law

the Horizontal Property Law

by

Unknowns may loom on Spain’s horizon, but one thing is certain: the country is aging. Yeah the latest projections of the INE are spot on. By mid-century, almost a third of the population (30.5%) will have blown out all 65 candles. The problem is that many of our buildings are not prepared to accommodate older people due to their architectural barriers or accessibility deficiencies. Thus, an interesting question remains: What happens if at a given moment a neighbor in a block demands a ramp or an elevator to get to their home? The Horizontal Property Law is clear about it. What has happened? That on Spain’s horizon there is a ticking time bomb that will affect thousands of buildings in the country. The reason: although Spanish society it’s getting older (something that happens in many other nations, inside and outside Europe) a good part of its residential park is not prepared to accommodate people with mobility problems. The challenge is best understood when reviewing two recent studies: the demographic forecasts of the INE and the report on “accessible mobility” launched in 2024 by Ilunion and Otis. And what do they say? The first (INE) reveals that in a matter of a few decades the percentage of septuagenarians, octogenarians and nonagenarians will grow considerably. Yes right now 20.4% of Spaniards are 65 or older, in 2055 that footprint will have expanded to around 30.5%. The second (the report of Ilunion) warns that 34.3% of the main homes (6.45 million) are located in buildings without easy access, in the opinion of their residents. In fact, only 20.8% are prepared for the aging of their tenants. It is not surprising if we take into account that in our country there are five million people who live in buildings of three or more heights that lack an elevator, so they have no choice but to go up and down stairs every time they want to go outside. That’s what I suggested at least. an analysis published two years ago by elDiario.es and which is based on microdata from the Survey of Essential Population and Housing Characteristics, a poll of the INE. What if someone asks for an elevator? That is the question that hovers over many communities of neighbors in Spain and They responded recently our colleagues from Decoesfera. What happens if suddenly an owner proposes installing a ramp or an elevator in the building, a structure that guarantees accessibility to all homes? Do you need board approval? And if the work is carried out, are all residents obliged to bear its cost, including those who live on the ground floor and will not use the elevator? Are there any circumstances in which an owner can require infrastructure that guarantees accessibility? As is usual in building issues, the answer is in the legal “bible” of neighborhood coexistence: the Horizontal Property Law (LPH). More specifically in article 10. What does the law say? That if the request comes from owners with reduced mobility or of advanced age (those who a priori have more difficulties getting around) the works must be carried out no matter what. Without the need for prior agreement from the Board of Owners, although there is advice that advise that the issue be addressed in meetings to seek agreements. Especially due to the cost that usually involves installing ramps, elevators or stair lifts. In your article 10.1 The LPH clarifies that “the “works necessary to guarantee reasonable adjustments in terms of universal accessibility and, in any case, those required at the request of the owners in whose home or premises in whose home or premises people with disabilities or people over 70 live, work or provide voluntary services” will be mandatory and will not require prior agreement from the board. And in case there are any doubts, the law emphasizes that the objective is to ensure their mobility, which may involve the installation of ramps or elevators. Does it say anything about costs? Yes. Although the LPH makes it clear The right of elderly and disabled owners to demand ramps and elevators also establishes certain limits as far as costs are concerned: neighbors must contribute “provided that the amount passed on annually from them, once subsidies or public aid has been deducted, does not exceed 12 ordinary monthly payments of common expenses.” From Alapont clarify that the rule refers to the fixed contributions that each neighbor contributes to help with ordinary expenses. What if there are subsidies? If the cost of the work exceeds these 12 ordinary monthly payments, the difference must be paid by the owners interested in having the elevator or ramp installed. The LPH adds that in any case the rest of the neighbors will have to assume their part of the spill. “It will also be mandatory to carry out these works when the public aid to which the community can have access reaches 75% of the amount thereof,” precise. The key is that the law does not talk about works related to the aesthetics of the property, but about something much more basic: universal accessibility, that all its residents can enter and exit, free of barriers. When the elevator is claimed by a neighbor who does not meet the requirements set out in the LPH (under 70 years of age and without functional diversity), the proposal must receive the endorsement of a simple majority in the board. If the measure goes ahead and receives the green light, all neighbors must participate, Alapont clarifiesincluding those who reside on the ground floor. Images | Diego Marín (Unsplash) and Elio E. López Vega (Unsplash) Via | Decosphere In Xataka | Spain is filling up with buildings with pets. The Horizontal Property Law clarifies what to do when they cause nuisance

