IP Infringement, Brand Disputes, and Client Contract Risk
A buyer’s guide for founders, principals and senior creatives at UK graphic, web, interior, product, brand and digital design studios — and freelance designers operating as limited companies.
Published May 2026 by Apex Insurance Brokers Limited. FCA firm reference 724952. Companies House 07014570.
The UK Designer’s Guide to Professional Indemnity Insurance 2026
Version 1.0 — May 2026
Apex Insurance Brokers Limited Trading address: QCS, 53 Queen Charlotte Street, Bristol BS1 4HQ Registered office: c/o Westcan, 5 Anglo Office Park, Bristol BS15 1NT info@apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk | 0117 325 0027 apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk
Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. FRN 724952. Companies House registration 07014570.
Design note: full-bleed cover with layered glyphs and a single coral swatch anchored bottom-right; title centred, version line on the side rail.
Design as a UK service sector is unusual in one important respect: it has no single statutory regulator. There is no Architects Registration Board for graphic designers, no Royal Institute of British Architects for product designers, no Solicitors Regulation Authority for brand designers. There are trade and chartered bodies — D&AD, the Chartered Society of Designers, the Design Business Association, the Royal Society of Arts — but none of them sets compulsory Professional Indemnity Insurance for their members.
That absence of a regulator does not mean an absence of risk. It means the opposite: where a regulated profession sets PI minima and the rules apply uniformly, the unregulated design profession’s PI obligation is set entirely by contract, by the law of intellectual property, and by the financial consequences of getting something wrong on a brand that is now visible in front of thousands or millions of people. Those consequences have not got smaller in the last five years; they have got larger and faster.
This guide is for design studio owners, principals and senior creatives who want to understand how PI sits behind their work, what it actually covers in a sector where the core product is intellectual property, and how to read a quote and a policy wording for the things that will matter when a claim arrives. It is written from a broker’s perspective — Apex places PI across the UK design market — and it draws on the patterns we see year after year in renewals and claims.
It is not a comprehensive legal text on copyright and trademark law. It is a senior broker explaining how the insurance product responds to that legal environment, and what the practical decisions are when you buy and renew cover.
— The Apex broking team
Design note: italic foreword in a wider measure than body; small pull-quote box (“design has no single regulator — your obligation sits in contract”) in oat sidebar.
The PI obligation for a designer sits in three places.
The first is the client contract. The single most common reason a UK design studio buys PI is that the client requires it as a condition of contracting. Large clients — corporate marketing departments, in-house procurement teams, public sector buyers, agency-of-record arrangements — increasingly require their design suppliers to maintain PI for a stated minimum limit, frequently £1m or £2m, sometimes £5m for larger or more sensitive engagements. The contract typically also requires public liability cover and (where the engagement involves processing of personal data) a route to data-protection liability through either PI or a cyber policy.
The second is the law of intellectual property. Design is the production of intellectual property. Copyright, trademark, registered and unregistered design rights, passing off, and the rights attaching to images, fonts, music, motion and now AI-generated artwork all create primary liability exposure for a design studio whose deliverables incorporate or are alleged to infringe protected material. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 governs the bulk of this in UK law; the Trade Marks Act 1994 and the common law of passing off govern brand disputes. A claim by a rights-holder against a design studio whose work appears in the public domain — or in a client’s product — is the textbook reason PI exists.
The third is the law of contract and tort. A designer owes the client a contractual duty (commonly to deliver work of professional quality in accordance with the brief) and a parallel duty in tort (commonly to exercise reasonable skill and care). A claim for breach of either can be brought up to six years after the cause of action arose; twelve years where the contract is executed as a deed. The most common form is a dispute over whether the delivered work meets the agreed brief, but the longer-tail version is a dispute over whether the work caused downstream commercial loss — a website that fails on launch, a packaging design that triggers a recall, a brand identity that has to be withdrawn after a third-party challenge.
There are sector overlays worth noting. Design studios working in regulated marketing contexts — financial services advertising under FCA-authorised clients, advertising to children, gambling, alcohol, health claims — inherit those regulatory expectations through the client contract. Studios producing collateral that ends up regulated by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) Code, or that is subject to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (formerly part of the broader Trade Descriptions framework) sit one step closer to a regulatory event than a studio producing only internal collateral. PI does not pay regulator-imposed sanctions, but it does respond to civil claims arising from the alleged misleading content.
