connectivity, investment and innovation while remaining aligned with domestic policy priorities and regulatory responsibilities.

Ultimately, the policy question may not be whether satellite services should play a larger role in Africa’s connectivity landscape. Rather, it is how regulatory frameworks can evolve to enable the rapid deployment of satellite connectivity while remaining consistent with national policy objectives.

As satellite technologies continue to develop, this is likely to become an increasingly important part of the regulatory agenda across African communications markets. The evolving policy landscape is already being tested by emerging technologies such as direct-to-device satellite connectivity, highlighting the importance of regulatory frameworks that can accommodate innovation while remaining aligned with national policy objectives.

The post Satellite Regulation in Africa: Aligning Global Frameworks with National Policy Priorities appeared first on Werksmans Attorneys.

While gambling advertising is already extensively regulated in national and provincial legislation, the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) has proposed amendments to take its self-regulatory Gambling Advertising Code up a notch.

The proposed Code presents an opportunity for industry to collaborate to formulate and adhere to a gambling advertising code that protects the public through responsible gambling advertising rules that are practical and informed by commercial realities, over and above the advertising restrictions in gambling legislation.

The ARB has published proposed amendments to the Gambling Code for stakeholder consultation, with comments due by 28 February 2026.

The increasing prevalence of gambling and betting advertising in South Africa has put a spotlight on the regulation of gambling advertising.

There are wide-ranging concerns about gambling – and by extension gambling advertising – including concerns about the illegal black market and the need to protect vulnerable members of the population, including children and problem gamblers.

But some may not be aware that gambling advertising is already extensively regulated in South Africa.

The National Gambling Act and the National Gambling Regulations restrict gambling advertising in various ways.

• In terms of the National Gambling Act, a person may not advertise any gambling activity in a false or misleading manner, advertise unlawful gambling, or advertise gambling in a manner intended to target or attract minors.
• The National Gambling Regulations also contain a raft of restrictions on the placement, timing and content of gambling ads: For example, gambling ads must not portray excessive play, present a game as a means of relieving financial or personal difficulties, exhort gambling as a means of recovering past gambling or financial losses, claim guaranteed personal, financial or social success, represent gambling as an alternative to employment, or imply that winning is the probable outcome of gambling. Gambling ads must also include the prescribed National Responsible Gambling Programme helpline number and messaging.

In addition to the National gambling legislation, each South African province has its own gambling law and regulator, with its own restrictions. For example, in the Western Cape, there are various restrictions on undesirable gambling advertising.

The Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) (formerly the Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa) is a self-regulation body that works with ad agencies, the media and industry to self-regulate advertising through the ARB Code of Advertising Practice (the “ARB Code”), on which the ARB receives and adjudicates complaints.  The ARB Code deals with advertising in general, but also contains 9 appendices dealing with subject-specific advertising, ranging from pet food to cosmetics to breast milk substitutes, alcohol and gambling.

The ARB introduced the Gambling Advertising Appendix (the “Gambling Code”) in an effort to strengthen the integrity of gambling advertising practices and ensure that advertising in this sector is responsible.

Earlier versions of the Gambling Code consolidated the existing laws on gambling advertising into a single streamlined document with simplified language.

The ARB is now taking the Gambling Code up a notch. It has proposed amendments to the Gambling Code in an effort to address some of the issues that have emerged recently, to provide an industry-led solution to ensure responsible gambling advertising.

The ARB launched the revised Gambling Code at the Responsible Gambling Summit in November 2025, and held an industry workshop on 28 January 2026 to go through the draft Code in more detail.

The proposed amendments to the Gambling Code include:

• Additional content restrictions, including prohibition on portraying irresponsible gambling behaviours and gambling as a solution to financial or personal problems.
• More restrictions on advertising to minors, including prohibition of themes or imagery that have primary appeal to people under the gambling age, e.g. cartoons and characters which are known to be widely popular primarily with people under 18.
• A new section on timing and placement restrictions, with restrictions for different media platforms, including outdoor, radio, television and online content services, social media and digital platforms. New provisions on the use of celebrities on social media and digital platforms require the celebrity to be – and appear to be – at least 21 years old, shown behaving responsibly, and in an age-appropriate setting, with the use of celebrities who appeal primarily to an underage audience prohibited.
• A requirement for the National Responsible Gambling Programme warning to be spoken at the same speed and volume as the rest of the commercial.

