A new system from Cloudflare gives millions of websites the power to block AI bots from scraping their content without permission and could soon let them charge for access via a new pay-per-crawl model.

AI Crawlers A Problem for Publishers and Creators

In recent years, the rapid growth of AI tools has sparked a battle over ownership, access, and compensation. At the centre of the controversy are “AI crawlers”, i.e. automated bots developed by companies like OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic to trawl the internet, copying data from websites to train large language models (LLMs) or power AI assistants.

For creators and publishers, the issue is that this content is often scraped without permission or compensation. Unlike traditional web crawlers used by search engines, which drive traffic back to the original source and support advertising revenue, AI bots typically use the content to generate summaries, answers or outputs directly, without crediting or linking to the sites they pulled from. This bypasses publishers entirely, cutting them out of the value chain.

The BBC, for example, recently accused US-based AI firm Perplexity of using its content without consent and demanded compensation. Similar rows have erupted in the US, with lawsuits from the likes of The New York Times, and in the UK, where artists have criticised the government over weak protections.

As Matthew Prince, co-founder and CEO of Cloudflare, put it: “AI crawlers have been scraping content without limits. Our goal is to put the power back in the hands of creators, while still helping AI companies innovate.”

Who Is Cloudflare?

Cloudflare is one of the internet’s biggest behind-the-scenes players. The US-listed tech firm provides security, performance optimisation and content delivery services for around 20 per cent of all websites globally. That scale makes any system it deploys highly influential, and potentially industry-defining.

On 1 July, the company launched a sweeping new system that gives website owners direct control over AI crawlers. Crucially, this is now turned on by default for new Cloudflare users, meaning that unless permission is granted, AI bots will be blocked from accessing site content altogether.

The move significantly changes the rules of engagement between content owners and AI firms, and lays the groundwork for a new type of economic model.

How the New System Works

The technology uses Cloudflare’s bot detection infrastructure to identify which crawlers are trying to access a site and what purpose they’re being used for, such as AI training, inference, or chatbot search responses. It means that AI crawlers must now declare their identity and intent. This in turn gives website owners the power to choose to allow access, deny it entirely, or ask for payment via a new initiative called Pay per Crawl.

Pay Per Crawl

Pay per Crawl is an experimental marketplace currently in private beta. It allows publishers to set a price (typically a micropayment) for each individual bot crawl. The AI companies must then agree to pay if they want continued access to the site’s content. The entire process is managed by Cloudflare as the intermediary.

The system also includes transparency tools such as dashboards showing how often bots visit a site and what they are collecting. This allows publishers to differentiate between helpful crawler (e.g. those from Google Search) and AI bots that may be extracting content without driving any traffic back.

Big Names Already Backing the Block

Over one million sites are already using Cloudflare’s earlier one-click tool to block AI crawlers. With the new system, even more are expected to adopt it, especially as the default setting now blocks crawlers unless explicitly allowed.

For example, leading media companies including Sky News, The Associated Press, BuzzFeed, TIME, The Atlantic, Condé Nast, Gannett (USA Today), and Dotdash Meredith have signed on to use the technology. Many see it as a step towards restoring control over their intellectual property and creating fairer terms for their contributions to the web.

“This is a critical step toward creating a fair value exchange on the Internet that protects creators, supports quality journalism and holds AI companies accountable,” said Roger Lynch, CEO of Condé Nast.

Also, TIME’s COO, Mark Howard, described the initiative as “a meaningful step toward building a healthier AI ecosystem—one that respects the value of trusted content and supports the creators behind it.”

Crawling Costs and Content Control

The problem, publishers argue, is that AI firms are currently reaping huge rewards from models trained on content that they never paid for. For example, a recent analysis by Cloudflare suggests that OpenAI’s crawler, GPTBot, scraped websites 1,700 times for every referral it gave in return. In comparison, Google’s bot gave one referral for every 14 scrapes – still skewed, but not nearly as extreme.

This imbalance has prompted fears that the original economic model of the open internet, i.e. where traffic from search engines fuels revenue for content creators, is breaking down. For example, as AI assistants become more prevalent and answer users’ questions directly, fewer people click through to the source material. That threatens the sustainability of journalism, research, and creative industries.

Therefore, by introducing a payment mechanism and making bot access conditional, Cloudflare hopes to reshape the model. As the company wrote in its announcement: “If the incentive to create original, quality content disappears, society ends up losing, and the future of the Internet is at risk.”

Websites and AI Firms

For website owners, especially smaller publishers, creative professionals, and independent media, Cloudflare’s system could offer a much-needed line of defence. For example, many lack the technical resources to build their own bot detection or monetisation systems. With Cloudflare now providing this as a built-in service, it levels the playing field.

For AI companies, however, it creates a new layer of complexity and potentially, cost. While some like ProRata AI and Quora have expressed support for fair compensation models, others may be forced to rethink how they access training data or structure deals with publishers.

At the same time, AI firms that continue to ignore bot exclusion rules may now find themselves more easily blocked, routed into traps (like Cloudflare’s AI “Labyrinth” of junk content), or publicly named and shamed.

The move also puts pressure on Cloudflare’s competitors, such as Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, and Akamai, to offer similar tools or risk falling behind in the arms race over content protection and AI ethics.

A Bet on a New Internet Economy

By launching Pay per Crawl (still in beta), Cloudflare is positioning itself as both a gatekeeper and broker of a new AI-era content economy. In doing so, it’s hoping to gain influence over how value flows between creators and AI companies, and opening the door to becoming a central payments infrastructure provider in this emerging market.

CEO Matthew Prince has even floated the idea of creating Cloudflare’s own stablecoin to support seamless micropayments at scale.

Challenges

That said, challenges remain. For example, the system only protects content hosted through Cloudflare. Critics like Ed Newton-Rex, founder of Fairly Trained, argue this is a “sticking plaster” rather than a full solution. Legal frameworks, they say, are still essential to address copyright and enforce compliance across the wider web.

Baroness Beeban Kidron, a prominent campaigner for creative rights, nonetheless praised the move as “decisive action,” saying: “If we want a vibrant public sphere, we need AI companies to contribute to the communities in which they operate.”

More broadly, the battle now turns to whether Cloudflare’s system can actually become the foundation for a fairer digital ecosystem, or whether AI firms and others will try to find ways around it.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For publishers, a permission-based model for AI web scraping could be the first meaningful opportunity to assert control over how their work is accessed and monetised in an AI-driven world. It gives media groups, content creators, and smaller businesses a chance to protect their intellectual property without needing bespoke technical solutions, and could eventually create new revenue streams where previously there were none. If widely adopted, it also signals a move away from the unspoken assumption that public web content is free for AI companies to exploit.

