<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Techcred Law]]></title><description><![CDATA[Techcred Law]]></description><link>https://www.techcred.law/blog-1</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Sep 2026 18:50:37 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://www.techcred.law/blog-feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title><![CDATA[Lnu v. Blanche: The Duty Attaches at the Signature]]></title><description><![CDATA[The Ninth Circuit becomes the first federal appellate court to suspend lawyers for filing AI-fabricated authorities, and it fixes accountability at the moment counsel signs and files.]]></description><link>https://www.techcred.law/post/title</link><guid isPermaLink="false">022dba39-dd2d-4520-bbdc-7d3b1d88d691</guid><pubDate>Sat, 19 Sep 2026 15:38:06 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://static.wixstatic.com/media/dcdafe_0c57d2ea39f145e48ae3aa9751b0344d~mv2.png/v1/fit/w_1000,h_1000,al_c,q_80/file.png" length="0" type="image/png"/><dc:creator>maasdev</dc:creator></item><item><title><![CDATA[The Arbitrator's Mandate Is Older Than AI]]></title><description><![CDATA[From Sacheri v. Robotti (1989) to P v. Q (2017) to ARIHQ (2026) — why the rule that decided Quebec's annulment was already on the books]]></description><link>https://www.techcred.law/post/the-arbitrators-mandate-is-older-than-ai</link><guid isPermaLink="false">85408110-066e-460c-b483-46db85de226f</guid><pubDate>Sat, 19 Sep 2026 15:29:50 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://static.wixstatic.com/media/dcdafe_2c0280d899a843ef82c0d99708ccb3d5~mv2.jpg/v1/fit/w_1000,h_1000,al_c,q_80/file.png" length="0" type="image/png"/><dc:creator>maasdev</dc:creator></item><item><title><![CDATA[The Six Regimes the Tennant Tribunal Missed]]></title><description><![CDATA[On June 24, 2019, a three-member arbitral tribunal in Tennant Energy LLC v. Government of Canada, dismissed the applicability of European data protection law to its own proceedings in a single paragraph. The reasoning was terse: the European Union was not a party to NAFTA, so the GDPR did not, “presumptively, come within the material scope” of the arbitration.]]></description><link>https://www.techcred.law/post/the-six-regimes-the-tennant-tribunal-missed</link><guid isPermaLink="false">521885d5-d406-44c3-9454-30680c296b9a</guid><pubDate>Sat, 19 Sep 2026 15:11:17 GMT</pubDate><enclosure url="https://static.wixstatic.com/media/dcdafe_66d1af907ef247009ace498ffec07fd6~mv2.jpg/v1/fit/w_1000,h_1000,al_c,q_80/file.png" length="0" type="image/png"/><dc:creator>maasdev</dc:creator></item></channel></rss>