Despite the whirlwind of hype, new research suggests that generative AI chatbots like ChatGPT and Claude have, so far, made barely a ripple in the labour market, leaving jobs and wages largely untouched.

A Grounded Reality Check

A comprehensive study by economists Anders Humlum (University of Chicago) and Emilie Vestergaard (University of Copenhagen) has found that the economic impact of generative AI chatbots on workers has been negligible. Their paper, Large Language Models, Small Labor Market Effects, analysed data from over 25,000 workers across 7,000 Danish workplaces between 2023 and 2024, focused on 11 occupations considered highly susceptible to AI disruption, including software developers, journalists, legal professionals, and teachers.

No Significant Impact

According to findings published in the paper, despite widespread adoption, most firms encouraged chatbot use, 38 per cent deployed in-house models, and 30 per cent of employees received AI training. Crucially, the study found no significant changes in earnings or working hours across any occupation. The researchers, therefore, concluded that “AI chatbots have had no significant impact on earnings or recorded hours in any occupation.”

Just Modest Productivity Gains

It seems that while users reported modest productivity gains, averaging time savings of 2.8 per cent to 5.4 per cent of their weekly hours, these did not translate into reduced workloads. In fact, AI adoption led to new tasks for 8.4 per cent of workers, such as supervising AI outputs or adapting workflows to accommodate the technology.

Other Research Supporting The Findings

Other recent research has also reached similar conclusions. For example, a separate analysis by Barclays, led by economist Mark Cus Babic, examined AI exposure across various occupations and industries in the U.S. and Europe. The study found that less than 10 per cent of core job tasks could be better performed by AI. Interestingly, occupations most exposed to AI were not always at risk of being replaced. For example, while roles like proofreaders and typists are more susceptible to automation, professions requiring significant interpersonal skills, such as translators, are less replaceable.

Contrary to fears of widespread job losses, therefore, the Barclays analysis found that AI exposure correlated with employment growth, not reduction.

However, this study also noted that AI exposure was linked to slower wage growth, with rising AI exposure reducing annualised wage growth by up to 0.74 percentage points.

Contrasting Findings

While these studies suggest a limited immediate impact of generative AI on jobs and wages, other recent research presents a more nuanced picture. For example:

– A 2024 PwC report found that sectors with high AI penetration experienced nearly fivefold greater labour productivity growth compared to less exposed sectors. In the UK, job postings requiring AI skills were growing significantly faster, with employers offering a 14 per cent wage premium, particularly in legal and IT roles. The findings were based on global employment and productivity data tracked by PwC’s Economic Outlook research team.

– A 2023 study by researchers from the University of Oxford and the University of Copenhagen, analysing online labour market data from platforms like Upwork and Freelancer, observed a decline in demand for text-related and programming-related jobs following the introduction of ChatGPT. However, the remaining jobs in these submarkets became more complex, and competition among freelancers increased, suggesting a shift in the nature rather than the volume of work.

– Joint research published in 2023 by the International Labour Organisation and the World Bank indicated that generative AI could potentially automate between 2 per cent and 5 per cent of jobs across Latin America and the Caribbean. The study warned that women and younger workers in formal employment sectors were likely to be disproportionately affected, especially in roles involving routine cognitive tasks.

The Implications

In terms of the implications of the most recent University of Copenhagen research, the minimal immediate impact on jobs and wages may prompt AI developers to reassess their value propositions. It seems that while the technology holds promise for enhancing productivity, the anticipated economic benefits have yet to materialise at scale.

Also, based on these findings, companies investing in AI may want to temper expectations regarding short-term labour cost savings. Instead, the focus could shift towards leveraging AI for incremental efficiency gains and exploring new business models that integrate AI capabilities.

In terms of what this could mean for governments and policymakers, the findings appear to suggest that fears of an imminent AI-induced employment crisis may be overstated. However, the potential for AI to reshape job tasks and create new roles underscores the need for policies that support workforce adaptability, such as reskilling initiatives and education reforms.

As for workers, while it seems (according to this study) that AI has not yet led to significant job displacement, its integration into the workplace is undoubtedly altering job responsibilities. This could mean that workers may need to adapt by acquiring new skills and embracing lifelong learning to remain competitive in an evolving job market.

Perception vs Reality?

One of the more striking contrasts emerging from this research is the growing gulf between how AI is perceived and how it’s actually performing in economic terms. It seems that public debate has largely centred around the threat of mass job displacement, with headlines warning of “white-collar extinction events” and sweeping automation of knowledge work. Yet the data so far simply doesn’t back that up.

For example, a 2024 Ipsos MORI survey found that 61 per cent of UK workers believe AI will significantly reduce job availability within the next decade. However, this fear appears to be driven more by speculation and media narratives than current evidence. Researchers like Humlum and Vestergaard stress that even in sectors with widespread chatbot adoption, measurable labour impacts have been “remarkably muted”.