Design note: page 3 grid — four discipline tiles labelled Graphic, Web, Interior, Product, each with three-line risk-profile annotation (IP intensity, financial exposure, contract complexity).
The PI risk profile is materially different across the design disciplines, and a one-size policy is rarely the right answer.
Graphic design sits closest to pure IP risk. The deliverables are images, marks and typography; the most common claims are copyright and trademark infringement, font-licence non-compliance, and disputes over the client’s right to use the delivered work as licensed. Financial exposure on any individual project is usually modest, but the frequency of low-value disputes is higher than other disciplines.
Web design and digital product design add the technology and accessibility layer. Beyond IP, the studio is exposed to disputes over functionality, accessibility compliance (the Equality Act 2010 and the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) Accessibility Regulations for public sector work), website performance, security of the delivered build, and the cyber-flavour risks of any data the build collects. The PI/cyber overlap discussed at length in our IT consultants’ guide applies here too.
Interior design adds the physical-world layer. Specifications affect built environments, the consequences of an error can include actual property damage or personal injury (which sit on different policies — public liability, not PI), and contracts often require contractor-grade documentation. PI for interior designers is more likely to interact with building regulations and contractor’s-all-risks insurance.
Product design and industrial design create the most consequential PI exposure of all the design disciplines. A product taken to market, then recalled because a design defect causes injury or fails to meet a safety standard, generates claims that can run into seven figures. The General Product Safety Regulations 2005 (and the 2024 EU GPSR which UK-market manufacturers exporting into Europe must continue to track), the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Consumer Protection Act 1987 product-liability regime — these set the standards that a design professional’s work has to meet. PI for product designers needs to be sized accordingly.
PI for designers responds to civil claims made against the studio alleging financial loss caused by a wrongful act in the studio’s professional services. “Wrongful act” is normally defined to include negligence, error, omission, misleading statement, breach of professional duty, and breach of contract in respect of professional services.
For a design studio the envelope of professional services is broad but worth getting right. A well-written designer’s PI will respond to:
Allegations of copyright infringement in delivered work, including image, illustration, photography, typography, motion and audio content. Trademark infringement, including disputes over brand identity work alleged to be confusingly similar to a prior registered or unregistered mark. Passing off — the common-law cousin of trademark — where a delivered identity allegedly causes confusion with another trader’s goodwill. Defamation, malicious falsehood and disparagement in published copy or images. Breach of confidence, including misuse of confidential information shared during the brief. Breach of contract claims where the deliverable allegedly fails to meet the agreed specification. Professional negligence in the design process itself, including specification errors, dimensional errors, technical errors, mis-specifications and miscommunications. Failure to deliver to agreed timescales where the delay causes the client demonstrable loss.
Most modern designer-focused PI wordings also include several extensions that materially change the picture. The first is intellectual property infringement cover — explicitly extending the wording beyond pure professional negligence to respond to a third-party IP rights-holder’s claim against the studio. Without this extension, an IP infringement claim might fall outside cover; with it, the policy responds. The second is publication injury cover, addressing defamation and disparagement in publicly distributed work. The third is breach of contract cover going beyond pure negligence — important because many client briefs are heavy on contractual obligation. The fourth is misappropriation of ideas cover, addressing the awkward zone where a former client or competitor alleges that the studio used their concept without authority.
What designer PI does not cover. Deliberate or fraudulent acts. Regulatory fines and penalties (including ASA sanctions where they are characterised as penalties). The studio’s own remedial work to fix a defective deliverable — the “rework exclusion” — unless the policy specifically extends to mitigation costs. Bodily injury and property damage (those sit on public liability). Pollution, war, nuclear. Disputes purely between the studio and its own employees (those sit on employment practices liability or employers’ liability cover, depending on the issue).
Design studios sit at the intersection of multiple licensing regimes. A PI policy responds to claims arising from non-compliance, but only the studio’s own diligence prevents the claim in the first place. The brokerage view, in shorthand:
Stock images. Major stock libraries (Getty, Shutterstock, Adobe Stock and equivalents) license use under terms that vary materially. Editorial-use-only licences misapplied to commercial work, royalty-free licences used at print runs exceeding the licence cap, model-released images used for sensitive use cases — each is a common source of claim. PI responds; the studio’s defence is the licence record.