While the Gambling Code cannot replace legislation, it presents an opportunity for industry to collaborate to formulate and adhere to a code that protects the public – and particularly the vulnerable members of society – through enhanced rules that are practical, informed by commercial realities, and reflective of best practice, allowing businesses to operate with greater autonomy and flexibility while still maintaining public protection standards. A self-regulatory code such as the Gambling Code is also easier and quicker to amend to keep up with developments than an Act of Parliament or regulations.

The Gambling Code is open for comment by interested parties. Submissions or requests for extensions may be made to the ARB by Saturday 28 February. For further information, contact us (wrosenberg@werksmans.com or nmadondo@werksmans.com) or contact the ARB on info@arb.org.za

The post Advertising Regulatory Board ups the ante on responsible gambling advertising appeared first on Werksmans Attorneys.

South Africa’s data protection, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence (“AI“) landscape matured significantly in 2025. Key developments included: new POPIA regulations; a joint cyber security standard for financial institutions coming into effect; the Information Regulator issuing draft regulations for healthcare data; and the publication of an AI report by financial sector regulators. At least two notable POPIA-related judgments were also handed down.

This article recaps 2025’s key developments and forecasts what is on the horizon for 2026.

Amended POPIA Regulations

 On 17 April 2025, amended regulations (“Amended Regulations“) to the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 (“POPIA“) and the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (“PAIA“) came into effect. The Amended Regulations contained several notable changes, including:

Direct Marketing: Organisations must obtain a data subject’s written consent before conducting direct marketing by sending unsolicited electronic communication. Consent cannot be inferred from silence or pre-ticked boxes (i.e. opting out), and a copy must be provided upon request. Consent obtained via telephone or automated calls must be recorded.

Enhanced IR Complaints Processes: The list of persons who may submit complaints to the Information Regulator (“IR“) has been expanded to include persons acting on a data subject’s behalf or in the public interest.

Negotiating Fines with the IR: Responsible parties can negotiate instalment plans for administrative fines, with affordability assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Access and Monitoring: The process for data subjects’ objections to processing has been simplified: it is free and can be lodged by post, fax, email, or WhatsApp.

The Amended Regulations will lead to improved and more efficient POPIA and PAIA processes, with increased direct marketing enforcement also expected.

Data Breaches

Data breaches remained a key focus for the IR, even though fewer enforcement notices were issued in 2025. Some 1,607 breaches were reported between April and September 2025 – a 60% increase from 2024. On 1 April 2025, the IR launched a mandatory security compromise reporting tool on its eServices portal to streamline reporting.

Data breach reporting and enforcement are likely to remain a focus area for the IR in 2026, and organisations should ensure their data breach response plans are up to date. Responsible parties should ensure any operators are aware of their breach reporting obligations.

Cybersecurity for Financial Institutions

 The Prudential Authority (“PA“) and the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (“FSCA“) published a Joint Standard on Cybersecurity and Cyber Resilience Requirements (“Joint Standard“), which took effect in June 2025. Financial institutions (“FIs“) – such as banks, insurers, and fund administrators – have to comply.

Key requirements include a comprehensive cybersecurity strategy, cyber resilience capabilities, employee training, continuous monitoring, incident response plans, regular control testing, vulnerability assessments, and malware protection. The Joint Standard requires FIs to report any material cyber incident to financial sector regulators.

Enforcement action by the PA and FSCA is likely in 2026, and it is possible that significant fines may be issued for non-compliance, similar to those issued for Financial Intelligence Centre Act / FICA non-compliance.

Health Data Regulations

 On 26 September 2025, the IR published draft regulations (“Draft Regulations“) on the processing of personal information relating to health or sex life (“health data“). The regulations apply to insurance companies, medical schemes, pension funds, administrative bodies, and employers working for such bodies (each a “Relevant Body“). The following is highlighted at a bird’s eye view:

Lawful Basis: Where a Relevant Body processes health data for compliance with laws, pension regulations, or collective agreements, it may only do so to comply with the law; or to pursue the legitimate interests of the Relevant Body or data subject. The Draft Regulations have been criticised for requiring both a lawful basis to process health data as special personal information (section 32) and as personal information (section 11). Additionally, legitimate interest is not considered a lawful basis for processing health data under POPIA – which is consistent with the EU and UK GDPR approach.