This mismatch between expectations and evidence could have real consequences, potentially fuelling anxiety, political pressure, or misaligned policy responses. It also raises a challenge for AI companies and advocates, i.e. how to communicate realistic use cases and limitations without losing investor interest or public trust.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

What this research ultimately seems to reveal is a still-unfolding story, and one that is far less dramatic than the early hype may have suggested. While it’s true that generative AI is being widely adopted across white-collar industries, it looks as though the impact on wages and jobs appears, for now, to be largely neutral. That’s not to say AI isn’t changing the workplace (far from it). However, the kind of sweeping disruption that many predicted simply hasn’t (yet) arrived.

For UK businesses, this latest research provides a valuable window of clarity. It means that rather than expecting AI to deliver immediate cost savings through workforce reductions, firms may find more tangible returns in using chatbots to refine workflows, support staff with repetitive tasks, and free up time for more valuable work. In practical terms, that means revisiting where AI fits in the broader business model, not as a silver bullet for efficiency, but as a support tool, and one that still needs oversight, training, and adaptation to work effectively.

For governments, the findings highlight the importance of measured, evidence-based policymaking. While it’s right to prepare for potential shifts in the labour market, it seems there’s currently no need for panic. The real focus might be better placed on supporting agility within the workforce, e.g. through investment in digital skills, better access to lifelong learning, and guidance for employers on effective technology adoption.

Meanwhile, for AI developers, the study is a reminder that user adoption doesn’t always equal economic impact. The technology may be advancing rapidly, but converting that into broad-based value remains a work in progress. As such, the next wave of innovation may need to focus less on scaling up infrastructure, and more on proving real-world outcomes, especially for sectors still unsure how to integrate these tools meaningfully.

In short, this research invites recalibration and puts things a little more in perspective. Generative AI is here, it’s being used, and it’s shaping how work gets done, yet its impact (at least for now) appears to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The real question may no longer be whether AI will replace jobs, but whether we’re ready to redesign the way we work alongside it.

In this Tech Insight, we look at how a major ransomware attack on M&S could happen, who was behind it, how it caused such widespread disruption, and what it means for the company, its customers, and the wider UK retail sector.

What Happened and When?

To help understand how the cyber attack on Marks & Spencer unfolded, here’s a timeline of events from early disruption to the continuing impact on customers, stores, and services:

– 29–31 March. Customers across the UK reported issues with contactless payments and Click & Collect services in M&S stores. At the time, the problems appeared to be routine glitches.

– Early April. M&S confirmed it was dealing with a “cyber incident” and took key internal systems offline to contain the disruption.

– Friday 26 April. M&S suspended all online orders via its website and mobile apps as the situation escalated. Some stores began to report empty shelves. Food halls displayed signs blaming “technical issues” for limited product availability.

– End of April. Further disruption affected in-store services. Gift cards could not be used, food store returns were unavailable, and job applications were taken offline. Speculation grew over the cause and scale of the incident.

– By 2 May. Online shopping remained unavailable with no clear restoration timeline. In-store issues continued, and M&S had yet to confirm when normal operations would resume.

What Kind of Attack, and by Whom?

Cybersecurity researchers and law enforcement sources have since confirmed the incident was a ransomware attack, i.e. a form of cybercrime where attackers encrypt a company’s systems and demand a ransom in exchange for a decryption key.

The group thought to be behind the attack are a loose, English-speaking collective known as Scattered Spider (also known in some circles as Octo Tempest). The group of hackers has gained notoriety for previous high-profile hits, including on MGM Resorts and Caesars Entertainment in the US.

Different

It seems, however, that Scattered Spider operates differently from many of the more traditional ransomware gangs linked to Russia or Eastern Europe. For example, their tactics are sophisticated and often rely on “social engineering”, i.e. impersonating staff over the phone or via email, bypassing security by tricking help desks and IT teams into granting access. In some cases, they’ve used phishing, SIM-swapping, or multi-factor authentication fatigue techniques to break in.

Gained Access In February?

In M&S’s case, some reports suggest the attackers may have gained access as early as February, exfiltrating data before deploying the ransomware payload using malware linked to another group known as DragonForce. The malware encrypted access to vital servers, triggering the cascade of outages that followed.

Was It a Direct Hit, Or Through a Supplier?

One mystery that remains unresolved, however, is how the attackers actually gained entry in the first place. While M&S has not disclosed technical details, some industry insiders have suggested the compromise may have originated through a third-party supplier, a growing concern in the age of interconnected cloud platforms and shared vendor infrastructure.

