INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Jeffrey Harvey, Randall Parks, Andrew Geyer and Cecilia Oh, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
marketed managed services for customers’ needs in the metaverse. Meanwhile, metaverse consulting groups began advertising their services and social media management services evolved to encompass management of one’s social media presence in the metaverse. Aside from a handful of applications, the metaverse, as a digital version of the current world, simply never took off and very few customers engaged service providers for these purposes. However, similar to NFTs, the metaverse repurposed itself in a manner that appears to be geared more towards utility than simply providing a duplicate digital world. For exam - ple, teachers may train for active shooters or simi - lar threats in the metaverse, and police may train for interactions involving those with mental health issues or with fentanyl users requiring immediate emergency care. Implementation and adoption of these new technolo - gies require practitioners to remain current on famil - iar concepts of the law (eg, IP, data protection and privacy, and employment law) yet also be prepared to apply these concepts in a very new way. Unfortu - nately, some level of patience is also required by prac - titioners, given that many of these issues are currently subject to litigation, including litigation that could pro - hibit (or materially limit) the use of these technologies as currently contemplated. Stability of Cloud and As-a-Service Solutions Unlike many of these more disruptive technologies, cloud and as-a-service solutions have been widely adopted. Customers across the globe have purchased some mix of these solutions with varying levels of complexity and, for the most part, have managed to appropriately navigate the data privacy, cybersecu - rity, export and tax issues initially presented by these technologies without borders. Agreements governing these products have also seemingly stabilised. The largest providers (ie, the original providers of the actual cloud infrastructure behind most cloud and as-a-service offerings) contin - ue to command the most deference to their terms and conditions, while mid-to-small providers often view their agreements as far more negotiable. Key stick - ing points have not changed throughout the years, as companies and providers alike continue to focus on
limits of liability, indemnification, termination, compli - ance audits, data security and privacy, and permitted uses. Outsourcing and New Technologies While service providers continue to offer all of the more traditional outsourcing services (eg, data cen - tre, application development and maintenance, call centres, support desk), these offerings are increas - ingly complemented by certain of the newer tech - nologies described earlier. Service provider solutions in the outsourcing space, in particular, more often include some combination of AI and RPA. In many instances, the two go hand-in-hand, as traditional AI and automation depend in large part upon repetition in order to increase efficiency. Additionally, providers are introducing generative AI products and solutions that are specific to the service being offered and/or the customer receiving the service. As of the date of publication of this guide, however, providers mostly use AI as a back-office service in an effort to improve their own offerings, while customer-facing solutions are still relatively rare as part of a larger outsourcing deal. As a result, many outsourcing providers who were tra - ditionally more focused on towers or full-time equiva - lents are now on the frontline introducing their custom - ers to newer technologies. This shift is also evident in the introduction by providers of “bundled offerings”. Bundled offerings are generally comprised of products or services offered by independent third-party provid - ers through a customer’s outsourcing provider. These are not traditional subcontractor arrangements. Rath - er, the bundled offering includes two providers who – in theory – remain independent of one another, with the customer’s outsourcing provider serving more in the role of a managed services provider. Practitioners need to be wary of these models, as any number of providers have not resolved certain privity of contract and liability issues associated with this approach. The above-mentioned approaches may represent an attempt by outsourcing providers to claw back against a very clear trend in the industry during the past sev - eral years, which is the breaking up of “mega” out - sourcing contracts into several one-off agreements for individual services and products. Alternatively,
6 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook