On 3 December 2025, Malaysia’s House of Representatives (Dewan Rakyat) passed the Anti Bully Bill 2025 (‘the Bill’). The Bill aims to provide mechanisms to address complaints of bullying as well as prevention and management of bullying cases. The Bill also provides for the establishment of a Tribunal for Anti-Bully as well as to raise awareness of bullying and the prevention of bullying.
AIAC officially unveiled their AIAC Suite of Rules 2026 during Asia ADR Week in October 2025. The suite of rules is a comprehensive update to its institutional dispute-resolution framework, designed to be effective from 1 January 2026. This new suite spans multiple sets of rules covering arbitration, mediation, adjudication and domain-name disputes which represents a deliberate recalibration of the AIAC’s procedural architecture to align with global best practices, evolving market demands and Malaysia’s legislative context.
eCommerce in Malaysia is primarily given legal recognition by the Electronic Commerce Act 2006 (‘ECA 2006’). The ECA 2006 facilitates electronic transactions by recognising the legal validity of electronic messages, documents, and contracts. It broadly covers ‘commercial transactions’ conducted via electronic means, encompassing the supply or exchange of goods or services.
While Malaysian law does not explicitly mention the ‘Metaverse’, many of its activities share the same fundamental characteristics as eCommerce.
The Review of eCommerce Legislation Final Report (Laporan Akhir Kajian Semakan Semula Perundangan eDagang) (‘the report’) represents a major national effort to modernise, refresh and renew the legal and regulatory framework for online commerce in Malaysia. Led by the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Cost of Living (‘KPDN’) with input from over 90 stakeholders, the report provides a comprehensive evaluation of existing eCommerce laws, identifies key enforcement and consumer protection gaps, and sets out a structured plan for reform. Richard Wee Chambers (a member of Grandall Law Firm) are the legal advisors in this Review of eCommerce Legislation.
In the digital era, the appeal of e-commerce is undeniable, browse at home, checkout in seconds, enjoy doorstep delivery. Yet this convenience masks a growing underside of risk for consumers. With smartphones, high-speed connectivity and platforms offering deep discounts, many of us have embraced online shopping as the go-to. The advantages include speed, access to global and local products, continuous promotions and variety.
Online shopping often brings many benefits, that is until issues arise.
Despite the rapid growth of cross-border trade, Malaysia currently lacks a legislative framework that specifically governs cross-border e-commerce transactions. This creates a regulatory blind spot, allowing foreign online marketplace operators and sellers to evade liability simply because they do not have a physical or legal presence in Malaysia. When harmful, defective, or illegal goods are sold into Malaysia, or when personal data is mishandled by foreign platforms, affected consumers often struggle to identify, locate, or take legal action against these entities due to the differing jurisdictions in which parties are located. This leaves consumers vulnerable and domestic laws unenforceable against offshore actors.
E-commerce has revolutionised the way businesses and consumers interact. However, while technology has changed the mode of doing business, the law continues to apply. The same principles that govern traditional commerce — from fair trading to product safety — extend to online transactions, though often with added complexity.
This case serves as a critical reminder that for sports bodies, strict adherence to their constitution and bylaws is paramount. It mandates the exhaustion of internal remedies like mediation before court intervention and underscores the fundamental necessity of procedural fairness in all decisions.
In 2015, FIFA implemented a global ban on TPO agreements, which prohibited clubs and investors from sharing players’ economic rights.
RFC Seraing, which had entered into such arrangements with an investment fund, was sanctioned with fines and a transfer ban by FIFA. The club argued that the ban restricted competition and free movement under European Union (‘EU’) law and sought to challenge the arbitral award confirming FIFA’s sanctions.
Malaysian arbitration law has historically featured a debate on the available routes for enforcing foreign arbitral awards, specifically, whether award creditors could opt for direct enforcement under the Malaysian Arbitration Act 2005 or were required to pursue enforcement under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 framework after converting the award into a judgment abroad.