What makes this development particularly relevant is Cloudflare’s scale. With its technology touching around one fifth of the internet, its default blocking of AI bots resets the baseline. AI companies can no longer rely on passive access to build their models and must now navigate a fragmented, consent-based landscape. While this raises operational challenges for developers of AI tools, it may also encourage more formal, sustainable commercial arrangements between content owners and AI firms.

For UK businesses, the implications are twofold. On the one hand, firms producing original content, e.g. publishers, consultancies, and creative agencies, stand to gain from greater control and potential compensation. On the other, companies that rely on AI systems to summarise, synthesise or build upon external content may face new hurdles or costs. It highlights the need for businesses to understand not just how AI tools function, but where their data comes from and under what terms.

However, the effectiveness of Cloudflare’s model will depend on broad adoption and robust enforcement. The Pay per Crawl system is still in beta and, for now, limited in reach. There is also the risk that aggressive scraping bots will continue to operate outside legitimate channels or spoof identities to bypass detection. In that sense, legal backing remains a missing piece. As critics point out, a voluntary system only protects those within its walls.

Even so, the shift represents a turning point. Whether or not Cloudflare’s marketplace becomes the standard, it has created a framework that others may follow or adapt. For publishers, platforms and AI companies alike, the message is that the free-for-all era of unregulated AI scraping appears to be over. The next chapter will be defined by consent, compensation and a more negotiated relationship between those who create content and those who use it.

Microsoft’s decision to bypass long-standing partners in its Enterprise Agreement (EA) renewals is sending financial shockwaves through the global IT channel, with UK-based Bytes Technology Group among the first major casualties.

Reshaping the Channel

For years, Microsoft relied on a network of accredited Large Service Providers (LSPs) to handle the sale and renewal of its three-year Enterprise Agreements, i.e. the long-term software licensing contracts tailored to large organisations. These deals provided LSPs with steady commission income and a foothold in enterprise IT procurement. But that model is changing.

Microsoft has begun reclaiming control of these high-value contracts, handling renewals directly through its own sales force rather than via partners. The change, first noticed in 2023, is accelerating fast. For example, Microsoft reportedly took back control of around a third of EA renewals last year and is expected to reclaim almost all of them by January 2026.

It seems that the company is not just shifting processes but is cutting off financial incentives too. For example, global EA commission payments to LSPs stood at approximately $2.5 billion in 2023, according to US Cloud, a Microsoft support partner. That figure dropped to $1.67 billion in 2024 and is expected to fall to just $583 million in 2025. By 2026, payouts are projected to stop entirely.

Bytes Bitten

For Bytes Technology Group (BTG), one of the UK’s largest Microsoft resellers and a London Stock Exchange-listed firm, it seems the effects have been immediate and severe. For example, shares in BTG recently plummeted over 25 per cent after the company issued a profit warning, citing delayed buying decisions, a difficult macroeconomic environment, and lower commission income from Microsoft.

BTG had previously forecast double-digit gross profit growth for the 2025–26 financial year. But its latest update painted a far more cautious picture, with gross profit now expected to be flat and operating profit lower than anticipated. The company made £2.1 billion in gross invoiced income in the year ending February 2025, with Microsoft sales accounting for around 50 per cent of its gross profit.

“The impact of changes to Microsoft enterprise incentives is weighted more to the first half due to high levels of renewals in March and April around the public sector year end and June around Microsoft’s year end,” BTG noted in a statement ahead of its AGM.

Why is Microsoft Doing This?

From Microsoft’s perspective, the shift is basically strategic. For example, reclaiming direct control over renewals allows it to improve pricing discipline, deepen customer relationships, and retain more margin, particularly at a time when the company is investing heavily in generative AI, including its Copilot tools for Microsoft 365, which are priced at $30 per user per month.

According to US Cloud, the move could deliver a 0.39 per cent annual EBITDA increase for Microsoft, which may sound modest but still adds measurable value to a business currently worth around $3 trillion.

Microsoft’s direct sales in EA accounts are rising fast, growing from $833 million in 2024 to an estimated $1.92 billion in 2025, and expected to reach $2.5 billion by 2026. By cutting commission payouts and increasing its direct footprint, the company is effectively reshaping its entire enterprise sales model.

A Reseller Role Rewritten (or Removed)

LSPs like BTG have spent decades building their businesses on the back of EA renewals, not just processing transactions but also guiding clients through complex licensing environments. Their role has often been compared to that of a financial adviser, providing independent insight and advocacy in negotiations.

“The analogy is losing your trusted financial advisor and being told to work directly with Wall Street,” said Mike Jones, president of US Cloud. “Sure, you’re cutting out the middleman, but you’re also losing valuable guidance.”

This advisory role, critics argue, can’t easily be replaced by Microsoft’s in-house teams, particularly for organisations that lack in-house licensing expertise. There’s concern that some enterprise clients may end up over-buying, under-utilising, or mismanaging licences as a result.

Restructuring to Survive

Faced with declining revenues, BTG and others are now rethinking their go-to-market strategies. For example, BTG has announced it is transitioning from a generalist sales approach to specialised, customer-segment-focused teams, a change it says will help it deliver more tailored solutions and build long-term service-based income.

However, that transition is likely to take time and come with risks. BTG’s CEO Sam Rudd acknowledged as much, stating: “In recent weeks, we’ve navigated a more challenging macro environment, compounded by the near-term effect of transforming our corporate sales team. While this has affected trading, our value proposition remains strong.”

Analysts are less confident. Indraneel Arampatta of Megabuyte said he suspects the changes in Microsoft’s partner model “are starting to bite,” adding that investors may be growing wary of BTG’s exposure to Microsoft and its ability to diversify.

Wider Implications for the Market

It should be noted that the situation is not unique to BTG. For example, similar providers across the UK, Europe, and North America are likely to be affected, especially those heavily reliant on Microsoft’s EA commissions. While some are already shifting towards managed services, cybersecurity, or cloud consultancy, not all will move fast enough to offset the financial loss.

This also raises questions about the future of Microsoft’s partner ecosystem. By sidelining its LSPs, the company risks alienating partners who have long championed its products and helped drive adoption at scale. In more complex environments such as hybrid cloud, AI implementation, or public sector transformations, trusted partners often play an indispensable role.

Some observers also warn of regulatory scrutiny. For example, Microsoft has already faced antitrust pressure in Europe over cloud licensing practices, and a further consolidation of sales control could draw additional attention from competition authorities.

Not All Businesses Will Benefit

While some enterprise clients may welcome direct engagement with Microsoft, it’s likely that others may struggle without LSP support. Navigating EA licensing terms, ensuring compliance, and optimising cost-efficiency can be daunting without expert guidance.

Also, while large organisations with in-house procurement and IT legal teams might manage, mid-sized businesses and public sector organisations could find the transition more difficult, especially as licensing complexity continues to increase alongside Microsoft’s evolving AI offerings.