Security Safeguards: A Relevant Body must employ specific measures to comply with POPIA’s security safeguard requirements. The Draft Regulations contain an unusual provision requiring a written agreement with a data subject before processing their health data, which requires further clarification.

Cross-Border Transfers: Organisations must notify data subjects of intended transfers and the level of protection afforded to their health data, unless the data subject has consented or the transfer is in their legitimate interests.

Record Retention and Deletion: Health data must not be retained longer than necessary for its original purpose, unless required by law or contract, or the data subject consents. Data must be destroyed or de-identified once no longer necessary.

Final regulations are likely to be published in 2026.

Notable Case Law Developments

 Judicial interpretation of POPIA’s provisions remained limited in 2025. Two notable decisions emerged.

De Jager v Netcare Limited (“Netcare”): De Jager challenged the admissibility of surveillance footage on the basis that it breached POPIA. The court held that it was in the interests of justice to admit the footage and that under POPIA, the processing was necessary for Netcare to enforce its rights (POPIA, section 27). The Court raised concerns regarding the processing of “non-data subjects” and children’s data in the footage but stated that its hands were tied by section 6(e) of POPIA exempting compliance relating to judicial functions. The court’s reliance on this exemption is misplaced.

IR v Department of Basic Education (“DBE”): The IR sought to prevent the DBE from publishing matric results by examination number, arguing learners could be indirectly identified through sequential number allocations. The High Court rejected this, ruling that the publication of an examination number alone does not constitute processing personal information. The DBE published the 2025 matric results on 13 January using examination numbers. The IR has applied for leave to appeal.

AI

In November 2025, the FSCA and PA published a joint report on AI in the South African financial sector. The report outlines key opportunities, such as enhanced data analytics and cybersecurity capabilities, while highlighting significant risks including data privacy concerns, bias, and systemic vulnerabilities.

Though not binding, the report urges FIs to adopt international standards for AI explainability, establish strong data governance with board-level oversight, and ensure adequate disclosure to consumers when AI is used in decision-making.

The report signals that South African regulators are proactively implementing the national AI framework, although specific AI laws or regulations are not imminent in 2026.

Child Data

Protections for children online and their personal data are increasing globally. The UK’s Age-Appropriate Design Code mandates high default privacy settings for minors, and Australia banned social media for children under 16 in late 2025. POPIA already provides some protection for children’s personal information, but targeted regulations addressing children’s digital life could strengthen safeguards given the risk of harm.

Cloud Computing

The National Policy on Data and Cloud may drive more structured approaches to data residency and public-sector cloud procurement. Organisations should anticipate closer alignment with POPIA’s cross-border transfer rules and clearer shared-responsibility frameworks between cloud customers and providers.

Conclusion

Going into 2026, organisations should be mindful of improved POPIA processes, as well as a regulatory focus on electronic direct marketing compliance and data breach reporting. FIs must ensure they comply with the Joint Standard or risk facing enforcement action. Final healthcare regulations are likely to be published in 2026, while AI policy continues to develop, especially for FIs. Ultimately, strategic investment in your business’s data, AI, and cyber security compliance is critical.

The post Code Red to Code Regulated: South Africa’s Data, AI and Cybersecurity Shift in 2025, and What’s to Come in 2026? appeared first on Werksmans Attorneys.

In recent years, the number of online bookmakers offering fixed odds bets on casino style games has increased.  In a recent landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa held, in the context of the Gauteng Gambling Act, that it is unlawful for bookmakers licensed in Gauteng to offer fixed odds bets on the game of roulette, which is not a sporting event as contemplated in the Gauteng Gambling Act. While the National Gambling Board has hailed the judgment as extending to all bookmakers licensed across South Africa, the judgment is specific to bookmakers licensed in Gauteng under the Gauteng Gambling Act, where the legislation expressly limits bookmaker licensees to accepting fixed odds bets on sporting events.

See Portapa (Pty) Limited t/a Supabets and Others v Casino Association of South Africa and Another [2025] ZASCA 158 (21 October 2025)

In October 2025 the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa (SCA) handed down judgment on whether bookmakers that are licensed as such under the Gauteng Gambling Act, 1995 may offer fixed odds bets on the outcomes of casino style games such as roulette.

The litigation arose after the Gauteng Gambling Board, in January 2017, approved the use of the Aardvark betting software in the Gauteng province. The software enables bookmakers to offer and accept bets on the outcome of sports and lottery draw events and the electronic capturing of bets.

Portapa (Pty) Ltd is a licensed bookmaker in the Gauteng province, which trades as “Supabets”. In June 2017, Supabets began to offer fixed odd bets online, on the outcome of livestreamed roulette games, using the Aardvark betting software.

The Casino Association of South Africa, representing licensed casino operators, instituted court proceedings asking the courts to declare that:

1. It is unlawful for persons other than casino licence holders to offer fixed odds bets on the outcomes of casino games, including roulette.
2. Supabets was not entitled to offer fixed odds bets on that contingency without a casino licence.

Amongst other things, the Casino Association contended that such practices expose casino operators to unfair competition and members of the public to unlawful unregulated gambling.

In 2023, the High Court granted the review application and set aside the approvals that had been granted by the Board. The case went to the SCA on appeal.

The SCA decision

On 21 October 2025, the SCA handed down judgment. It made two key decisions:

1. The Gauteng Gambling Act limits bookmakers licensed as such in Gauteng to accepting bets only on sporting events and beauty contests.
2. Roulette is not a sporting event as contemplated in the Gauteng Gambling Act.

Gauteng bookmakers may only accept bets on sporting events

Unlike several other provincial gambling statutes in South Africa, the Gauteng Gambling Act says that a bookmaker’s licence shall “authorise the accepting … of fixed odds bets on sporting events“.

The SCA held that there is no conflict between the Gauteng Gambling Act and the National Gambling Act in this regard – the two statutes can be read harmoniously:

1. The National Gambling Act is broadly framed and provides flexibility to cover any contingency that the individual provincial legislative authorities may choose to provide.
2. Each South African province has its own gambling laws, each with its own peculiarities and restrictions.
3. The Gauteng legislature has exercised its policy choice to restrict the contingency on which bookmakers may accept or offer bets to sporting events.

Roulette is not a sporting event

Having concluded that the Gauteng Gambling Act does not authorise bookmakers to accept fixed odds bets on sporting events, the SCA addressed the question whether roulette is a “sporting event” on which bookmakers may accept bets.

“Sporting event” is defined in the Gauteng Gambling Act as meaning “any ball-game, race (including a race involving vehicles or animals) or other athletic or sporting contest, competition or game, including a beauty contest, usually attended by the public“.

The SCA held that roulette is not a game as envisaged in this definition. Rather, it held, a sensible reading of “sporting event” in section 1 of the Gauteng Gambling Act is that the phrase “other athletic or sporting” describes and qualifies the “game”.

The SCA thus held that that roulette is not a “sporting game” or a “sporting event” for the purposes of the Gauteng Gambling Act, but rather a casino game for which a casino licence is required.

The judgment does not apply to all bookmakers across the country and it did not ban online betting

The SCA ultimately concluded that, in terms of the Gauteng Gambling Act, it is unlawful for bookmakers licensed as such in Gauteng to offer fixed odds bets on the outcome of a casino game, including the game of roulette.

On 29 October 2025 the National Gambling Board hailed the judgment as reaffirming its argument that no bookmakers may offer casino games as contingencies by betting on the outcomes of those games. The National Gambling Board recognised that the judgment was premised on the interpretation of the Gauteng Gambling Act, but believes that its implications extend to all bookmakers across South Africa.

The National Gambling Board called on all bookmakers to refrain from offering casino-style games as their source of contingency betting, warning that winnings emanating from interactive gambling will be isolated and confiscated in terms of the National Gambling Act.

It seems to us that the National Gambling Board has misconstrued the SCA judgment in several respects.