This approach would make sense in terms of it being the same tactic used in previous Scattered Spider campaigns, where attackers exploited weaknesses in identity management systems like Okta or Microsoft Entra, or leveraged supplier access to leapfrog into target systems.

What’s the Damage So Far?

The fallout from the attack has been both operational and financial. Estimates of the damage caused include:

– £3.8 million in daily online sales lost. M&S’s e-commerce arm reportedly takes in nearly £4 million a day, all of which has ground to a halt.

– Over £500 million wiped from its stock market value. Uncertainty over the scale and duration of the attack spooked investors.

– Empty shelves and store disruption. Particularly in food halls, where logistics and supply chain systems were knocked offline.

– Job ads pulled and staff sent home. Over 200 vacancies vanished from the M&S careers page, and some warehouse workers were told not to come in due to low volume.

Beyond the financial hit, the reputational cost could, of course, be much worse. For example, customers expecting digital convenience, seamless returns, and reliable stock levels have been met with error messages and handwritten signs. For a retailer that prides itself on trust and quality, the breach has struck at the heart of the brand.

Harrods and Co-op Too

Worryingly for the retail sector, M&S isn’t alone. For example, within days, Harrods confirmed it too had been targeted by a cyberattack. While the impact appeared more contained (involving restricted internet access across its stores) it marked another breach of a high-profile UK retailer.

Meanwhile, the Co-op has confirmed that it was also the victim of a cyber attack affecting one of its IT systems. Although the company initially said the disruption had been contained by proactively shutting down affected systems, further investigation revealed that attackers were able to access and extract personal data. This is reported to have included names, contact details, and dates of birth linked to a significant number of current and former members.

However, the Co-op has stated that no passwords, payment data, or transaction history was compromised and that its loyalty and payment systems remain secure. That said, clearly the breach prompted a wider response involving the National Cyber Security Centre and the National Crime Agency. Customers have been urged to stay alert for suspicious activity, and the company has apologised while confirming that it is working closely with data protection authorities to manage the incident.

Although there has been no interruption to food supplies or store operations, the breach has exposed how even a relatively contained cyber event can present serious privacy and reputational risks. In a sector that depends so heavily on trust and repeat custom, this kind of incident can have lasting implications.

These incidents appear to follow an alarming pattern, i.e. it looks as though UK retailers are becoming increasingly attractive targets for cybercriminals looking to cause widespread disruption, and score a quick payday.

Why The Food Sector Is Now a National Cyber Target

While banks and energy firms have long been classed as “critical infrastructure”, attacks like the one on M&S have raised fresh questions about whether food supply chains should be treated with similar urgency.

For example, Dr Harjinder Singh Lallie of the University of Warwick has described the incident as a “red flag” for the food industry’s cyber readiness, and has warned that “attacks like these can seriously disrupt access to basic necessities.” The relevance of this point was all too clear as M&S shoppers saw bare shelves and delayed orders first-hand.

Also, cybersecurity experts have called attention to the knock-on effects of this kind of attack, i.e. a single ransomware attack can ripple across supply chains, logistics providers, warehouse networks, and even government services that depend on consistent delivery.

It seems that the interconnectedness of these systems makes them simultaneously efficient and dangerously vulnerable.

Lessons

Cybersecurity specialists have suggested that the attack on M&S highlights how modern hackers are no longer just exploiting technical flaws. For example, they are now increasingly targeting the trust between companies and their suppliers, employees, and service partners. Analysts have, therefore, stressed the need for stronger identity verification, tighter control over third-party access, and better training for frontline staff such as IT helpdesks. Many are also pointing to the importance of adopting “zero trust” models, where access to systems is never assumed and must be continually verified.

The Motivation for the Attack?

In the case of Scattered Spider, experts have noted the group’s unusual profile. For example, unlike many ransomware gangs based in Eastern Europe, this network appears to involve mostly English-speaking members, including individuals believed to be in their late teens. Their motivation appears to be a mix of financial gain with a desire for recognition, making them both capable and difficult to predict.

Gives a Playbook to Other Cybercriminals

It seems that while most experts agree that this was a criminal act rather than a state-sponsored one, some are warning that the response (or lack thereof) could embolden hostile states watching from the sidelines. As Ciaran Martin, former head of the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre, put it: “My national-level worry is that this gives other bad actors a playbook on how to disrupt Britain at scale.”

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

While the immediate concern for M&S remains restoring full operations and reassuring customers, the wider implications of these attacks are hard to ignore. The scale and severity of the disruption (coupled with the prolonged recovery timelines) have highlighted vulnerabilities not only in retail infrastructure but also in the broader digital supply chain that supports it. These were not just one-off disruptions. They were demonstrations of how a well-organised cyber attack can ripple across departments, damage customer trust, and expose operational dependencies that were previously taken for granted.