Meanwhile, rivals such as Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud Platform may seek to capitalise on the disruption. LSPs looking to diversify may find receptive partners elsewhere, potentially shifting allegiances and deepening competition in the enterprise IT space.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

What this means, in practice, is that a long-established revenue model for service providers is being dismantled at pace, while Microsoft tightens its grip on the most profitable parts of the enterprise customer lifecycle. The financial and operational consequences are already being felt, and the transition is unlikely to be smooth for most. Companies like BTG, with deep exposure to Microsoft licensing, now face a period of structural change where business models built around commission income must be replaced with higher-value services that take longer to scale. That puts pressure not only on margins but also on investor confidence, staffing, and client retention.

For UK businesses, particularly those without large internal IT procurement teams, the loss of hands-on licensing support could create some real challenges. The promise of simplified, direct relationships with Microsoft may sound appealing on paper, but the practical reality of negotiating large-scale EA renewals without experienced intermediaries may introduce risk and additional overheads. While some may adapt successfully, others could find themselves over-licensed, under-supported, or locked into costly configurations that don’t fully align with their needs.

For Microsoft, the short-term gains are measurable and aligned with its strategic goals. Greater pricing control, improved account oversight, and reduced channel leakage all strengthen its position, particularly as it looks to monetise AI offerings like Copilot and Azure-based services more aggressively. However, there is a risk that weakening partner engagement will erode long-term channel goodwill, which has historically underpinned Microsoft’s global reach and sustained competitive advantage.

The broader enterprise IT ecosystem also has a stake in this outcome. For example, if LSPs lose their relevance, the value of multi-vendor, consultative support in complex deployments may decline, or shift towards rival platforms. That creates an opening for Amazon, Google, and others to attract not just customers, but former Microsoft partners seeking more favourable terms. For regulators, meanwhile, the growing dominance of Microsoft’s direct sales model and its impact on channel diversity may increasingly warrant scrutiny.

Ultimately, Microsoft’s move is a calculated reshaping of its enterprise engagement model, but the disruption it causes is real and immediate for those in the channel. As LSPs rush to reinvent themselves, the winners will likely be those who can pivot quickly to new value propositions. The losers, by contrast, may be left watching as a decades-old business model slips quietly out of reach.

Google has launched Veo 3 (its most advanced video-generation AI yet) and for the first time, it can also create synced sound effects, ambient noise, and even dialogue to accompany the visuals.

From Silent Clips to Fully-Sounded Scenes

Announced at Google I/O 2025, the company’s annual developer conference, Veo 3 marks a significant leap in AI video generation by breaking the sound barrier. Unlike earlier models that produced silent clips requiring manual audio dubbing, Veo 3 natively generates both video and sound in response to user prompts. That includes environmental ambience, footsteps, character dialogue, and background music, all tightly synced with the generated visuals.

“For the first time, we’re emerging from the silent era of video generation,” said Demis Hassabis, CEO of Google DeepMind. “You can give Veo 3 a prompt describing characters and an environment, and suggest dialogue with a description of how you want it to sound.”

This appears to mark a clear departure from the static video outputs of Veo 2, which could render realistic 1080p clips but had no inbuilt audio functionality. Veo 3’s ability to generate both media types simultaneously is underpinned by multimodal training, allowing it to understand and translate visual scenes into contextually accurate sound.

Who Can Use Veo 3, And Where?

Veo 3 is now available through Google’s Gemini app for users subscribed to the AI Ultra plan, priced at $249.99 per month. As of now (early July), it’s rolling out across all countries where Gemini is active, including the UK and India. Users can access it via desktop or mobile and prompt the system using text, images, or a combination of both.

Up to 8 Seconds of Video With Audio

At launch, Veo 3 can generate up to 8 seconds of video with audio. For example, users can describe entire scenes, suggest character speech with tonal guidance (e.g. “a soft, nervous voice”), or request specific environmental sounds like birdsong, waves, or city traffic. Google says it plans to extend clip length and creative controls over time.

What’s New and Different?

The most notable change in Veo 3 (from 2) is its seamless integration of audio with video, something no other major model currently achieves at this level of fidelity and control. While earlier experiments with audio-generating AI exist, such as Meta’s AudioCraft or Google’s own SoundStorm, these tools typically treat sound and visuals as separate processes.

Veo 3, however, is built to generate both in parallel. It can understand raw video pixels and adjust audio timing accordingly, such as syncing a character’s footsteps with the terrain they walk on, or matching mouth movements to speech.

It also boasts significant improvements in visual realism. Google says Veo 3 now supports 4K resolution, more accurate physics, and refined prompt adherence. This means it’s better at understanding and sticking to the details users provide, even over multi-shot sequences involving actions and camera movements like pans or zooms.

Creators and Businesses

For video creators, advertisers, educators, and independent filmmakers, Veo 3 could remove one of the biggest barriers in AI content generation, namely having to source or manually create matching audio. With sound now generated natively, users can produce short-form content much faster, with minimal editing or post-production work.

For example, a marketing team could prompt Veo 3 to produce a product demo with a voiceover, or a teacher might generate an animated science explanation complete with relevant sound effects and narration.

Move to “Generative Cinema”

Google sees this as part of a broader shift toward “generative cinema,” where AI can help prototype, storyboard or even produce short-form entertainment. However, its reach could extend to gaming, AR/VR environments, and accessibility use cases such as auto-generating descriptive audio.

Google’s Position in a Crowded Field

Veo 3 arrives in an increasingly competitive video-generation space. For example, over the past year, tools like Runway Gen-3 Alpha, Pika Labs, Luma Dream Machine, and Alibaba’s EMO model have raised the bar for visual quality and scene consistency. However, very few models currently offer audio, and none do so at Veo 3’s level of native integration.
OpenAI’s Sora, which impressed with its photorealistic clips earlier this year, still outputs silent videos. While Runway allows users to add music and basic sound effects, this remains a separate, manually applied process. That gives Veo 3 a unique value proposition, at least for now.

Still, Google’s dominance is not guaranteed. As of now (July 2025), Veo 3’s capabilities are only available to high-paying subscribers through Gemini and haven’t yet been integrated into tools like YouTube Shorts, Google Ads, or enterprise APIs, though the company has confirmed that Veo 2 features are heading to the Vertex AI API in the coming weeks.

How Veo 3 Works

Though Google has not published technical papers on Veo 3, it builds on DeepMind’s earlier work in video-to-audio AI. In 2024, DeepMind revealed it was training models using paired video clips, ambient audio, and transcripts to learn audio-visual correlations. That foundational research likely informed Veo 3’s ability to match visual motion with appropriate audio output.

The model was almost certainly trained on large-scale datasets including YouTube material, though Google has not confirmed this publicly. DeepMind has said only that its models “may” use some YouTube content, raising questions about copyright and consent.
To address misuse risks, Veo 3 uses SynthID, Google’s proprietary watermarking system, which embeds invisible markers into every generated frame. It also includes visible watermarks for user-generated content and is subject to policy enforcement for unsafe or misleading material.