Telephone spam is so desperate in Spain that the Government has had to pass another law to put an end to it

by

If there is something that all of Spain agrees on, it is that we must put an end to spam calls, the problem is that at the moment it is not being an easy task. Have call filters that identify them, we can report If they call us without permission and there is even laws to end thembut they keep calling us. Now the Government is back on track with the new Law on Customer Service Services. Another law. It was approved in Congress last month and is waiting to go through the Senate for final approval. It is the first state law to regulate customer service and places special emphasis on abusive practices such as automatic renewals without consent and commercial calls. It is striking that it is already the second law that includes measures against this practice (first was the General Telecommunications Law), which shows that the problem continues despite previous measures. Against spam. The Government banned commercial calls without permission in 2023the problem is that most contracts include a clause called “prior consent”, so the prohibition is of little use. More recently They have banned spam calls from mobile numbers and now the new law includes new measures. Companies will be required to use specific prefixes that distinguish commercial and customer service calls. Operators must block commercial calls that do not use such codes. To discourage companies, contracts closed through non-consensual commercial calls will be declared void. Doubts. The new measures pose more obstacles for companies that bombard us with calls, but we have already seen that the law is made, the trap is made. The obligation to implement specific codes sounds much more effective than other previous measures, but the reality is that we have been talking about the end of spam calls for years and they still continue to call us, so the doubts are there. Furthermore, we still have the problem of telephone scams that escape the regulations. Fake reviews. The fight against spam calls is only one part of the new law. The text also includes fake reviews for the first time, a problem we have been talking about for years. The law sets a limit of 30 days to be able to post a review and prohibits buying and selling reviewsalthough it does not specify how it will fight against this practice. Other measures. The law also includes other obligations for companies that provide customer service: Companies must report the total price of the service from the beginning, including management costs that may make the product more expensive, as often occurs in ticket sales. Customer service numbers cannot be premium rate numbers. They must guarantee that 95% of calls are answered in less than 3 minutes. Customers may request to speak to an operator at any time during the call. The period for addressing claims is reduced to 15 days. If the claim is for an improper charge, the period is reduced to five days. Companies with more than 250 employees that have a turnover of more than 50 million euros must guarantee service in the co-official language of the territory in which they operate. When a contract is automatically renewed, companies must inform 15 days in advance and facilitate cancellation of the service. Image | Pexelsedited In Xataka | If you are tired of receiving spam calls every day, good news: MasOrange is tired too

Spain is filling up with buildings with pets. The Horizontal Property Law clarifies what to do when they cause nuisance

by

It comes with going outside to check it out. Spain is increasingly a country of dogs and cats than of babies. Literally. about a year ago The World did the math and it turned out that there are 1.8 million children under four years old for 10.5 million pets, which leaves a ratio of almost six animals per infant. This is perceived in the economy, society, cities… and of course the neighborhood communities, where it is not strange that a question arises: ¿What the law says about pets living in apartment blocks? In case of discomfort, noise, dirt… What does the regulations provide? Are there so many pets? Yes. Although it is not easy to compile accurate statistics on pets, there are two sources that help us get a precise idea of ​​the extent to which we have opened our homes to dogs, cats, reptiles, rodents, fish, birds and other fauna. The first is the REIACwhose census is based on microchipped pets. At least in 2023 it added 9.2 million dogs and 1.2 million cats. If we base ourselves on Anfaac, the association of feed manufacturers, your latest data They speak of 6.9 million dogs, 4.9 million cats, five million fish, 3.2 birds, 740,000 reptiles and 548,000 small mammals, which raises the general count of pets above the 20 million of animals. The big question, especially when we talk about pets of a certain size, that run around and must go outside several times a day, as is the case with dogs, is… What happens when they cause disturbances inside a building? When it comes to communities of owners, the reference standard is the Horizontal Property Law (LPH), a law that does not address the issue directly, but does establish a valuable framework, especially in its articles 7.2 and 9.1, which recall the coexistence guidelines that neighbors must respect. Article 7.2 of the LPH: “The owner and occupant of the apartment or premises are not allowed to carry out activities in it or in the rest of the property that are prohibited in the statuses, that are harmful to the property or that contravene the general provisions on annoying, unhealthy, harmful, dangerous or illicit activities”. Article 9 of the LPH: “The obligations of each owner are: to respect the general facilities of the community and other common elements, whether they are for general or private use of any of the owners, whether or not they are included in their apartment or premises, making appropriate use of them and preventing damage or damage from being caused”. The regulations themselves also remind us that, in the event that a neighbor is carrying out annoying activities (which in this case can be transferred to your pet), the community president should ask you to correct them. If that does not happen and the problem persists, the case may end up being taken to court. Although the LPH is a key tool, other standards come into play in this case. The reason is simple. When we talk about pets and neighborhood communities, two different planes overlap. On the one hand, there is the right that everyone has to enjoy their home freely. On the other hand, there is the necessary coexistence between apartments and the shared enjoyment of community areas. The first thing, the enjoyment of the home, is regulated the Constitutionwhich among other issues protects its “inviolability” and private property. Regarding the second, coexistence within the building, it is normal that it is regulated by the statuses of the community. And although this document cannot prohibit owners to have pets at home (a different thing is the tenants and what appears in their rental contracts), the internal rules of a block can establish certain limits when using collective spaces, such as elevators, gardens or swimming pools. Therefore, it is advisable to consult what the statutes say about pets. For example, they may prohibit dogs from being walked off-leash in the building. What there is no doubt about is that if the animal causes any damage, the owner is responsible. It is clearly established by the Civil Code in his article 1905in which he remembers who should assume the responsibility (and costs) if a dog, cat or other animal causes damage outside your home. Article 1905 of the Civil Code: “The owner of an animal, or the one who uses it, is responsible for the damage it causes, even if it escapes or is lost. This responsibility will only cease in the event that the damage came from force majeure or the fault of the person who suffered it.”. The Animal Welfare Law also sets guidelines related to the care of pets at home, which in turn influences the conditions in which they must live, both in houses and in apartments within buildings. For a start (article 27.i) No pet can be left unsupervised for more than three days in a row, a period that is reduced to 24 consecutive hours if we are talking about dogs. The rule also prohibits dogs and cats from living permanently on terraces or balconies, which is considered a “serious infringement”. Image | Eri Gonzales (Unsplash) In Xataka | The Horizontal Property Law is quite clear about one of the most conflictive phenomena of winter: Christmas