For UK businesses, particularly those in retail, food supply, and logistics, the M&S and Co-op incidents offer a sharp reminder that cyber risk is now an operational risk. Being online and interconnected brings enormous efficiency but also opens the door to increasingly sophisticated and persistent threats. The attacks have shown how a breach of one supplier or system can impact everything from stock levels to staff recruitment, and how quickly customer-facing services can grind to a halt.

There are clear lessons here for organisations of all sizes. For example, while investment in technology is essential, so too is investment in people, training, and crisis planning. Basic resilience, i.e. the ability to function when systems go offline, is becoming just as important as innovation. For shareholders, customers and employees alike, the expectation is not perfection but preparedness.

The incidents also raise important questions for regulators and policymakers. If food retail is now so central to daily life that a single ransomware attack can cause national disruption, then its classification as part of the UK’s critical infrastructure may need to be reconsidered. In that context, the M&S and Co-op breaches could act as a turning point and one that prompts a broader shift in how businesses and government work together to anticipate, contain, and recover from this kind of attack.

While M&S works to bring its systems back online and the Co-op continues its investigation, the broader industry is already watching, and hopefully, learning. The hope is that attacks like this don’t become the new normal. If they do, resilience needs to become the new standard.

Google’s app marketplace has shed nearly half its titles since early 2024, in what looks like the biggest quality purge the platform has ever seen.

A Surprising Stat with Big Implications

Whereas at the start of last year, Google Play Store had around 3.4 million apps, according to new analysis from app intelligence platform Appfigures, that number has now dropped to just 1.8 million. That’s a massive 47 per cent decline in just over 12 months.

For comparison, Apple’s App Store grew slightly over the same period, from 1.6 million to 1.64 million apps, making this a Google-specific shake-up, not part of some wider trend.

What’s Causing the Decline?

The reason for this dramatic cut in the number of apps available in Google Play Store is (a long overdue) sweeping house clean. Google says the reduction is the result of tougher policies rolled out over the past year, aimed at ridding the Play Store of poor-quality, misleading, and potentially harmful apps.

For example, back in July 2024, the company introduced higher quality standards for all apps. Rather than simply focusing on broken or crashing apps in the firing line, Google’s new rules targeted apps with “limited functionality and content”, including text-only tools, apps that just opened PDFs, or single wallpaper apps with no interactive features. It appears that even apps that appeared to do nothing at all have been on Google’s hit list.

In addition to this, other efforts to sift out the worst of the apps included:

– Google requiring new developer accounts to undergo expanded verification checks.

– Using more human reviews to spot fraud or deceptive behaviour.

– A more robust pre-launch testing requirement being introduced, i.e., 20 users for 2 weeks before publishing.

– The ramping up of AI-powered threat detection tools.

In fact, the company confirmed it blocked 2.36 million policy-violating apps from being published in 2024 alone, and banned more than 158,000 developer accounts trying to sneak in malicious content.

A Long-Overdue Clean-Up?

Google Play has long been criticised for taking a relatively hands-off approach to app approvals. While Apple’s App Store famously subjects every app to manual human review before it goes live, Google has historically relied on automated checks, often with faster approval times and fewer upfront hurdles. However, that flexibility came at a cost as the Play Store became a magnet for:

– Spammy clones and copycats.

– Apps stuffed with ads and offering little value.

– Low-effort tools and “test” apps abandoned mid-build.

– Dodgy apps hiding malware or misleading users with fake functions.

By 2023, user complaints were mounting, and developers trying to launch quality products were finding it harder to compete. Visibility was skewed by a flood of questionable listings. Google’s new policies, while harsh, appear to be a direct response to those long-standing criticisms.

A Policy Shift in Europe

One other key factor that Google hasn’t officially cited, yet which may be playing a quiet role, is the EU’s new trader status rule. For example, since February 2024, developers distributing apps in the European Union have been required to list their name and address publicly. Apps that fail to comply are removed from EU stores.

While Apple implemented the same rule without any noticeable drop in app count, some Android developers may have balked at the extra requirements, or simply missed the deadline. Either way, the trader status change may have helped accelerate the purge in certain regions.

Which Apps Were Hit the Hardest?

According to Appfigures data, some categories were hit particularly hard in the Google Play Store app purge. For example:

– Games. Nearly 200,000 titles removed

– Education. Around 160,700 apps dropped

– Business. Some 115,400 apps vanished

It seems that many of these were simply low-quality or abandoned projects, but not all deletions were necessarily harmful, i.e. some developers may have had legitimate products removed if they didn’t meet the updated guidelines or failed to pass the new verification processes.

Interestingly, while the overall app count plummeted, the number of new releases has gone up. Appfigures reports that as of April 2025, 10,400 new apps had already been released on Google Play this year, which is up 7.1 per cent year-on-year. That suggests the door is still open to new entrants (if they can meet the new requirements).