Criticism

Despite the impressive technology, it seems that Veo 3 has drawn scrutiny from some corners of the creative industry. For example, a 2024 study commissioned by the Animation Guild projected that AI tools like Veo could disrupt over 100,000 creative jobs in the US by 2026. Voice actors, sound designers, editors, and animators are among the roles most at risk.

Many artists also remain concerned about the lack of clarity around training data. Without formal consent or opt-out tools for creators on platforms like YouTube, Veo’s capabilities could be seen as drawing from (and replacing) the work of the very communities that power it.

Google says it is committed to responsible AI use and continues to test Veo with red-teaming exercises to identify abuse cases. It also relies on user feedback tools and policy enforcement to detect violations, though details on enforcement mechanisms remain limited.

That said, Veo 3’s creative potential is undeniable, and for businesses, creators, and Google’s own AI ambitions, it appears to mark a significant step forward in the race to multimodal dominance.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The arrival of Veo 3 appears to place Google at a clear technological advantage, at least temporarily, by addressing one of the most limiting aspects of AI video creation so far (i.e. the lack of audio). By combining video and sound generation into a single, prompt-driven process, it gives users far more flexibility and reduces the need for specialist editing tools or additional production stages. This will likely appeal to a wide range of professionals, from marketing teams to educators and indie content creators who want fast, realistic results without high production overheads.

For UK businesses in particular, the ability to generate short, full-sound videos in seconds could transform workflows across advertising, training, communications, and social media. SME marketing teams with limited budgets could produce explainers or campaign content in-house, while creative agencies may be able to build new service models around generative assets. However, the high monthly cost of access via Gemini’s AI Ultra plan may still limit uptake to larger firms or early adopters in creative sectors for now.

Competitively, Veo 3 puts pressure on OpenAI, Meta, and other major players who are still struggling to synchronise visuals and sound in a meaningful way. However, it also raises expectations. The moment Google delivers this feature set, users and clients may begin to assume it as standard. And as competitors catch up or release open-access alternatives, Google may need to expand Veo’s availability beyond Gemini and into more accessible developer platforms like Vertex AI or YouTube integrations.

The ethical questions are not going away either. Artists and voice professionals continue to challenge the use of training data that may have been scraped without consent. Even with SynthID watermarking, the risk of misuse or deepfake production remains a concern for regulators and rights-holders. Unless Google can offer greater transparency and clearer opt-out mechanisms, it may face mounting legal and reputational risks as adoption grows.
For now, though, Veo 3 appears to set a new benchmark in what multimodal AI tools can achieve. Whether it remains a premium creative niche or signals a broader shift in how visual content is produced will depend on how Google chooses to scale and integrate its technology in the months ahead.

Microsoft is laying off nearly 4 per cent of its global workforce as it pours billions into artificial intelligence infrastructure, triggering fresh questions over priorities and pressure points at one of the world’s biggest tech firms.

A Costly AI Pivot Brings Organisational Shake-Up

The US tech giant confirmed this week that around 9,000 jobs (i.e. approximately 4 per cent of its 228,000-strong global workforce) will be cut in the latest round of restructuring. The layoffs, which follow a 6,000-person reduction announced in May, are part of Microsoft’s efforts to streamline operations and manage the spiralling costs associated with its aggressive push into artificial intelligence (AI).

Adjustments

A Microsoft spokesperson said the company was “implementing organisational and workforce adjustments” to ensure teams are “best positioned for the future.” Thesea changes include reducing management layers, simplifying internal processes, and consolidating teams and roles. The company also stated it aims to empower employees to “focus on meaningful work by leveraging new technologies and capabilities.”

While the job losses span multiple business units, reports indicate that Microsoft’s gaming division, sales teams, and international operations are among the hardest hit.

Betting on AI

At the heart of the cuts lies Microsoft’s extraordinary $80 billion capital expenditure plan for its 2025 fiscal year, most of which is being funnelled into AI infrastructure. That includes building out massive data centres and purchasing high-end chips to power services like its Copilot AI assistant and the broader integration of generative AI into tools such as Microsoft 365, Azure, and GitHub.

These moves reflect the company’s ambition to remain a leader in the AI arms race. For example, Microsoft is already the largest backer of OpenAI, the developer behind ChatGPT, and earlier this year hired DeepMind co-founder Mustafa Suleyman to head up a new AI division. CEO Satya Nadella has previously said AI will define the next era of computing, and Microsoft is positioning itself to be central to that transformation.

However, such ambition comes at a cost. For example, Microsoft’s cloud division, which includes Azure, is expected to see its profit margins shrink this quarter due to the steep capital outlay required to scale up AI services. This has prompted Microsoft to rebalance its operating model, trimming staff even as it invests heavily elsewhere.

Gaming Division Hit as Projects Cancelled

Although Microsoft has not publicly broken down the affected departments, reports( e.g. by The Verge and Bloomberg) appear to reveal significant disruption in its gaming business. For example, the company is reportedly shutting down ‘The Initiative’, a first-party studio behind the reboot of Perfect Dark, and cancelling the game’s development entirely. Another project, Everwild, is also understood to be shelved.

Studios including ZeniMax Online (makers of Elder Scrolls Online) and Turn 10 (known for Forza Motorsport) have also lost staff, while Barcelona-based King, part of the wider Microsoft Gaming division, is said to be cutting around 200 jobs, or 10 per cent of its workforce.

The gaming layoffs have raised concerns within the industry, particularly given Microsoft’s recent $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard, completed in late 2023. Analysts say that while the company remains committed to gaming, the restructuring suggests a renewed focus on cost discipline and fewer experimental or long-gestation titles.

Sales and International Offices Also Affected

Beyond gaming, Microsoft also appears to be trimming back its sales organisation, particularly within its international teams. According to Washington state filings, more than 800 jobs will go in Redmond and Bellevue, two key hubs near Microsoft’s Seattle headquarters.

Other earlier reports also suggested that thousands of sales and customer service roles were under review as Microsoft looks to simplify go-to-market strategies and reduce duplication across territories. While Microsoft has not disclosed the exact breakdown, it confirmed that job losses are not limited to any one division or region.

A Wider Industry Pattern

It’s worth noting, however, that Microsoft is far from alone in recalibrating its workforce. For example, Meta, Google, and Amazon have all announced job cuts over the past year, despite maintaining strong revenues and investing heavily in AI. Meta recently confirmed plans to trim its “lowest-performing” 5 per cent, while Amazon’s Andy Jassy suggested that AI would “reduce the need” for corporate staff over time.

Microsoft’s latest round though has sparked fresh debate, particularly given the company’s strong financial position. Its stock remains near record highs, and demand for Azure and AI-linked services is surging.

Critics argue that cutting thousands of jobs while investing billions in unproven technologies may be short-sighted. “It’s hard to reconcile the scale of these layoffs with Microsoft’s healthy profits and booming stock price,” one former employee wrote on LinkedIn. “The AI race shouldn’t come at the expense of people’s livelihoods.”

