As the government considers the next steps following its consultation on design law reform, the coming weeks will be critical for the creative industries. For UK designers, a successful outcome would not simply be a legal adjustment on paper, it would be a tangible shift in how creativity is protected, valued, and sustained in practice.

“Let me start with a simple truth,” says Dids Macdonald Chair and Co-founder of Anti Copying in Design (ACID), “The government tells designers, you are protected,
and point to unregistered design rights, registered designs, and legal frameworks. However, whilst legal design protections exist, unenforceable rights only offer false reassurance because of prohibitive costs and delays make asserting rights purely theoretical for creators. Markets respond to incentives, not paper protections in practice. When copying has no downside, copying inevitably flourishes. That is the reality we must confront today.”

ACID’s submission set out clear, evidence-based arguments grounded in the reality of designers across sectors. Drawing on member data, case studies and industry insight, the submission highlighted a consistent theme: current design protection frameworks are too complex, too costly, and too slow for designers to use effectively. When infringement happens, the imbalance of power, particularly for SMEs and independent designers, often leaves original creators exposed.

“Another main issue,” Macdonald continued, “is that copying is accepted as the norm and for some large, bad actor corporations, modern-day Goliaths, copying is no longer an exception. It is a business model. Copy first, profit fast, defend later, if at all. Why? Because they know something fundamental, they know that the original designer, the David, cannot afford to fight.”

A positive reform outcome could change that. Clearer rights, stronger enforcement mechanisms, and more accessible routes to redress would mean designers can spend less time defending their work and more time creating it. This is not just about fairness; it is about economic growth. The design sector contributes billions to the UK economy, and stronger protection directly supports innovation, investment, and export potential.

ACID’s role throughout this process has been to act as an authoritative, credible, and empathetic voice for designers. The submission does not just argue for change in abstract legal, procedural, and technical terms, but links policy decisions to real-world consequences: lost revenue, emotional distress, and, in some cases, designers leaving the industry altogether. These human impacts matter, and they resonate strongly with the supportive feedback ACID has received from across the sector.

Industry supporters have been clear. Designers have described the submission as “long overdue,” “grounded in reality,” and “a vital step toward restoring confidence in UK design protection.” Harnessing these voices reinforces that this is not a niche concern, it is a shared priority.

Over the coming policy decision making period, ACID will continue to maintain visibility and alignment by sharing high-level insights from its submission, thought leadership from its leadership team, and accessible summaries of key findings through carousel posts and articles. This steady narrative ensures that designers, policymakers, and stakeholders remain focused on what success looks like.

A reformed design law landscape that genuinely works for designers would signal that the UK is serious about protecting creativity. ACID will remain at the forefront of that conversation, championing designers’ rights and ensuring their voices are not just heard but acted upon.