1. The SCA expressly limited its judgment to Gauteng, noting that “provincial legislatures in other regions permit bookmakers in those regions to offer or accept fixed-odds bets on any contingency“.
2. The SCA specifically commented that “Section 55 of the Gauteng Act and the relevant definitions were enacted to ensure that gambling activities in the Gauteng Province are effectively regulated, taking into account the unique socio-economic circumstances and demographics of that province.” … “The Gauteng Act is a carefully constructed scheme for regulating gambling within the Gauteng Province.” (Our underlining)
3. The SCA also said that “Nothing prevents bookmakers from using technology or electronic means to provide betting and wagering facilities within their defined scope of contingency.”

Implications for the online betting industry and punters

The SCA’s judgment has a real impact on operators in the Gauteng province. The SCA has made it clear that bookmakers licensed as such in Gauteng may offer fixed odds bets only on sporting events and beauty contests.

All bookmaker licensees who accept bets on casino-style contingencies would be well advised to review the lawfulness of their practices within the context of the applicable provincial legislation and their applicable licence conditions. Amongst other things, bookmaker licensees should consider whether the applicable gambling legislation in the province(s) in which they are licensed limits the contingencies on which fixed odds bets may be placed to, for example, sporting events and, if so, how “sporting event” is defined.

Finally, punters should exercise caution in betting on the outcomes of casino style games such as roulette, in light of the National Gambling Board’s warning that winnings emanating from interactive gambling will be confiscated.

The post Supreme Court of Appeal clarifies boundaries between casino and bookmaker licences in the Gauteng province appeared first on Werksmans Attorneys.

On 6 June 2025, the draft Western Cape Twentieth Gambling and Racing Amendment Bill, 2025 and related Regulations were gazetted for public comment.

They provide for an economic opportunity tax to be paid by casino operator licensees in the Western Cape who successfully apply to the Western Cape Gambling and Racing Board to relocate their casinos.

There are five casino operator licensees in the Western Cape. With the original roll-out of casinos in the Western Cape, successful bidders for casino operator licences paid bid fees and exclusivity fees.

• The bid fees were payable for the intrinsic value the casino operator licensees would enjoy as a result of the award of the casino operator licences and were intended to support community projects in the area in which the licences had been granted. The bid fees (as amended in 2000), are roughly ~R6 million, ~R12million and ~R165 million, depending on the value of the casino development and its location from the Cape Town City Hall, with the Cape Metropolitan casino paying the highest bid fees.
• Casino operator licensees were required to pay exclusivity fees to operate a casino within an exclusive geographic area, for a ten-year exclusivity period.

The exclusivity periods have now expired, and the Western Cape Gambling and Racing Board may now approve applications for casino operator licensees to relocate their casinos.

The purpose of the Bill is to provide for an “economic opportunity tax” to be paid by casino operator licensees in the Western Cape who successfully apply to relocate their casinos. In other words, in order to relocate their casinos, casino operator licensees will have to pay the economic opportunity tax.

The stated rationale for the economic opportunity tax is that relocating casinos would acquire an enhanced opportunity to generate gambling revenue because of the relocation, which revenue was not reflected in their original bid fees. The proposal is thus to tax the “enhanced economic opportunity that accrues to the holder of a casino operator licence … as a direct result of the relocation of its casino to a more lucrative location versus the status quo“.

The proposed economic opportunity tax is 2.05% for each R1 of the after-tax gross revenue of the relocated casino.

• The manner of calculating the proposed tax is set out in detail in the Bill.
• The relocating casino operator licensees would have to start paying the economic opportunity tax once the Rand value of the economic opportunity tax exceeds the inflation-adjusted Rand value of the bid fee. It will be payable for ten years, less the period taken for the tax to reach the inflation-adjusted Rand value of the bid fee, starting from the date the relevant casino operator licensee begin paying the tax in respect of its relocated casino.
• The method of calculating the economic opportunity tax is set out in a new Schedule V proposed to be inserted in the Western Cape Gambling and Racing Act.

There is usually a presumption against a statute having a retrospective effect unless the language clearly requires otherwise. This Bill explicitly requires casino operator licensees to pay the economic opportunity tax when applications to relocate casinos are granted before or after the amendment legislation comes into operation.

Certain practical arrangements or requirements relating to the economic opportunity tax are to be prescribed by regulation. The draft Regulations have been published for comment simultaneously with the gazetting of the draft Bill.