There also appear to be concerns that the pace of AI infrastructure growth may outstrip customer demand. While Microsoft has pushed its Copilot AI across its software suite, uptake has been mixed. Some enterprise clients have voiced preference for using standalone tools like ChatGPT, citing cost and ease of use.

Implications for Businesses and Users

For Microsoft’s business customers, the shake-up could mean that the company’s intense focus on AI could accelerate the availability of new productivity tools and cloud capabilities. Its goal of embedding generative AI across software like Outlook, Excel, and Teams promises significant efficiency gains, if widely adopted.

However, job losses across sales and customer support teams may also create short-term disruption, especially for small and mid-sized businesses that rely on personalised assistance. It’s possible too that a leaner organisational structure may also slow responsiveness or delay product support in key markets.

Gaming users may also feel the impact. Microsoft has spent years trying to differentiate Xbox from rivals through exclusive titles and studio acquisitions. The cancellation of projects like Perfect Dark raises questions about the company’s creative roadmap, and whether its gaming strategy is still evolving or being scaled back.

Balancing Growth and Responsibility

Microsoft insists that the layoffs are necessary to “align its resources with strategic priorities” and adapt to a dynamic technology landscape. It’s clear, however, that the company is walking a fine line by trying to lead the AI revolution while avoiding the perception that it’s sacrificing stable jobs in the process.

With expectations running high across both the enterprise and consumer markets, Microsoft’s next challenge will be to prove that its AI investments can deliver real-world value, while maintaining the trust of its employees, users, and investors.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The real test for Microsoft will be whether its AI-led strategy delivers enough tangible business value to justify the level of disruption it is now inflicting. While the company remains profitable and well-positioned at the forefront of the AI sector, cutting 9,000 jobs (many in customer-facing and creative roles) risks damaging internal morale and external confidence. For UK businesses, this could mean less personalised support, slower response times, and uncertainty about future service structures, especially for smaller firms that depend on Microsoft’s cloud and productivity tools for day-to-day operations.

There is also a reputational cost to consider. For all the talk of long-term alignment and streamlined processes, this is the fourth round of cuts in a single year. That creates unease not just within Microsoft’s workforce, but across the tech industry more broadly. Partners and clients may begin to question how stable support structures will remain as Microsoft retools itself around AI. Even investors could grow wary if infrastructure spending continues to outpace revenue returns from products like Copilot and Azure AI.

None of this means Microsoft’s strategy is necessarily wrong. The company is doing what many others are attempting to do, pivoting towards what it believes will be the next great computing platform. However, the scale and speed of that pivot means it now faces pressure to show results quickly. If Microsoft can prove that its vast AI investments lead to genuinely better tools, improved business outcomes, and sustained growth, it may yet justify the cuts. If not, it could find itself having sacrificed stability and goodwill for a vision that was never as widely shared as it assumed.

IT giant Ingram Micro, a major global distributor of technology products and services, has confirmed it suffered a ransomware attack that forced key systems offline and disrupted global operations.

The incident, which began early on 4 July, was carried out by the SafePay ransomware group. Employees discovered ransom notes on their devices, and systems including Ingram’s Xvantage distribution platform and Impulse licensing tool were shut down. Microsoft 365 and Teams remain unaffected.

Ingram Micro confirmed the attack in a brief statement on 6 July, saying it had “identified ransomware on certain of its internal systems” and was working with cybersecurity experts while restoring services.

The SafePay group, active since late 2024, has hit over 220 organisations and is known for exploiting VPN vulnerabilities using stolen or weak credentials. In this case, the company’s GlobalProtect VPN is thought to be the entry point.

This attack highlights the importance of securing remote access with multi-factor authentication, regular updates, and strong password policies to prevent ransomware intrusions.

A surge in cheap, short-lived electronics is fuelling a growing e-waste crisis in the UK, according to new research from sustainability group Material Focus.

What Is Fast Tech And Why Does It Matter?

The term “fast tech” refers to low-cost, mass-produced electrical items such as mini-fans, earbuds, LED lights, charging cables, and novelty gadgets like light-up toilet seats and karaoke microphones. Like fast fashion, these products are typically bought on impulse, used briefly, and then discarded, often ending up in drawers, then bins … then landfill.

Warning Issued

Material Focus, a UK not-for-profit organisation focused on reducing electronic waste, has issued a clear warning that fast tech is booming, and it’s becoming one of the most environmentally harmful consumer trends. Through its Recycle Your Electricals campaign, the group has tracked rising demand and falling recycling rates and says the issue is now spiralling.

Sharp Rise in Fast Tech Spending

New data from the group shows that UK consumer spending on fast tech has risen sharply, from £2.8 billion in 2023 to a projected £11.6 billion by 2025. That includes more than £8 million spent last year on novelty items alone, with 7.9 million light-up toilet seats, LED balloons, sunset light projectors and similar gadgets sold in just 12 months.

Fast Use, Fast Disposal

The key point here is that what makes fast tech so problematic isn’t just the sheer volume of purchases, but what happens next. For example, despite containing valuable materials such as lithium, gold, aluminium and copper, over half of all fast tech products are either discarded in the bin or abandoned in drawers, never reaching proper recycling channels.

Material Focus estimates that a staggering 589 million small tech items will be thrown away or left unused in the UK this year alone (a 25 per cent increase on 2023 for example). That’s the equivalent of more than 2,200 football pitches covered in cheap electronics. Many of these items are poorly made, hard to repair, and not designed to last, making them difficult or impossible to recycle effectively.

“Fast tech might be cheap, but it’s not disposable,” said Scott Butler, executive director of Material Focus. “In fact, anything with a plug, battery or cable should never be binned.”

Fuelled By Seasonal Demand and Social Trends

One of the clearest examples of this growing problem came during last summer’s heatwave, which saw a 16 per cent year-on-year surge in demand for battery-powered mini-fans. Millions of these products were sold, many costing less than £5, but most were quickly discarded once the weather cooled.

Mini-fans may be the most visible symptom of the fast tech boom, but it’s worth noting that they’re far from the only culprits. For example, disposable vapes, cheap earbuds, USB sticks, LED party lights, and decorative solar lamps are now among the fastest-growing sources of e-waste in the UK.

An Average of 21 Fast Tech Items Each

A report by Material Focus has revealed that the average adult now owns 21 fast tech items, and buys nine more every year, while throwing away eight. The vast majority of these are either unused, stored out of sight, or incorrectly disposed of.

A Loss of Resources at Scale

The environmental cost goes far beyond the plastic waste. Fast tech items, however small, often contain valuable and finite raw materials. Previous research from Material Focus found that the UK’s unused electricals alone could contain over 38,000 tonnes of copper, a material that is critical to low-carbon technologies but is environmentally damaging to mine and process.