Every Christmas there are people who fill their balconies with lights and decorations. The Horizontal Property Law has something to say

by

It happens December after December. As the holidays approach, there are balconies, windows and facades that are invaded by a mixture of led lights, garlands, papanoels Various Christmas-themed pendants and ornaments. Where before there was a simple and nondescript terrace, suddenly there is a confusing mass of colors, lights and shapes that leaves bouncing a tricky question: Do apartment owners have the right to turn their balconies into small theme parks? To answer it you have to go to the LPH. Lights, give me (many) lights. The one from Vigo may be the best known casebut there are many cities in Spain that in recent years have begun to fill their streets with thousands (or even millions) of Christmas lights, far surpassing the decorations that could be seen a decade ago. In the Galician city they boast this year of having nearly 12 million of LEDs spread across 460 neighborhoods, in Madrid they talk about 13 millionin Alcalá de almost fivein the busiest areas of Malaga they will shine 2.7 million…And so on a long list of cities that every Christmas put on a peculiar suit of lights. And what happens in the buildings? The City Councils are not the only ones that get carried away by this lighting fury. Every year there are people who transfer this display of lights and decorations to their own homes, both inside their homes, with Christmas trees, nativity scenes or garlands, and to balconies and facades. It comes with taking a walk through most cities to see people who, when December arrives, fill their terraces with colored LEDs or even decorations that stick out from the balcony. The catalog is extensive: papanoels pendants, decorations of wise men climbing stairs or garlands that fall from the façade. Can they do it? A quick Google search shows that that question reborn each Decembercoinciding with the dates on which people decorate their homes. Can the rest of the neighbors forbid me from giving free rein to my passion for Christmas decorations? Are there limits when we talk about decorating balconies? If I want to decorate a common area of ​​the building, do I need permission from my neighbors? These are questions frequently enough that platforms specialized in both law and the real estate market have devoted attention to them over the last few years. Two clear cases are Legalites and Photohouse. The best: communication. These may seem like far-fetched questions, but we must take into account a fundamental fact: the balconies, facades and roofs of a building do not have the same condition as the living room or kitchen of a home. Terraces, for example, are usually spaces for private use: they are enjoyed exclusively by the owner of the apartment, but in reality they are common elements, so the owner cannot do whatever he wants with them. Without going any further, before carrying out a work, what recommend agencies like Reale is to consult with the board. The same logic can be transferred to Christmas decorations if what we have in mind is to make a huge display of lights or decorate the facade. The first thing is to confirm if the community statutes regulate the exterior aesthetics of the building. As they remember in LegálitasIf we want to install decoration that invades the sidewalk, public spaces or street furniture, it is also advisable to consult the City Council first. After all, the private use of these spaces may require a permit or even entail the payment of a fee. LPH Word. When we talk about communities and coexistence, there is a reference standard that is always good to keep in mind: the Horizontal Property Law (LPH). The text does not specifically talk about LED lights, Christmas trees or papanoels pendants, but gives some guidelines that are applicable in these cases. One of its clearest articles on the matter is the seventh, which clarifies what exactly the owner of an apartment or premises can and (cannot) do: “You may modify the architectural elements, facilities or services of the building when it does not undermine or alter the safety of the building, its general structure, the external configuration or state, or harm the rights of other owners, and must report such works to whoever represents the community.” “The owner and occupant of the apartment or premises are not allowed to carry out activities in it or in the rest of the property that are prohibited in the statutes, that are harmful to the property or that contravene the general provisions on annoying, unhealthy, harmful, dangerous or illicit activities,” adds the LPH in the same article. In case there were any doubts, the norm (citing in turn the Civil code) remember that there are elements subject to a “co-ownership” regime. Why is it important? Because although the wording of the LPH may be generic and does not explicitly talk about Christmas decorations, it touches on the key points that can generate conflict between the different neighbors of a block. To be more precise, it emphasizes that no owner can “undermine” the “external configuration and state” of the property or “harm” the rest of the tenants. So, if we decide to turn our balconies into small tributes to Christmas, we will have to ask ourselves a series of questions first: Do the decorations hang or stick out enough to affect the “exterior configuration” of the property? Is the installation of outlets, wiring and lights safe? If they are very close to another neighbor’s window, can we cause inconvenience? “Out of prudence”. The most advisable thing is therefore to keep all these issues in mind and above all to be aware of the internal rules of each community. Also communicate with those responsible. So advises it in elDiario.es Patricia Briones, from the College of Property Administrators of Madrid (CAFMadrid). “Any neighbor who wishes to install decorative elements in a common space on a private basis must, out of prudence and to avoid conflicts, request authorization from the board,” … Read more