Interested parties may comment on the draft Bill and Regulations by 7 July 2025. Comments should be emailed to Mr Malcolm Booysen, Provincial Treasury at Malcolm.Booysen@westerncape.gov.za or by hand to the Provincial Legislature Building in Cape Town.

Enquiries may be directed to Mr Booysen at 021 483 3386. Alternatively, do not hesitate to contact us if you would like a copy of the draft Bill and Regulations or further information.

_________________________

Read more about our Digital Media & Electronic Communications practice area.

The post Proposed Economic Opportunity Tax for Casino Operator Licensees in the Western Cape to relocate their casinos appeared first on Werksmans Attorneys.

The Mpumalanga Economic Regulator has published a notice that it intends to invite proposals for Bookmaker Licences in terms of a Request For Proposals For Bookmaker Licences. It extends to online and land-based betting, including sports betting.

The purpose of the RFP is to invite proposals for bookmaker licences and to indicate the process, evaluation criteria and other requirements for bookmaker licence applications, including the standard bookmaker licence conditions.

Interested parties may request clarifications on the RFP until 29 May 2025. Requests for clarification should be directed to the CEO of the Regulator at ceo@mer.org.za.

The RFP may be obtained from the office of the Mpumalanga Economic Regulator. Alternatively, do not hesitate to contact us if you would like us to email you a copy of the RFP.

On 11 April 2025, the Mpumalanga Economic Regulator published a notice that it intends to invite proposals for Bookmaker Licences in terms of a Request For Proposals For Bookmaker Licences (RFP).
The RFP extends to online and land-based betting facilities, including in respect of sports betting.
There is no limit on the number of proposals that may be submitted, but only 20 licences will be available to be issued and a maximum of 80 bookmaker licences may be operational in the Mpumalanga province at the end of this process. The Regulator may, however, limit the number of licences if it considers it appropriate to do so on the basis of the quality of the proposals it receives.
A high level overview of the RFP is set out below.

Minimum requirements
The requirements for bookmaker licences include:
• Contribution of 0.1% of the bookmaker’s annual Gross Gambling Revenue to the National Responsible Gambling Programme
• Contribution of 1% of the bookmaker’s annual Gross Gambling Revenue to corporate social investment (CSI) in Mpumalanga
• Offices must be based in Mpumalanga
• Acceptance of standard bookmaker licence conditions
• Bookmaker must commence operations within 12 months of the grant of the application

Evaluation criteria
The RFP sets out the evaluation criteria, including an Evaluation Matrix in Annexure B. The criteria include –
• Investment details, including total investment, jobs and B-BBEE investment
• Funding, including the funders’ details, funding and financing commitments, and measures to protect local (i.e., Mpumalanga-specific) BEE ownership
• Financial viability, including projections and market analysis
• Ownership, including details of the board, senior management and any proposed management companies, and their bookmaker / gambling experience
• Employment opportunities, including sustainable employment creation and maximising job opportunities in Mpumalanga, promotion of B-BBEE, and employment of disabled persons
• Skills development, including proposed training, bursaries and B-BBEE promotion strategies
• Enterprise and socio-economic development contributions, including enterprise and local supplier development contributions, CSI, and participation in responsible gambling initiatives over and above the required contribution

Many of these details must be split between local (Mpumalanga-specific) and non-local information.
Applicants should be aware that any representations and undertakings made during the selection and licensing process may be included as licence conditions.

Selection process and submission requirements
The selection of applicants for bookmaker licences will be done in phases.

Key information
• Any queries regarding the Invitation for proposals may be directed to the CEO of the Regulator on 013 750 8000 or ceo@mer.org.za
• Interested parties may request clarifications on the RFP until 29 May 2025. Requests for clarification should be directed to the CEO of the Regulator at ceo@mer.org.za. All requests for clarification and responses thereto will be made available to all other applicants
• Proposals and applications must be submitted via  licensing@mer.org.za
• All payments must be made by EFT and must clear in the Regulator’s bank account at least 3 days before the relevant closing date

The post Sports Betting Opportunity: Mpumalanga Economic Regulator Invites Proposals for Bookmaker Licences appeared first on Werksmans Attorneys.