With global copper demand expected to outpace supply by 2030, the failure to recover materials from consumer tech waste is increasingly seen as a missed opportunity and a growing sustainability concern.

Repair and Recycling Barriers

Despite rising awareness, it appears that there remains a major disconnect between buying habits and disposal practices. For example, according to Material Focus, while 84 per cent of UK adults purchased at least one fast tech item last year, fewer than half of these items are recycled.

The organisation’s Recycle Your Electricals campaign includes a national locator tool for recycling points, and claims over 70 per cent of people now recycle unwanted larger tech products like laptops or TVs. However, the smaller the item, the less likely it is to be disposed of responsibly.

Sustainability experts warn that today’s throwaway tech culture is not inevitable. In fact, many point out that it’s a relatively modern trend and one that has accelerated in recent decades alongside cheaper manufacturing and faster retail cycles.

Change Is Possible

However, despite the gloomy findings, change is possible. For example, initiatives such as Right to Repair legislation and Extended Producer Responsibility schemes could help tackle the issue at its source. By encouraging product design that favours durability, ease of repair, and recyclability, and by making producers more accountable for what happens to their products at end of life, governments and regulators could help curb fast tech’s environmental toll.

Greenpeace UK has also warned about the particular problem of combining electronics with plastics. According to the group, these “toxic cocktail” products are very difficult to recycle and often end up being dumped in poorer countries with limited environmental protections.

Campaigners say the long-term solution must be a truly circular economy and one where manufacturers are incentivised to make products that last, and consumers are guided towards reuse, repair and recovery rather than single-use habits.

Why It Matters to Business

For UK businesses, the fast tech crisis is not just an environmental issue, but it also carries real regulatory and reputational risks. For example, companies involved in manufacturing, distributing or retailing these types of goods may soon face new scrutiny as policymakers turn their attention to the environmental impact of small electricals.

Extended Producer Responsibility requirements are already being tightened across various waste streams. As awareness grows, smaller tech products, particularly those containing batteries, are likely to be brought into sharper focus. Businesses may need to rethink how such products are marketed, labelled, and supported post-sale.

Retailers, in particular, are likely to come under pressure to provide in-store take-back schemes, promote repair-friendly products, or offer clearer disposal advice. Failing to act could damage brand perception, particularly among younger, sustainability-conscious consumers.

Opportunity For Innovation

At the same time, there appears to be an opportunity here for innovation. Companies offering sustainable alternatives, such as reusable or modular tech, certified refurbished goods, or community repair services, are already seeing growing demand.

A recent survey by WRAP found that 68 per cent of UK consumers would prefer to buy from brands that promote repair and recycling, while over half of under-35s are actively avoiding “throwaway” gadgets in favour of greener alternatives.

For now, however, the message from Material Focus is that the fast tech crisis isn’t going away, and the time to act is now. Whether through better design, smarter purchasing, or responsible end-of-life options, both businesses and individuals have a role to play in breaking the cycle.

What Does This Mean For Your Organisation?

Fast tech trend is no longer a fringe issue and, as Material Focus has highlighted, now appears to be shaping consumer habits, driving waste volumes, and locking away critical raw materials at an accelerating pace. While awareness may be rising, it seems that practical change remains uneven and limited, particularly when it comes to the small, cheap items that escape formal recycling systems. The mismatch between the scale of the problem and the systems in place to deal with it is growing, not shrinking.

For businesses, the message is becoming harder to ignore. Retailers and tech brands may soon be expected to take more responsibility for the afterlife of their products, not just the sale. That includes clearer labelling, support for repair schemes, and accessible recycling pathways. Businesses that fail to adapt could face regulatory pressure and reputational damage, while those that invest early in more circular models could find themselves gaining a competitive advantage in a shifting market.

Manufacturers may also come under pressure to change how they design and assemble products in the first place. Products that are easy to dismantle, built to last, and designed with repair and reuse in mind are likely to become more desirable to both regulators and customers. At the same time, public bodies, sustainability campaigners and local authorities all have a role to play in making responsible disposal easier and more visible.

Fast tech may have started as a convenience trend, but it is now creating lasting consequences across the economy, environment and supply chain. As the volume of fast tech continues to climb, the case for coordinated, large-scale intervention becomes stronger. For UK businesses, this is a chance to be part of the solution, not just another source of the problem.

At the moment, there’s only one (mainstream) AI platform that you can use to work directly with YouTube videos (e.g. to summarise a video) and so this clip explains which one it is and how to use it.

[Note – To Watch This Video without glitches/interruptions, It may be best to download it first]

Pasting something into an email or document and don’t want all the messy fonts or colours? Use Ctrl + Shift + V instead of Ctrl + V to paste without formatting.

How to:

– Highlight and copy your text as normal (Ctrl + C).
– When pasting, press Ctrl + Shift + V instead of just Ctrl + V.
– The text will appear as plain, unformatted text.

What it’s for:

Saves time when you need clean content for emails, reports, or shared documents—no more wasting time stripping out inconsistent fonts or hidden links.

Pro‑Tip: This shortcut works in Chrome, Word, Outlook, Gmail and many modern apps. Ideal for shared docs where consistent formatting matters.

Users can now hold real-time voice conversations with Google’s AI-powered Search, thanks to a major new feature rollout in the Google app for Android and iOS.

Search Goes Conversational

Google this week announced the launch of Search Live with voice input, a new capability inside the Google app that allows users to engage in back-and-forth spoken conversations with its AI-powered Search tool. Rolled out first in the United States, the feature is initially available to those who have opted into the AI Mode experiment in Google Labs, the company’s testing platform for early-access features.

Hands-Free Search

The launch marks a step forward in how users interact with Search, with Google positioning the update as a more natural, hands-free way to discover and explore information while multitasking or on the move.

Use the “Live” Icon

A dedicated “Live” icon now appears within the Google app interface, allowing users to tap and speak their queries aloud. The AI responds in spoken form, and users can follow up with further questions to refine or expand the topic, thereby mirroring a more human-like back-and-forth conversation.

According to Google, Search Live “lets you talk, listen and explore in real time,” giving users the ability to access web-based information while continuing to use other apps or even switching between tasks. The tool also provides on-screen links to source material, allowing users to dig deeper into AI-generated answers.

Building on Gemini and Search Infrastructure

Search Live actually runs on a custom version of Gemini, Google’s multimodal large language model, which powers many of its generative AI tools. The Gemini model used in AI Mode has been specially adapted to support live voice input, real-time responses, and integration with Google Search’s existing ranking and quality systems.

Liza Ma, director of product management at Google Search, explained in a company blog post that the system combines “advanced voice capabilities” with the reliability of Search’s “best-in-class quality and information systems,” ensuring that responses are both conversational and trustworthy. She also confirmed the use of Google’s ‘query fan-out’ technique, which enables the system to return a more diverse and useful range of web content in response to user questions.