The only thing that Europe’s AI Law has achieved is to leave us lame. The question is whether turning back will do any good.

by

December 8 was a fateful day for the European Union, but not many realized it. And it was because that day the AI ​​Act was passedthe European regulation on artificial intelligence. Thierry Breton, European commissioner, he was pleased with a tweet that automatically became a meme. I was bragging about how Europe had tripped itself up. The responses to that tweet They made it clear that the reception of the regulations was very different from what the EU would have expected. The criticism was forceful and very clear: with these regulations the only thing the EU was achieving was to slow down innovation and make it even more difficult to compete in a segment that was defining the world. While the US and China joined the party without asking permission and without asking for forgiveness, Europe stayed at home happily crocheting. That regulation, which came into force in August 2024instantly caused the AI ​​segment out at two speeds: that of Europe, almost at a standstill, and that of the rest of the world, which stepped on the accelerator (without looking too closely at the consequences). We have seen the consequences of that in the last two years. Europe has been relegated to the second (or third) plane, and with honorable exceptions like the Spanish Freepik or the French Mistral, we have very little to talk about in this area. Meanwhile, the US dominates the commercial plane and China is a steamroller both at a training level as in your open model development. Europe wants to turn back: the question is whether it is too late Yesterday the European Commission presented a project for simplify various digital regulationsand the most important modifications actually affect the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPRor GRPD for its acronym in English). The changes proposed by the Commission will make it easier for companies to share sets of anonymised and pseudo-anonymised personal data. That will have a direct impact on the capacity of AI companies, which They will be able to legally use personal data to train their data models as long as that process meets the rest of the GDPR requirements. The proposal also softens one of the key elements of the AI ​​Act, which, as we say, came into force in August 2024 but included several elements that would come into force some time later. Thus, now the “grace period” for the regulations that regulate the high risk AI systems —those that pose a “serious risk” to health, safety or fundamental rights—is widespread. It was supposed to be activated in summer 2016, but now that regulation will only apply when it is confirmed that “the necessary standards and supporting tools are available” for AI companies… whatever those standards and tools are, yet to be defined. Other amendments in that new Digital Omnibus include simplified requirements for the documentation required of SMEsin addition to a unified interface so that companies can report cybersecurity incidents. Henna Virkkunen, vice president of technological sovereignty at the European Commission, explained that: “In the EU we have all the ingredients to be successful. However, our businesses, especially startups and small businesses, are often held back by a set of rigid rules. By reducing bureaucracy, simplifying EU legislation, opening access to data and introducing a common European business portfolio, we are creating space for innovation to be produced and commercialized in Europe. This is being done the European way: by ensuring that users’ fundamental rights remain fully protected.” These amendments to current digital regulations will now have to be approved by the European Parliament and the 27 member states of the European Union — which will need a qualified majority— to approve it. That process could last months, and during it the proposals themselves could see notable changes before being applied. As indicated in The Guardianthis “massive setback” of this regulation has caused concern among groups fighting to continue protecting privacy of European citizens. The European Digital Rights (EDRi), a pan-European network of NGOs, Indian that if the changes to the regulation are accepted, it will become easier for technology companies to collect and use personal data to train AI models without asking for consent. The European agenda seemed to change when former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi warned last fall of how Europe had fallen worryingly behind in the technology race. That speech was a breath of fresh air for Europeand European business groups have welcomed the proposal with optimism, but believe that they still fall short. A representative of the Computer and Communications Industry Association of which Amazon, Apple, Google and Meta are members indicated that “efforts to simplify digital and technology regulations should not stop there.” One click for cookies This simplification of regulation that affects all types of digital scenarios can have a positive effect. Accepting or rejecting cookies has become a daily torture for millions of Europeansbut the user experience may improve significantly in the coming months. And it may get better because the EU has proposed a modernization of policies related to cookies. To try to improve the browsing experience, it will limit the number of times cookie warning banners appear, but also will make it possible for us to accept or reject cookies with a single click. In fact, the future may be even more promising, because what is intended is that said consent (or denial) of cookies is integrated into our browser so that once we configure it, the websites are not constantly asking us if we accept cookies or not: the browser will know what we want and will answer for us at all times. In that “digital package” it is specified that once we accept or reject cookies with that “single-click“, websites must respect that choice of citizens for six months. Image | Christian Lue In Xataka | For the EU, our privacy has always been more important than AI. Until he understood that he was left behind