What This Means for Google

Google is positioning the move as part of a broader shift toward a safer, higher-quality Play Store. By reducing the clutter and filtering out low-value apps, Google hopes it can improve trust in the platform and reduce reputational risk. This may be especially important in an age where app-based scams, data leaks, and malware campaigns are making headlines.

The move may also help with compliance in regions like the EU, where digital marketplaces are facing mounting scrutiny under new regulations like the Digital Services Act (DSA).

What About Users?

For Android users, especially businesses, there’s a potential upside here. A streamlined Play Store could mean:

– Fewer scammy or broken apps to sift through.

– A higher likelihood of finding safe, functional tools.

– Better visibility for genuinely useful software.

However, there’s a trade-off. Some niche or legacy apps may disappear, and smaller developers might find it harder to get their products published without resources for extended testing or policy compliance. That could leave gaps in the market, particularly for highly specialised business apps or locally developed tools.

For businesses relying on Android apps, especially in sectors like logistics, sales, training, or fieldwork, ongoing monitoring of app availability and updates will be key.

A Boost for Rivals?

With the Play Store slimming down, competitors may see an opportunity. Apple’s App Store, with its more curated approach, has long marketed itself as the safer option. Now, the gap may feel narrower, however Apple may still have the edge in perception. Meanwhile, alternative Android marketplaces like the Samsung Galaxy Store or Amazon Appstore may try to appeal to developers turned off by Google’s tighter restrictions.

As regards the web, Progressive Web Apps (PWAs), which run in the browser but behave like native apps, could benefit if developers find store-based deployment too complex. Google itself has championed PWAs in the past, though app store monetisation remains a sticking point.

The bigger question now appears to be whether Google’s quality-first pivot will restore confidence and encourage better apps, or simply make life harder for developers without solving the bigger issues of trust and discoverability.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The sharp decline in Google Play Store app numbers shows that Google is moving away from simply having as many apps as possible, and is now focusing more on safety, quality, and following the rules.

For years, Google tolerated a bloated ecosystem filled with low-effort apps in the name of openness and speed but while the clean-up addresses longstanding complaints from users and developers alike, it may also introduce a new set of challenges.

For developers, particularly smaller teams and indie creators, the bar has been raised. Verification, testing, and compliance now demand time, planning and resources. This may put added pressure on early-stage projects or solo ventures, and could discourage experimentation. For users, the improved app quality is likely to be welcomed, but there’s a risk of reduced choice in more niche or specialist areas, where smaller developers often filled gaps that larger players ignored.

For UK businesses, a cleaner Play Store should make it easier to identify trustworthy apps for productivity, communication, or customer engagement, without the clutter of spam or bloatware. However, firms developing or commissioning Android apps for internal or client use may now face higher development costs and longer go-to-market timelines due to the stricter rules. Those in regulated sectors, or who serve clients in the EU, will need to keep a close eye on compliance requirements too.

Google clearly feels this is a necessary reputational reboot.

The recent mass blackout in Spain and Portugal has raised concerns over whether something similar could hit the UK, and what the fallout would be for British businesses.

Spain And Portugal Plunge Into Darkness

On 28 April, large parts of Spain and Portugal lost power in a sudden, widespread outage. Train lines stopped mid-journey, airports froze, and internet and mobile networks failed. Even hospitals had to fall back on emergency generators as grid operators raced to identify the cause.

While investigations continue, Portuguese energy officials have pointed to a “rare atmospheric phenomenon” that disrupted interconnectors and triggered a chain reaction across the Iberian grid. Some experts suspect a link to geomagnetic disturbances caused by heightened solar activity, a known but unpredictable risk to high-voltage systems.

By nightfall, much of the region remained in darkness. For two countries that pride themselves on modern infrastructure, the blackout was a reminder that even advanced grids have vulnerabilities.

Could It Happen In The UK?

One comforting fact is that the UK (to date) has never experienced a total grid failure. This is because our energy infrastructure is among the most advanced in Europe, with built-in protections and a growing focus on resilience. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that a full national blackout (however unlikely) isn’t possible.

According to government risk assessments quoted in The Blackout Report, by Chris Owens, marketing manager at Riello UPS (a company specialising in standby power systems), there’s roughly a 1-in-200 chance (0.5 per cent) that the UK could suffer a grid shutdown within a five-year period. That’s statistically more likely than being struck by lightning. For another perspective, for anyone who buys a lottery ticket each week, that degree of chance means you are over 225,000 times more likely to experience a national UK blackout than to win the lottery jackpot.

As Chris Owens says in his (2019) report: “Britain’s grid is strong, but not invulnerable,” and that, “The reality is, as we integrate more renewable sources and become more interconnected, we also increase the number of possible failure points.”