For example, a user might ask, “What are some tips for preventing a linen dress from wrinkling in a suitcase?” and then follow up with, “What should I do if it still wrinkles?” The AI answers audibly while presenting related links on screen. This continuity is key to what Google hopes will be a smoother, more context-aware search experience.

How and Where to Access It

At launch, Search Live with voice is available only to users in the U.S. who have joined the AI Mode experiment through Google Labs. It works on both Android and iOS via the official Google app. There is currently no timeline for a broader international rollout, though Google says it intends to expand features and availability in the coming months.

Users who have access will know because they see a new “Live” microphone icon below the search bar in the app. Once activated, they can ask a question out loud and receive a spoken response. Users can view a transcript of the interaction, continue the conversation via typing if preferred, and even revisit past queries via the AI Mode history log.

Multitask While it Works in the Background

Also, because Search Live works in the background, it enables a degree of multitasking not previously possible with voice-based search tools. For example, a user could begin a conversation in the app, switch to messaging or maps, and continue speaking to the AI without interruption.

Voice, Visuals, and What Comes Next

The introduction of voice input is actually just one part of Google’s broader plan to bring real-time multimodal capabilities into Search. For example, at Google I/O in May 2025, the company previewed future updates that will allow users to combine voice interaction with real-time visual input via their phone’s camera, building on advances made in its Project Astra research and the ongoing development of Google Lens.

Multimodal Search

This evolution represents a deeper move by Google into what’s referred to as multimodal search, whereby users can interact with AI not just through typing or talking, but by showing it what they see. In practical terms, this could include pointing the phone at a confusing diagram or damaged object, asking what it is, and getting a contextual explanation, complete with suggested web links, video tutorials or shopping sources.

It also echoes the direction competitors are taking. For example, OpenAI’s ChatGPT has recently introduced voice interaction capabilities in its mobile apps, and Perplexity AI has gained traction for its own real-time web search and voice tools. Google’s response, with Search Live, is both a defensive and strategic step to stay ahead in what is quickly becoming a crowded, AI-first search market.

A New Frontier for Business and Advertisers?

For business users, the implications of voice-first search are far-reaching. For example, in sectors such as logistics, retail, and field service, the ability to conduct voice-based queries while driving or working could prove invaluable. Search Live also introduces potential benefits for productivity, especially for knowledge workers trying to conduct research or fact-checks while multitasking between devices or applications.

It may also signal a new phase for Google’s advertising ecosystem, although details remain unclear. As Search becomes more conversational and voice-led, traditional search result ads, particularly those dependent on text input and visual scanning, may need to evolve. It’s not yet known how, or if, Search Live results will incorporate sponsored content.

The visual links shown alongside voice answers could potentially become prime real estate for future advertising formats. However, Google has so far remained quiet on how monetisation will work within AI Mode. With more users consuming answers audibly and potentially clicking fewer links, publishers and advertisers will be watching closely.

Challenges

Despite the promise, it should be noted that there are several challenges ahead. For example, accuracy and reliability remain key concerns for AI-generated search responses. While Google stresses its Gemini-based AI uses the same quality controls as regular Search, AI hallucinations (where systems confidently give false or misleading answers) are still a known risk in generative models.

The opt-in nature of the feature also limits immediate user exposure and feedback. By placing Search Live behind the AI Mode experimental wall, Google is clearly seeking to manage rollout cautiously but this also means that the majority of users globally still can’t access or evaluate it.

There are also privacy and data security implications, particularly with voice-based input and persistent conversation histories. Google maintains that users can view, manage or delete their AI Mode interactions, but questions remain over how voice data is processed, stored, or used to train models.

One other aspect critics may point to is the increasing opacity of sources in AI answers. For example, while Google includes clickable links alongside Search Live responses, these can sometimes appear secondary to the spoken reply, which may not fully represent the nuance or breadth of available information. Ensuring transparency and balance in summarised answers will be crucial to maintaining trust, especially as Search Live expands into more domains.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The introduction of Search Live could be seen as the next step in its natural progression towards Google’s long-term vision for AI-powered search. By blending real-time voice interaction with the depth of web content, Google is essentially positioning itself not just as a search engine but as a more intuitive, responsive assistant capable of handling everyday queries in more dynamic, human-like ways. However, the fact that it’s limited to U.S.-based testers in Labs signals Google’s awareness of the stakes involved. It is not just testing technology but testing trust, usability and commercial viability all at once.

For UK businesses, this could open up important new opportunities once rolled out more widely. Voice-driven interaction with AI may reduce the need for screen time in roles where hands-free efficiency matters, i.e. from trades and transport to healthcare and hospitality. It could also help knowledge workers process information faster while juggling tasks, potentially enhancing productivity and reducing friction in routine research or client support work. There are potential implications for business intelligence and even internal training, particularly once real-time camera input is layered in. But these benefits will only be realised if the underlying AI delivers reliable and verifiable responses at scale.

Advertisers and content publishers are likely to be more cautious. With fewer visual interactions, the conventional search engine results page model may weaken. If users hear an answer but don’t tap the links shown, that affects traffic and engagement metrics. This will raise fresh questions about how brands position themselves within voice-first search and whether new advertising formats will emerge within AI Mode or remain separated. Also, the monetisation path here is still not altogether clear and, as Google experiments with form, it may need to reassure partners that function won’t entirely override visibility.

Meanwhile, Google’s competitors such as OpenAI and Perplexity AI will, no doubt, be watching closely. Each is racing to define the next evolution of everyday search, combining voice, visuals and real-time reasoning. Google still has the infrastructure advantage, but the race is no longer just about data—it’s about usability, privacy, and user confidence. In that context, Search Live’s success may depend as much on how it is governed and explained as how well it works technically.

Whether Search Live becomes the new normal or remains a feature for power users will likely depend on the clarity of its responses, the transparency of its sources, and the ease with which users (especially businesses) can trust it as a tool rather than a black box. What is clear already is that Google is laying groundwork for a future where the way we search is no longer typed, but spoken, shown and responded to in real time. Once mainstream, that could fundamentally change how we interact with the web.

In this Tech Insight, we look at why clicking the ‘unsubscribe’ link in an email might not be as safe as it seems, and how cybercriminals are using this tactic to profile victims, deploy phishing attacks, and gather intelligence for future scams.

Why the Unsubscribe Link Isn’t Always Safe

The warning comes from TK Keanini, Chief Technology Officer at cybersecurity firm DNSFilter. Speaking recently to The Wall Street Journal, Keanini explained that unsubscribe links embedded in spam emails are increasingly being used by cybercriminals as a means of identifying active users and directing them to malicious websites.

Not Just Theoretical

The risks are not just theoretical. For example, DNSFilter estimates that roughly one in every 644 clicks on an unsubscribe link leads to a harmful destination. That may sound like a small percentage, but across the billions of marketing emails sent each day, the number of victims quickly adds up.