A man found a wallet with more than 800 euros and took it to the police. Now they are yours thanks to a law from 1889

by

Tea you find a wallet lying in a train car and there is no one around who could have fallen. Inside, more than 800 euros in cash. This is what happened to Carmen, a resident of Pamplona, ​​two years ago. In an act of honesty, the woman took the wallet to the National Police. Two years later, he can say that being honest has a reward. At least if you wait long enough. what has happened. They tell it in the Navarra Newspaper. In November 2023, Carmen took a train and in one of the cars she found a wallet full of tickets. It belonged to a Turkish citizen and, in addition to the documentation and credit cards, it contained 817.96 euros in cash. He handed over the wallet and all its contents to a National Police station, the same one where two years later they gave him all the money because no one had claimed it. ANDs law. The Civil Code, published in 1889, regulates what should be done with lost objects. Specifically, article 615 It is what indicates how to proceed when an object is found. The first thing is to return it to its owner and, if the owner is not known, it must be handed over to the authorities, who must try to locate the owner and guard the object. If two years pass since the discovery and no one has claimed it, the object will be given to whoever found it. Foresighted. When she handed the wallet to the Police, Carmen was informed of this legislation and decided that, in addition to being honest, she was also going to be farsighted. An alarm was set on his cell phone so that he would not forget and, two years later, he returned to the police station, where they handed him the 817.96 euros that no one had claimed. It is not the first case in which honesty ends up being rewarded. In 2024, two residents of Almassora received 600 euros that they had found lying in the middle of the street. Misappropriation. Many people would probably have kept the money and returned only the wallet. In this case, it would be a crime of misappropriation which, depending on the value, may be subject to a fine of three to six months. In the event that the object found had “artistic, historical, scientific or cultural value” it could result in a prison sentence of six months to two years. Image | Catalin Cardei, Pexels In Xataka | The “son in distress” scam had been wreaking havoc throughout Spain for years. The police are finally breaking it up

The new alcohol law limits bars from placing beer chairs or umbrellas. And now millionaires fear losses

