The institution of prevention was investigated as a response of the antimonopoly authority in identifying signs of violation of antimonopoly legislation. The possibility of classifying this measure as measures of state coercion, as well as the legal nature of its application, was assessed.

Taking into account the targeted focus of the warning of the antimonopoly authority, it was concluded that it should be classified as a form of administrative and preventive measures, containing in some cases signs of legal recovery measures.

A particular discrepancy was revealed between the purpose of applying this measure and the form of its implementation provided for by law.

To eliminate this contradiction, the author formulated proposals for improving the legislative consolidation of the institution of prevention.

The article considers various meanings of the concept of “non-state expert organizations”, judicial practice, current antimonopoly and other legislation governing the requirements for the use of the words “judicial”, “judicial”, “judicial” in the name of a legal entity.

The authors conclude that non-state expert institutions should be understood as specialized non-profit organizations established by citizens and (or) legal entities licensed to engage in forensic activities issued by an executive authority of the Russian Federation or a constituent entity of the Russian Federation performing functions for the development and implementation of state policy and legal regulation in the field of justice, as well as having passed voluntary accreditation.

According to the authors, the use of the words “judicial”, “judicial”, “judicial” in the name of a non-state expert organization may contain signs of unfair competition or abuse of law and entail negative legal consequences.

An optimal solution to this problem is proposed.

The purpose of the study is to analyze the possibilities of integrating modern mechanisms for attracting investments in startups into Russian corporate law, including a convertible loan agreement, a SAFE (Simple Agreement for Future Equity) agreement and a KISS (Keep It Simple Security) agreement, as well as to form a legal concept of a “startup regime” for business entities.

Key barriers to their application in Russian business entities have been identified: the lack of a legal definition of a startup, the complexity of corporate procedures, notarial requirements and the uncertainty of tax and bankruptcy regulation.

The study showed that the convertible loan agreement in Russian law has significant procedural restrictions associated with the conversion of a loan into a share or shares, while SAFEandKISS provide a more flexible and cost-effective mechanism for interaction between investors and startups.

For the successful adaptation of SAFE and KISS in Russia, it is necessary to supplement corporate law with the institution of a startup regime, which includes simplified procedures for business entities, special investment agreements and guarantees to protect the interests of investors and founders.

The article considers changes made to the antimonopoly requirements of the Federal Law of 28.12.2009 No. 381-FZ “On the Basics of State Regulation of Trade Activities in the Russian Federation” in the period from 2023 to 2025, as well as law enforcement practice that has developed in this area for the specified period. Based on the study of factual material and scientific works devoted to the concepts of bargaining power and market power, the authors conclude that the improvement of trade legislation and the developing enforcement practice of antimonopoly authorities will contribute to maintaining a balance of interests of the participants in the relevant commodity markets, which seems extremely important in light of the instruction given by the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin following the XXVIII St. Petersburg International Economic Forum on June 18—21, 2025, on the development of a new national model of trading activities.

The digitalization process has given rise to new objects within the digital economy that often fall outside the scope of existing legislation and require legal protection and clarification of their legal status.

This paper explores a novel type of product — NFT (Non-Fungible Tokens) — as potential subjects of unfair competition. In Russia, despite their growing prevalence in commercial transactions, there is a lack of judicial practice regarding disputes over the unauthorized sale of NFT as cases of unfair competition. To better understand the impact of this emerging product on the market, it is beneficial to examine international practices, for example in the United States.

Ultimately, it becomes clear that there is a pressing need to investigate digital objects, NFT, and their effects on the commodity market, as these items have become significant contributors to the advancement of the digital economy in today's world.

The establishment of additional requirements for participants in certain categories of public procurement is aimed at ensuring the best execution of government contracts and the related public functions of the state. The introduction of such additional requirements for participants in institutional catering procurement —public catering services and/or supply of food products purchased for educational institutions, medical organizations, social service providers, and children's recreation and health camps – is no exception. These corresponding additional requirements can be updated and refined, most recently in early October 2024. However, this latest update has sparked certain debates in practice. This article examines the most pressing, in the author's view, of the emerging questions and provides answers to them.

The article examines one of the most relevant and debatable problems of modern law – the possibility and expediency of granting legal personality to artificial intelligence (AI) systems, including neural networks, robots, and hypothetical future systems (quantum supercomputers). The relevance of the topic is due to the rapid penetration of AI into all spheres of public life and the challenges it poses to traditional legal institutions. The purpose of the study is a comprehensive analysis of the theoretical-methodological, metaphysical, and practical aspects of AI legal personality, examination of existing approaches in Russian and foreign legislation, legal doctrine, and law enforcement practice, as well as developing proposals for determining the optimal legal status of AI and harmonizing its interaction with humans. The methodological basis includes general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, systemic approach) and specific scientific methods (comparative legal, formal legal, historical legal). The study analyzes the key attributes of a legal subject (consciousness, will, autonomy, ability to bear responsibility) and their (in)applicability to current and future AI systems. Main doctrinal concepts (“electronic person,” AI as an object of law, AI as a quasi-subject) are considered. Legislative initiatives and AI development strategies in Russia, the EU, the USA, China, Japan are analyzed. The lack of consensus on AI legal personality and the predominance of an approach based on human responsibility (developer, owner, operator) are identified. Alternative regulatory mechanisms (special registration of autonomous systems, modification of liability institutions) aimed at solving practical problems without granting AI full legal personality are proposed. The need for international cooperation to harmonize approaches is substantiated. The conclusion is drawn about the prematurity and groundlessness of granting AI the status of a legal subject at the current stage of technological development, and directions for further research are suggested.