But What About 1974?

Many may still remember the rolling power cuts of the early 1970s, particularly during the 1974 miners’ strike and the infamous Three-Day Week. At that time, power outages were largely the result of industrial action, energy supply restrictions, and political decisions rather than failures in the grid itself.

Today’s electricity system is vastly different, far more technologically advanced, diversified, and automated. Today’s challenges are less about fuel rationing and more about cyber resilience, system complexity and environmental extremes. In short, the causes behind 1970s-style blackouts are not the same as today’s threats.

What Could Take The Lights Out?

When considering how things could go horribly wrong today as regards the grid, there’s no single culprit. The risks are most likely to come from a range of natural and man-made factors, often acting in combination. These could, for example, include:

– Extreme weather. From gales to floods, storms can down power lines, damage substations and leave thousands cut off, as seen during the 1987 Great Storm.

– Solar flares. High-energy eruptions from the sun can trigger geomagnetic storms that interfere with transmission systems, potentially taking out transformers and affecting grid stability.

– Cyber attacks. As digital control systems become standard, so too does the risk of targeted cyber operations. Ukraine’s 2015 blackout, caused by malware disabling multiple substations, remains a sobering precedent.

– Technical failures. Grid infrastructure is tightly coupled. A problem at one site, e.g. the lightning strike near London in 2019, can cascade if backup systems fail to respond in time.

– Fuel supply shocks. A disruption to imported gas or outages at generation sites can create sudden imbalances, especially during cold weather when demand spikes.

As Dr Iain Staffell, senior lecturer in sustainable energy at Imperial College London highlights: “Today’s grid is a delicate balancing act,” and that “You have to match supply and demand in real-time, across thousands of miles. When something unexpected happens, the knock-on effects can be rapid and wide-reaching.”

Restoring Power Wouldn’t Be Quick

If the entire UK grid did go down, restarting it wouldn’t be as simple as flipping a switch. Most power stations require electricity to function, and during a total blackout, none is available.

Instead, a process known as a “black start” would be triggered. This involves using a small number of specially designated generators to slowly rebuild the system. In the UK, only a few stations are equipped for this role, mostly older hydro or gas plants.

According to National Grid ESO, 60 per cent of power could potentially be restored within 24 hours, but full restoration could take between five and seven days, depending on conditions and location.

The Business Impact Could Be Severe

Not surprisingly, for businesses, the stakes are high. A nationwide blackout would disrupt not just lights and laptops but entire supply chains, communication networks, and service delivery. For example, just a few hours without power could result in:

– Retail and hospitality losses. Fridges fail, card readers stop, bookings collapse.

– Office paralysis. Without internet or mobile networks, emails, cloud access and remote work all go dark.

– Manufacturing delays. Automated systems stop mid-cycle, risking damage to equipment and materials.

– Healthcare disruption. Hospitals switch to emergency power, but care homes, GPs and pharmacies may not be as well equipped.

– Logistics breakdowns. Traffic lights, rail systems and fuel pumps go offline, stranding deliveries and staff.

The Financial Cost

A 2023 government resilience study warned that a multi-day blackout could cost the UK economy up to £7 billion, and that’s before factoring in the social cost, i.e. vulnerable populations without access to heating, information, or clean water.

Are We Prepared?

The good news is that it appears that Britain isn’t ignoring the risk. For example, in recent years, National Grid and government partners have invested in upgrades designed to strengthen resilience, including:

– Enhanced digital monitoring and fault detection.

– Increased decentralisation of power generation (e.g. solar and wind closer to where it’s used).

– More battery storage capacity to help stabilise peaks and troughs in supply.

– Regular emergency planning exercises, including simulated black start scenarios.

– A renewed cybersecurity strategy for critical national infrastructure, introduced in 2023.

There’s also an ongoing effort (although you may not have noticed it until the Spain and Portugal blackouts) to educate the public. For example, NESO recently reaffirmed the importance of basic preparedness, such as having wind-up radios, torches, offline maps, and a few days’ worth of water and food, echoing similar messages issued across Europe this year.

What About Geopolitical Tensions (The Increased Threat of War)?

That said, while NESO (the National Energy System Operator) hasn’t publicly tied its preparedness messaging directly to the greater current threat of war in Europe, the wider European push for civil resilience, including advice about wind-up radios, water supplies, offline maps and survival kits, does certainly appear to have been influenced by growing geopolitical tensions. In particular, this includes:

In early 2024, several European governments (notably Germany, Sweden, and Finland) restarted national resilience campaigns, urging citizens to prepare for emergencies, not just natural disasters but potential conflicts, cyber attacks, and energy disruptions.