On 14 August 2024, the Department of Communications and Digital Development published the draft National AI Policy Framework for public input. This initial step in the development of South Africa’s national AI Policy is intended to serve as the framework underlying the National AI Policy which, in turn, will serve as the foundational basis for creating AI regulations and potentially an AI Act in South Africa, with a view to guiding the responsible and ethical development and utilisation of AI across all industries. Anyone can comment on the draft AI Policy Framework by sending an email to dsondlo@dcdt.gov.za and mmashologu@dcdt.gov.za before the end of September 2024.

On the 12^th of July 2024, the European Artificial Intelligence Act was published in the Official Journal of the European Union.  It is complex legislation which entered into force on the 1^st of August 2024, but whose provisions will come into operation gradually, with some provisions applying as early as 2 February 2025, while the Act will generally apply starting on the 2^nd of August 2026.

The European AI Act is over four years in the making, with the European Commission having published its “White Paper on Artificial Intelligence – A European Approach to excellence and trust” in February 2020. A long road now lies ahead for the European AI Act, with many milestones to be achieved before the substantive provisions of the AI Act begin to apply.

Several bodies will be established to implement and enforce the European AI Act, involving both public authorities and private sector participation, including –

• An AI Office established by the European Commission, to coordinate the implementation of the AI Act in EU member states
• A European Artificial Intelligence Board, with one representative from each EU member state, to provide recommendations, opinions, expertise and the like
• An Advisory Forum to provide technical expertise and contribute stakeholder input on the implementation of the Act
• A scientific panel of independent experts, to advise the AI Office and national authorities in EU member states.

The commencement of the EU AI Act broadly coincided with the publication, here in South Africa, of the draft South African National Artificial Intelligence Policy Framework by the Department of Communications and Digital Development.

The draft AI Policy Framework acknowledges global trends in AI governance and the need to harmonise with international standards, pushing South Africa to develop its own AI policies. It seeks to align with international norms and standards to ensure ethical and effective AI deployment.

The draft AI Policy Framework articulates the Department’s ambition for South Africa to be a leader in AI within the African continent and a significant player on the global stage, influencing global AI ethics and governance frameworks.

According to sources within the Department, the draft AI Policy Framework is intended to provide a framework which sets out, in broad strokes, the framework for AI policy in South Africa, drawing on international benchmarking done by the Department.

This initial step in the development of South Africa’s national AI Policy is intended to set the stage for a future where AI is harnessed responsibly and effectively, driving digital transformation and promoting inclusive growth.

The development of a South African National AI Policy is a strategic imperative by the Department to guide the responsible and ethical development, deployment and utilisation of AI across all sectors of society.

The National AI Policy is intended to serve as the foundational basis for creating AI regulations and potentially an AI Act in South Africa, and guide the development of robust regulatory mechanisms that ensure that AI applications are safe, ethical and in the public interest.  It aims to ensure that AI systems are developed and implemented with considerations for fairness, accountability, transparency and inclusivity, while mitigating potential risks such as bias and discrimination in AI applications. 

Ultimately, the National AI Policy is intended to provide clear guidelines and a structured approach to harnessing AI’s potential, while mitigating its risks and ensuring that AI technologies are developed in a manner that aligns with South Africa’s socio-economic goals and values.

One of the Department’s key rationales for establishing this policy is to foster sectoral strategies that will address specific needs and opportunities within different industries, such as healthcare, education and finance. The Department hopes that, by laying down overarching policy positions, the National AI Policy will enable the development of tailored strategies that leverage AI to drive innovation and efficiency in each sector.

The draft AI Policy Framework outlines key pillars such as robust data governance frameworks, infrastructure enhancement, and significant investments in research and innovation, which the Department believes are crucial for creating an enabling environment where AI technologies can thrive and contribute meaningfully to sectors such as healthcare, education and public administration.

Overall, the draft AI Policy Framework seeks to lay the groundwork for South Africa to emerge as a leader in AI innovation while addressing challenges and opportunities in a holistic and sustainable manner.

Anyone can comment on the draft AI Policy Framework by sending their comments to dsondlo@dcdt.gov.za and mmashologu@dcdt.gov.za before the end of September.

The post The National AI Policy Framework: A step closer to aligning with international trends appeared first on Werksmans Attorneys.