by

We’ve been seeing it all our lives. Bars that fill their terraces with umbrellas, napkin rings, tables, chairs, sideboards and other furniture that promotes beer brands. For decades this advertising support was a boon for business. Now the hospitality industry fears that it will become a poisoned gift. The reason: the new law on alcohol and minors promoted by the Government and which already has the endorsement of the Council of Ministers wants to snip that kind of promotion. The locals calculate that the loss of that advertising support it will cost them millions. Blow to the hospitality industry? That’s what seems to fear the sector as a result of the law promoted by the Government to prevent alcohol consumption among young people. Although the regulation has not yet been finalized, the group is already managing a study which warns that it will seriously affect the finances of bars, restaurants, cafes, pubs and other hospitality establishments in Spain. The reason: the bill of Health seriously restricts any advertising sponsorship related to alcohol. And that is a problem for businesses that have been filling for years with awnings, tables, chairs, ashtrays, umbrellas, napkin holders, refrigerators and furniture in general on which beer brands are advertised. What exactly does the standard say? He billwhich can be consulted in the official Congress bulletin and received in march The Government’s endorsement sets some limits on advertising in the sector. Its article 26 is clear about this: “Any direct, indirect or covert form of commercial communication of alcoholic beverages is prohibited, or of products that imitate or simulate being one, or of non-alcoholic beverages that share their brand and differential features with those of alcoholic beverages, including the commercial name, corporate name, symbols or brands of the people or companies that produce said beverages, as well as their distributors when they are exclusively associated with alcoholic beverages on public roads, or places visible from them.” Does it clarify anything else? Yes. The law differentiates between two types of spaces: the ‘most sensitive’ and the rest, where the advertising restriction will be somewhat more flexible. “However, advertising limited to the trade name, corporate name and identifying brands or symbols of the producing companies may be permitted in a perimeter that is more than 150 linear meters from the access to educational centers that teach early childhood education, basic education, post-compulsory secondary education and elementary artistic education, health centers, social and socio-health services, parks and places for children’s leisure.” How will it be applied? In the statement March in which it reports the approval of the Council of Ministers to the Bill, the Ministry of Health clarifies, however, that it will allow the advertising of fermented drinks with less than 0.5% alcohol. Mónica García’s team also points out that the veto will not be immediate: it will come into force twelve months after the publication of the law in the BOE and will not affect “those situations that already existed before that moment”, which suggests that it will not affect the furniture that already exists. A different thing is when it comes time to renew it. Will it affect the sector that much? It seems so. At least that is what a Comprehensive Economic Analysis (AEI) report indicates. advance by The Economist. The analysis, prepared for the Spanish Hospitality and Brewery associations and which is having a notable impact, ensures that the loss of sponsorships from alcohol brands will be quite expensive for bars and restaurants. To be more precise, AEI estimates that it will cost the sector up to 1.7 billion euros. The estimate is based on two figures: a direct cost of around 600 million euros and a drop in sales of between 1,080 and 1,680 million. He AEI report It doesn’t stay there. It also warns that the measure will affect between 8,000 and 10,200 jobs and will be felt beyond bars and cafes, with a reduction in the contribution to the national GDP that it estimates between 900 and 1,176 million euros. The study also suggests that the money that alcohol manufacturers will stop investing in advertising furniture will probably be directed towards other channels, away from small hoteliers and their businesses. Why this suspicion? Although Health has clarified that the measure would still take time to come into effect and will not affect “existing” facilities, the AEI report points out that its wording leaves little room for doubt: “In practice it implies the removal of logos, signs, chairs, tables, umbrellas or napkin rings with beer brands from thousands of bars and restaurants in the country.” His estimate is completed with another from Hospitality of Spain that gives an idea of ​​the scope of the measure. According to their data, of a total of 130,000 bars and cafes in the country, between 70 and 80% incorporate elements sponsored by breweries. Will it affect everyone equally? “If approved, the new law will practically eliminate all this support, forcing the brand’s advertising to be withdrawn, which will have an estimated cost of 12,000 euros per store,” remark the study. The penalty that could be felt especially strongly in areas of Spain where hoteliers work in smaller markets and with less room for maneuver. The Economist slide that about 20% of the municipalities that now have only one bar (235) could see their doors close. Images | Guillaume Flament (Flickr) and Ccalm Film Festival-María del Mar López Morales (Flickr) In Xataka | From prohibiting purchases to prohibiting consumption: the changes in the recently approved draft reform of the anti-smoking law