Fonts. Font licensing is one of the most common low-value claims in the design sector. Desktop licences used in web embedding, server licences used at user counts exceeding the licensed seat number, foundry licences used for embedded display in client products — each can generate a claim from the foundry. Foundries are increasingly active in enforcement and PI responds; the studio’s defence is the licence trail.
Music and motion. Music licensing through PRS for Music, PPL and direct sync licences from publishers is a category in its own right. Studios producing motion or video collateral need to be confident the music in their deliverables is properly licensed for the client’s distribution.
AI-generated artwork. The fastest-moving area. UK copyright law currently recognises computer-generated works under section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, attributing authorship to the person making the necessary arrangements. That provision predates current generative-AI models and its application to AI-generated images is not yet settled by UK case law. International litigation is testing whether training-data use without licence amounts to infringement, and several major image-model providers have introduced indemnity programmes that attempt to allocate the risk. The practical risk for designers is twofold: a third party may allege that AI-generated artwork in delivered work reproduces protected material; and the client may, by contract, require warranties that the work was either AI-generated or not AI-generated, and may require disclosure either way. PI cover for AI-generated work is being clarified in 2025 and 2026-vintage wordings; some insurers confirm cover, some are silent, some have introduced explicit AI exclusions. Read the wording at renewal.
Music, stock motion, third-party UI components in digital builds. Each is its own licence regime. The cumulative risk for a digital studio assembling a build from twenty licensed components is real and warrants a documented licence register.
Design note: page 5 rights-and-licences table — five rows (images, fonts, music, motion, AI artwork), four columns (typical licence type, common pitfall, PI response, suggested studio safeguard).
The “any one claim” limit and the “in the aggregate” limit between them determine how much the policy will pay. A £1m any-one-claim, £2m in-the-aggregate policy means each individual claim is covered up to £1m and the total of all claims in the policy year up to £2m. A £1m in-the-aggregate policy means the total of all claims in the year is capped at £1m. The wording matters more than the headline.
How much cover a studio should buy is driven by three things: contractual minima imposed by clients, the worst-case financial exposure on the studio’s largest live engagements, and the affordability of premium at different layers.
A representative UK pattern in 2026:
A one- to three-person freelance or micro studio working with SME clients and engagement values under £25,000 typically buys £250,000 to £1m of cover. Limits below £250,000 are usually too low to meet any serious client’s insurance schedule.
A graphic design studio of five to fifteen people, with mid-market clients and engagement values up to £100,000, typically buys £1m to £2m of cover.
A larger brand or digital agency working with national or international clients on engagements valued in the hundreds of thousands, with the risk of a brand-launch dispute or a website-go-live dispute carrying meaningful loss, typically buys £2m to £5m.
A product design consultancy whose deliverables go into manufactured products at scale typically buys £5m to £10m, sometimes more, and frequently with a separate product liability layer placed alongside.
The excess is what you pay before the insurer pays. Typical excesses run from £250 to £2,500 for very small studios and from £2,500 to £25,000 for mid-sized firms. Increasing the excess to reduce premium is a reasonable trade for a studio with strong contract terms and low historic dispute frequency; it is a less good trade where the typical claim profile is many low-value font-licence or stock-licence disputes.
A worked example. A mid-sized brand and digital studio in Bristol with twelve staff turns over £1.4m a year, with a largest live engagement valued at £180,000 for a rebrand and website-relaunch project for a national retail client. The contractual minimum on the insurance schedule is £2m. The worst-case loss scenario the principals can identify is a launch-day brand challenge from a competitor IP holder that requires withdrawal and re-launch — a loss they estimate could reach £600,000 across rework, lost campaign spend and the client’s wasted print run. A £2m any-one-claim, £2m in-the-aggregate policy with a £2,500 excess meets the contractual floor, covers the worst-case scenario with a margin for defence costs, and is priced in the studio’s expected range. A different studio might choose to step up to £5m on the aggregate to allow for the possibility of a second material claim in the same year.
Aggregation matters in design too. A studio that has deployed a single piece of stock imagery into deliverables for five different clients, and is then sued by the rights-holder, faces an aggregation question: is that one claim arising from one original cause (which means one limit and one excess) or five separate claims arising from each separate use (which means five limits but also five excesses)? The wording of the aggregation clause decides.
Design note: page 7 worked example as a tinted box, with the four numbers (turnover, largest engagement, contractual minimum, worst-case loss) called out as a four-cell grid above the policy structure.