Unlike legitimate unsubscribe tools offered by trusted senders, these deceptive links don’t remove you from a list. Instead, they exploit your trust—by either redirecting you to phishing pages designed to steal your personal information, or by quietly logging your interaction to flag your email address as a ‘live’ target for further attacks.

What Makes These Links So Dangerous?

Keanini warns that while many spam emails are caught by filters, some still slip through. Also, when users click the unsubscribe link at the bottom (thinking they’re taking control of their inbox) they’re often doing the exact opposite.

“There’s a big difference between the unsubscribe function embedded by your email client and the one coded into the email itself,” Keanini explained. “The latter can send you out of the protected environment of your email platform and onto the open web, where you’re far more vulnerable.”

At best, this action notifies scammers that your address is actively monitored. At worst, it takes you to a spoofed landing page where you might be asked to enter your email address or login credentials under false pretences. Some pages can even exploit vulnerabilities in your browser to initiate malware downloads or install tracking scripts.

Security analysts have also warned that even a single click can help attackers build up a profile on a target. Over time, this can lead to more personalised phishing emails, fake login pages, or even ransomware attacks disguised as legitimate follow-ups.

Better Ways to Unsubscribe Safely

Fortunately, there are safer ways to manage unwanted emails. Most modern email clients, including Gmail, Outlook, Apple Mail and others, use a function known as list-unsubscribe headers. These headers are recognised by the email platform and often display a safe, in-built unsubscribe button near the top of the message, such as Gmail’s “Unsubscribe” link next to the sender’s name, Apple Mail’s grey “Unsubscribe” button below the subject, or Outlook’s banner option above the message content.

Since list-unsubscribe headers are rendered by the email provider itself (not the email sender) they don’t carry the same risks and, therefore, act as a kind of trusted bridge between you and the sender’s database (if that database exists at all).

Just Mark it as Spam or Block the Sender

If no list-unsubscribe option is present, experts recommend marking the message as spam, blocking the sender, or setting up an automated filter. In some cases, you can even block the sender’s IP address if they persist in using different email accounts.

Use Disposable Email Addresses

Another good practice is using email aliasing or disposable addresses. Gmail, for example, supports ‘plus addressing’, which lets users sign up to services using addresses like yourname+shopping@gmail.com. If that alias starts receiving spam, you can simply filter or delete it without affecting your main account.

Apple’s ‘Hide My Email’ feature offers a similar layer of privacy, creating unique, random addresses that forward to your inbox. This helps mask your real address from third parties and allows you to shut down addresses that become compromised.

Businesses and Marketing Teams

While this development raises new concerns for individuals, it also carries implications for legitimate businesses that rely on email marketing. For example, if users start to fear unsubscribe links, they may avoid interacting with even trusted messages, making it harder for businesses to stay compliant with laws like the UK’s Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR) or GDPR.

Under these laws, all commercial emails must include a clear and effective opt-out mechanism. But if users don’t trust that mechanism, businesses may find themselves facing both technical and reputational risks.

Email marketers are now being encouraged to make use of trusted unsubscribe headers recognised by major email clients, rather than relying solely on HTML links in the message body. Tools like Mailchimp, HubSpot, and Campaign Monitor already support these built-in mechanisms, which reduce the need for external web redirects and improve user trust.

Really, therefore, transparency is key. Making sure that unsubscribe options are clear, legitimate, and functional will go a long way in protecting both customers and brands from reputational fallout or false positives in spam filters.

Business Users at Higher Risk

For business users, especially those using personal emails for professional tasks, the risks of phishing and malware attacks are actually significantly higher. For example, a successful scam could lead to leaked client data, ransomware disruption, or credential theft that compromises cloud-based systems and internal communications.

Businesses should, therefore, ensure staff are trained not to click unsubscribe links in suspicious or unexpected emails, even if they appear to be from reputable sources. Phishing simulations and email security briefings can help reinforce this behaviour.

Keanini points out that malicious unsubscribe links are unlikely to be the attacker’s only tool. “Often, it’s part of a larger campaign,” he noted. “They’re looking for a response—any sign that there’s a human on the other side. Once they get that, they plan their next move.”

Safer Email Solutions for Businesses

Organisations looking to harden their defences should perhaps consider adopting enterprise-grade email protection tools that go beyond simple spam filtering. For example, providers like Proofpoint, Mimecast, and Barracuda (there are others) offer advanced threat protection that scans links in real-time, blocks phishing attempts, and provides safe-click technology.

Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace users can also leverage built-in protections such as Safe Links, quarantine reviews, and anti-spoofing measures to prevent dangerous emails from ever reaching end users.

Zero-trust email platforms are gaining traction as well. Tools like Proton Mail for Business and Tutanota offer end-to-end encryption, IP address masking, and strict sender verification, all designed to limit the exposure of user identities and block malicious redirections.

Cybersecurity Best Practices for Email

In addition to technical tools, businesses should encourage staff to follow core email hygiene principles, such as:

– Never click links in unsolicited or unfamiliar emails.

– Hover over links to preview the actual destination URL.

– Use multi-factor authentication (MFA) on all email accounts.

– Regularly update antivirus and anti-malware software.

– Report suspicious emails to the IT or security team for review.

– Conduct quarterly training on evolving phishing tactics.

By implementing a layered approach, combining user awareness, secure infrastructure, and smart email practices, organisations can drastically reduce the likelihood of falling victim to these increasingly sophisticated scams.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

What this ultimately shows is that something as familiar as clicking an unsubscribe link can carry far more risk than most users realise. While many will continue to treat email as a low-risk tool, the reality is that attackers are exploiting habits formed over years of legitimate marketing interactions to identify targets and launch broader attacks. This makes the unsubscribe link not just a nuisance, but a potential entry point into much more serious compromise.

For UK businesses, this means rethinking not only how they engage with their own inboxes but also how they structure outbound communications. Any marketing email must now earn trust, not just attention. That means using secure, standards-based unsubscribe methods and making it absolutely clear to recipients that their data is being handled properly. Businesses that fail to do this may find their messages ignored, filtered or marked as suspicious, with reputational consequences that go far beyond email.

At the same time, internal safeguards matter more than ever. Many business users still use personal inboxes for work tasks or operate without layered protections in place. With phishing emails now frequently designed to look like marketing communications, the boundary between personal and professional threat surfaces has blurred. IT teams must assume that not all employees will know the difference between a safe unsubscribe link and a dangerous one, and must build protections around that assumption.

The wider lesson here is that, whether individuals, businesses, or email service providers, even routine digital interactions need to be scrutinised in today’s threat landscape. Protecting users now means going beyond spam filters and encouraging safer behaviour at every level, from the tools people use to the training they receive. It seems that the unsubscribe button, once a symbol of user control, now serves as a reminder that even good habits can be weaponised if they’re not re-evaluated through a security lens.