The first law that regulates ‘AI friends’ is here

by

The debate about the effects of AI on mental health is beginning to transform into tangible measures. OpenAI announced on ChatGPT parental controls after the lawsuit for the suicide of a teenager and now we have the first law that regulates the so-called friends or AI companions popularized by apps like Replika either Character.AI. What has happened? California Governor Gavin Newsom has just signed the first law to control AI companions, as reported in TechCrunch. “We can continue to lead the field of artificial intelligence and technology, but we must do so responsibly, protecting our children every step of the way. The safety of our children is not for sale,” the governor said in a statement. Why is it important. There is other proposals on the table in the United States, but California is the first state to make the issue of AI companions a law. The risks of using these types of chatbots, especially among teenagers, are no longer expert warningsnow there will be legal consequences. Companies that do not comply with the rules could face fines of up to $250,000. What is an AI companion. They are chatbots that seek to replicate a human connection and can offer everything from emotional support to intimate relationships. By design, they are the most sensitive form of AI in terms of potential mental health effects. The most popular apps are Replika and Character.AI, but also There are those who establish these types of connections with “normal” AI chatbots like ChatGPT or Claude. There are even companies that They “resurrect” a loved one with the use of AI to help cope with grief (although experts believe it is achieve just the opposite). What the law says. It will come into force on January 1, 2026 and is designed especially to protect younger users. Between the measures included There is an obligation for companies to integrate age verification systems. In addition, they must display warnings that make it clear to users that the interactions are generated by AI, as well as integrate suicide or self-harm detection protocols. Other measures. As we said at the beginning, the lawsuit from the parents of the teenager who discussed his suicide plans with ChatGPT sparked a crisis at OpenAI, which soon announced new safeguards for ChatGPT such as parental controls. AI companion apps are also bringing this topic into their discourse. Character AI already has parenting tools and Replika assured TechCrunch that they dedicate a lot of resources to filtering content and directing users in complicated situations to help lines. In Xataka | Humans are falling in love with AIs and they are not isolated cases: they already number in the thousands

Libya has decided that the full weight of Islamic law must fall on one thing in particular: crows

by

At 900 meters above sea level, the Green Mountain is actually a fertile plateau of lush forests in northern Libya. It is by far the wettest place in the country: one of the jewels of North Africa’s biodiversity. one that a religious ‘fatwa’ is about to load. A ‘fatwa’? Not only that: a ‘fatwa’ (that is, an Islamic legal opinion issued by a qualified jurist) whose content is almost entirely dedicated to crows. They told it in El PaísAhmad al Dalansi, of the Investment Authority of the National Salvation Government, made it clear “there is no religious objection to killing them.” In his view, “the prophetic tradition that classifies them as harmful (fawasiq) and dictates that they can therefore be eliminated “just like rats and snakes.” But why would anyone want to kill crows? That is to say, it is one thing that it is not prohibited to kill them and quite another that people are willing to do so. However, the matter is more complicated than it seems: because the truth is that crows are becoming a real problem. What is a crow like you doing in a place like this? Let’s start at the beginning: the crows (Corvus ruficollis) are not new to the Green Mountain area. However, in recent years the corvid population has not stopped growing and this seems to be causing problems in other animal populations. Especially in land turtles and a native type of short-toed eagle. This, although it may not seem like it, is part of the problem. Because, unlike other animals, crows do not attack crops. However, they are “very intelligent creatures, who do not fear humans and are capable of adapting to various environments.” The growth of its population, like a chess game, is what is pushing an ecological imbalance that triggers (in turn) rodents and snakes. Hence the consultation and the fatwa. It makes sense, right? If crows are a problem, the most direct question is whether they can be eliminated. AND the Al Dalansi edict maintains that culling them is not only Islamically acceptable, but that “preventing harm is a more important priority” than maintaining current populations. The problem is that, upon seeing it, the Libyan Heritage and Wildlife Authority came out to report that such an eradication would be disastrous. Not only because crows also have a very important role in regulating the ecosystem; but, above all, because the problem is not the crows. What is the problem? The problem is the garbage. In recent years, as explained by journalist AMR Fathallah“the crow population (…) has multiplied spectacularly in Shahat, (due to) poor waste management.” Shahat is in the heart of the mountain. The lack of urban planning has caused housing to get out of control and that has caused “secondary landfills to proliferate in the forests, valleys and even roads of Shahat.” And there the crows feel at home. And, of course, killing the crows won’t end the problem. Fathallah himself explains that the last time an attempt was made to eliminate the crow population, it was followed by a history-making infestation of ticks. It is reminiscent of the mass killing of Chinese sparrows that caused a famine that killed millions of people. Ecology is too complex to be solved with fatwas (or pseudoscientific theories). The central issue in all of this is that these are not isolated cases. As climate change accelerates, “magic” responses are becoming increasingly popular. The problem, as we see, is that this has consequences. Image | Sasha Matic | Aldin Nasrun On Magnet | 400 years ago, Chinese women invented a language to speak only among themselves. Today it is resurfacing