The EU Civil Protection Mechanism has expanded its public messaging on the importance of 72-hour kits in the event of crisis, a move partly triggered by lessons from the war in Ukraine and disruptions to energy infrastructure across Europe.

The UK’s advice from NESO and the Cabinet Office’s “Prepare” guidance align with these efforts, albeit more softly worded, focusing on “general resilience” rather than citing war directly.

So, it’s worth quickly noting here that messages about ramping up civil contingency are also being influenced by a less predictable and more hostile global environment, as well as the events with Spain and Portugal’s grid.

How Businesses Can Protect Themselves

While the chances of a total grid blackout in the UK remain low, experts agree it makes sense for businesses to factor it into their resilience planning.

For example, Nicola Dean, a business continuity advisor with clients in the energy and transport sectors, makes the point that although “There’s no need for panic” and it seems “there is a case for being practical,” as “The pandemic showed us how quickly assumptions about stability can collapse.”

With this in mind, Dean advises companies to focus on five key areas, which are:

1. Backup power. Install uninterruptible power supplies (UPS) for servers and critical devices. Larger sites should assess the viability of generators or on-site solar plus battery storage.

2. Offline communication plans. Keep printed contact lists and emergency protocols. Use two-way radios or crank-powered devices as a backup.

3. Continuity planning. Have clear procedures in place for short- and long-term outages. Consider how you’d trade, serve customers, and protect data during downtime.

4. Insurance review. Ensure business interruption policies cover extended outages — and know the limits and exclusions.

5. Employee training. Make sure teams know what to do if systems go down, especially in customer-facing or operational roles.

A New Kind Of Preparedness

Although the recent blackout in Spain and Portugal may have been triggered by rare conditions, it highlighted vulnerabilities that many in the UK share, i.e. increasing reliance on digital infrastructure, complex energy systems, and minimal tolerance for disruption.

For UK businesses, the simple message may not be to expect the lights to go out tomorrow, yet not to wait until they do to start asking the right questions!

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

While no one is suggesting that a UK-wide blackout is imminent, the events in Spain and Portugal have offered a timely and unsettling reminder that no system is entirely immune to failure. For years, it may have seemed that major power outages were the kind of thing that only happened elsewhere. But as power grids become more complex and more interconnected, they also become more exposed to rare but high-impact threats.

For UK businesses, this is not a call to panic, but it is a clear prompt to think more seriously about resilience. Power is no longer just a utility in the background. It underpins every part of modern operations, from cloud access and communication to security, refrigeration and logistics. Without it, entire business models are quickly exposed. A few hours of downtime can be costly. A few days could be critical.

Thankfully, the reality is that Britain still benefits from one of the most robust and well-managed energy systems in Europe. Investments in digital monitoring, decentralised generation and cybersecurity are all important steps forward. However, preparedness now needs to extend beyond infrastructure alone. It should really include clear business continuity planning, staff training, emergency protocols and basic contingency tools that work without a plug.

For government agencies, critical service providers and civil planners, the lesson is equally stark. Public messaging must be consistent, proactive and realistic. Greater collaboration between sectors will also be needed if we are to build the kind of national resilience that can withstand not just rare events, but the unpredictable world we increasingly live in.

Whether you are running a retail outlet, a manufacturing site, a healthcare service or a home office, the question remains the same. If the lights went out tomorrow, would you be ready? The answer may not be urgent today, but it could be (very suddenly) tomorrow.

Apple has been referred for possible criminal contempt by a US judge who found it wilfully defied a court order to open its App Store to greater competition, escalating its long-running legal battle with Epic Games and raising the stakes for one of the world’s most powerful tech firms.

Dramatic

The ruling marks a dramatic twist in the long-running legal saga between Apple and Fortnite developer Epic Games and could actually lead to some serious legal consequences for one of the world’s most valuable companies.

Deliberate Defiance?

The latest judgement, delivered last week by US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, accuses Apple of “insubordination” and “egregious misconduct” in its handling of a 2021 injunction that required it to allow app developers to direct users to external payment systems.

That original injunction followed a partial victory by Epic Games, which sued Apple over its tight control of in-app purchases and up-to-30 per cent commission fees. While the judge rejected broader monopoly claims at the time, she ruled that Apple could no longer prevent developers from linking users to alternative ways to pay, a move that would cut into Apple’s multi-billion dollar revenue stream from the App Store.

However, according to last week’s court filing, it seems that Apple effectively ignored that order. For example, not only did it introduce new barriers, including a controversial 27 per cent commission on off-app purchases, but it also implemented what the judge called “scare screens” designed to discourage users from straying outside Apple’s walled garden.

Internal Pushback and False Testimony Allegation

In perhaps the most damning section of her ruling, Judge Gonzalez Rogers said Apple’s internal documents showed senior leaders knowingly avoided compliance.