The “Rider Law” aspired to improve the delivery of Spain. In the sector there are those who believe it has served the opposite

by

Bit (Or very little) today has to do with today’s delivery sector, before the government approved the Legislative change that forced that Thousands of dealers stop being autonomous to swell the template of the platforms with which they operate. The known as ‘Rider Law’ He has marked the last years of the sector and has left a deep mark on both the service and in the hospitality. So deep, in fact, that in the middle of 2025 there are still voices that They question their effectiveness And they warn that it is harming Riders, websites, restaurants and customers. A “lose-lose ‘by quadruple”, They regret. What happened? That despite the over four years that have elapsed since its approval in Spain, The impact that he has had the measure at the community level and that his guidelines have been pending little by little Among companies, the ‘Rider Law’ still does not get rid of the controversy. A quick search arrives on Google to find news more or less recent than They question their effectsbut perhaps who has summarized its impact on the sector is Alejandro Hermo, CEO of the Hamburgueserías chain Goiko. Recently the manager, a voice with A certain weight In the guild, He exhibited on LinkedIn The blow that (in his opinion) is advising him the legislative change: “Delivery has been very complicated for a few months, impacting customers and restaurants.” What exactly has he said? More or less, that any past time was better. “We have gone from having a delivery system that worked as a clock, giving good service to customers and restaurants, to have a rigid, expensive and inefficient system that makes it almost impossible to cover with enough riders the peak hours, causing the restaurants to appear without service available or/and that the orders are late (if they arrive),” he laments in Your post The Goiko CEO. Is there more? Yes. Hermo assume that adapting to “such a drastic model” will require a certain “time”, but is also convinced that the service will never recover its “previous level.” “What is happening after the forced change of a model of autonomous Riders to 100% hired Riders is a ‘Lose-Lose’ by quadruple,” insists the manager before exposing why, in his opinion, the law harms both the distributors and the platforms, the restaurants and the clients themselves. Hermo warns that, when reconverting in wage earners, the first (the Riders) have seen how they diminished their income and the freedom to self -manage. Moreover, the manager is convinced that the change has “hindered” that they can access the most occasional the most occasional riders, those who only accepted orders to complete their economy, such as students. As for platforms such as Glovo or Justeat, Hermo warns that the increase in operational costs has subtracted flexibility to cover the ‘peak hours’. How does restaurants affect? In 2023, during An interview With the EFE agency, the businessman already warned that although the ‘Rider Law’ focuses mainly on platforms and hoteliers are only “a secondary actor”, in the long run they would end up being affected. Now confirm it. “Restaurants lose business and profitability,” summarizes its publication of LinkedIn, in which it slides that the legislative change has resulted for them in a less flexible and more expensive delivery service. “Thinking about our sector, we cannot afford at this time another torpedo in the flotation line of the restoration,” he remarks. The consequences for customers are from their obvious point of view: a less efficient delivery. “The service worsens because there are fewer restaurants available, it takes longer and reaches a worse condition. And it will eventually be more expensive per order to pay the model change party.” What does it propose? That platforms, distributors and administration “feel and be heard” to find a consensual exit. “The solution is not white or black, there must be intermediate points that approach the demands of both parties and serve as inspiration for other countries.” For Hermo the Delivery is only One more example of the new business model that do not have to be guided by the inherited guidelines of the twentieth century. “With their pros and cons, but they are less flexible than today is demanded.” Is it the only one to complain? No. And that’s why his reflection is even more interesting. Beyond the debate that accompanied the approval and entry into force of the ‘Rider Law’, in 2021, the discussion around the pros and cons of the measure have been maintained over the last four years. In August The newspaper asked To the spokeswoman for the RidersxDerechos Trade Union Platform, Núria Soto, if the collective is better today at work level than a five years. His answer was clear: “Yes, although it depends on who you ask.” “Riders have more rights, but also less income. And those without work permission who distributed renting accounts have been excluded from regularizations and have lost their source of income,” Soto warned. There are deeders that are even more blunt And they regret that the ‘Rider Law’ has sunk them even more in the “precariousness” that promised to free them. They have even been published academic studies that confirm how legislative change has had some unwanted effects, such as worsening of salaries or destruction of employment. Why that complaint now? The law is 2021, but it makes sense that the sector continues to pronounce today. After all, a good part of the Riders They were still not hired until not so long. This year however Glovo gave A key step by deciding that all their distributors become salaried. The decision was made after a few complex years, marked by large fines and The scrutiny of the authorities, and not without suspicion. “We will hire 20,000 workers, but they will gain less than as self -employed,” He warned in February Your CEO. According to The newspaperin August almost 70% of the packages that were distributed in Spain they did it through a delivery man with … Read more

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.