She noted that Apple CEO Tim Cook had rejected advice from App Store architect Phil Schiller to follow the injunction, instead siding with CFO Luca Maestri, who advocated keeping revenue protections in place. The judge wrote bluntly: “Cook chose poorly.”

The ruling also accused Apple’s vice-president of finance, Alex Roman, of lying under oath during the proceedings. “He outright lied,” she wrote, further reinforcing the seriousness of the contempt findings.

Decision Time

The matter has now been referred to the US Attorney for the Northern District of California, who will decide whether to pursue criminal contempt proceedings, a rare and serious step that could lead to fines for the company and potentially even jail time for individuals if charges are brought and proven.

Epic Offers a Truce

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney welcomed the decision as a major milestone in the fight against what he calls Apple’s “junk fees”. He announced that Fortnite would return to the US iOS App Store this week, three years after being pulled amid the legal fallout.

Sweeney also made a surprising peace offer via social media, suggesting Epic would end all related litigation if Apple agreed to apply the new, frictionless payment rules globally. “Game over for the Apple Tax,” he wrote, referencing similar regulatory moves already under way in Europe under the Digital Markets Act.

Apple Pushes Back and Plans Appeal

In a brief statement, Apple said it “strongly disagrees” with the ruling and will appeal to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. The company is expected to seek a pause on the order while the appeal plays out, although analysts say the appeal may be difficult to win given the weight of evidence already compiled.

Apple also maintains that its updated policies are in line with the injunction. However, the judge ruled that the company’s so-called compliance measures were designed not to enable competition, but to preserve its existing revenue model through subtle deterrents.

What This Could Mean for Apple (and Developers)

The implications of all this could be wide-reaching and, if federal prosecutors do pursue a criminal contempt case, it would mark a highly unusual escalation in a corporate antitrust battle. It could also embolden regulators in other countries, including the UK and EU, where scrutiny of Big Tech practices is intensifying.

For developers, the ruling could finally force Apple to relax some of the strict controls it has long imposed over in-app payments, which is a development that many have lobbied for in recent years. For example, Apple’s 15-30 per cent cut has been criticised as excessive, particularly by smaller app makers who say it squeezes margins and limits innovation.

Meanwhile, investors will be watching closely. While Apple’s stock has remained resilient so far, any criminal findings or further disruption to its lucrative App Store ecosystem could cast a longer-term shadow over one of its most profitable divisions.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The decision to refer Apple for possible criminal contempt doesn’t mean charges are guaranteed, but it’s a real escalation that could have serious ripple effects. The US Department of Justice will now decide whether to pursue a prosecution, weighing the judge’s findings against internal documents and court testimony that paint a picture of calculated resistance. Even if no charges follow, the ruling sets the precedent that major tech firms can no longer really expect leniency if they appear to sidestep the spirit of antitrust decisions.

For Apple, the stakes are not only legal. The reputational damage from being publicly rebuked by a federal judge, and having a senior executive accused of lying under oath, may affect how regulators, developers, and consumers perceive the company. In an era of heightened scrutiny, where Europe’s Digital Markets Act and the UK’s Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill aim to rein in tech monopolies, this case may offer lawmakers fresh justification for tougher rules.

Developers worldwide are also, no doubt, watching closely, particularly those who have long criticised Apple’s App Store fees and restrictions. If the outcome leads to genuine, enforceable change, e.g. lower commissions or real freedom to use alternative payment systems, it could shift the balance of power. For UK businesses building or operating apps, any move towards greater flexibility would be welcome, especially in sectors where margins are tight and growth depends on reaching users without excessive overheads.

Broadly speaking, this saga reinforces how global platforms are being forced to justify longstanding business models under legal pressure. The Epic v. Apple dispute may have started in the US, but its consequences are global, and for regulators, developers and digital firms in the UK and beyond, it’s another sign that the era of unchecked platform dominance may finally be nearing its end.

Meta has changed the default settings on its Ray-Ban smart glasses, meaning voice recordings and photos may now be stored and used to train its AI, unless users take action to stop it.

The update, which came into effect in late April, enables AI features by default. When triggered by a wake word like “Hey Meta”, the glasses can now record and store voice interactions for up to a year. These recordings may be reviewed by humans and used to improve Meta’s AI models, with no option to opt out, and only a manual delete option in the app.

Meta has also confirmed that photos and videos taken with AI features active may be analysed too, potentially putting bystanders’ faces into AI training data without their knowledge. The company says this helps its systems understand different accents and commands more accurately.

The policy seems to follow Amazon’s recent shift with Echo devices, where cloud processing now replaces local handling, thereby raising fresh concerns about always-on surveillance in consumer tech.

Businesses using AI wearables should review settings immediately, disable voice storage if possible, and ensure staff are trained to avoid capturing sensitive information.