A typical PI quote document for a design studio runs to eight to fifteen pages. The pages most readers skim are usually the ones that matter most when a claim hits.
The schedule sets out the named insured, cover period, limit (any-one-claim and in-the-aggregate), excess, premium, insurer and policy reference. Check the named insured exactly matches your trading entity; if you trade under a brand name different from the limited company name, that needs to be captured as a trading-as. Any group entities or related entities you want covered should be listed as additional insureds.
The declarations are the information you gave the underwriter — turnover, fee split by discipline (graphic, web, interior, product, motion), largest contract, claims history, territories. The policy responds on the basis those declarations are accurate. If something has materially changed since you completed the proposal — a new line of work, a new geographic market, a new key client — tell the broker.
The definitions are dry and disproportionately important. “Professional services” is the most important — does the definition cover everything you do, including the newer work (digital product design, AI-assisted artwork creation, brand strategy consultancy) that may not have appeared in the original wording? “Documents”, “claim”, “loss”, “publication” all do work in their respective places.
The insuring clauses describe what triggers cover. The key questions: are defence costs inside the limit (“costs-inclusive”) or in addition to the limit? Is IP infringement included as a primary insuring clause or as an extension subject to sub-limit? Is publication injury (defamation, disparagement) inside the wording?
The exclusions. Standard ones to expect: deliberate or fraudulent acts; insolvency of the insured; bodily injury and property damage; fines and penalties; pollution; war and nuclear. Less standard but worth flagging for designers: broad AI-output exclusions; specific exclusions for product liability or product recall (a real issue for product design studios); territorial exclusions that exclude work for US clients or US-distributed deliverables; exclusions for work on regulated content (financial services advertising, gambling, alcohol, certain pharmaceutical promotion).
The conditions are the active obligations — notify circumstances, do not admit liability, cooperate with the insurer, observe sub-limits. Routine non-compliance is a frequent loss-adjusting friction.
The endorsements modify the main wording for the specific risk. They sit at the back of the document, are easy to miss, and routinely contain the most important provisions — AI-use disclosure conditions, sub-limits on IP and publication injury, narrowed territorial limits, specific named-client extensions.
If your design studio winds down, is acquired, or substantially changes its activities, the liability for work already done does not vanish. PI is written on a claims-made basis: the policy that responds to a claim is the policy in force at the date the claim is notified, not the date the work was done. Once you stop trading and stop paying premiums, your last policy is the last policy that will ever respond — unless you buy run-off cover.
There is no UK statutory minimum run-off period for designers. The practical standard in the design market is six years, matching the limitation period for breach of contract under English law. Clients with contractual tail provisions commonly require six years; some require twelve where the contract was executed as a deed.
Run-off is normally priced as a single up-front premium calculated as a multiple of your last working premium — commonly in the region of 1.0× to 2.5× the last annual premium, spread across the run-off period.
Selling the business does not automatically extinguish the run-off obligation. The sale and purchase agreement has to deal with it explicitly: who buys the run-off, who pays for it, who notifies pre-completion circumstances, and how the warranties and indemnities sit alongside it. For studio founders selling out to a larger agency or to a holding company, the cost of run-off is a real line in the deal economics and is best surfaced at heads-of-terms rather than discovered at completion.
Three run-off mistakes we see in the design sector. The first is not buying run-off at all on the assumption “we have no live claims, so we don’t need cover” — a misreading of how claims-made cover works. The second is buying single-year run-off and renewing year-by-year, which is usually more expensive than a multi-year up-front placement and creates a cliff risk if a renewal is forgotten. The third is allowing the run-off insurer to change between years, which can break continuity in the way a series of related claims is treated.
A renewal is the annual opportunity to reset the cover against what the studio now actually does, which is rarely identical to last year.
The process, done properly, starts ninety days before the renewal date. The broker requests the proposal information; the studio provides updated turnover, fee splits, largest contracts and claims history; the broker presents to the existing insurer and a small number of alternative markets; quotes are compared and explained.
The five questions every design studio should put to its broker at renewal:
What has changed in our activities since last renewal — new disciplines, new client types, new territories, new technologies (AI tooling most commonly) — and does the proposal accurately describe the studio now? Drift in declared activity is the most common cause of a coverage dispute at claim time.
Have we taken on any new contracts whose insurance schedule we now need to meet? A contract signed mid-year that requires a £5m limit when the studio holds £2m is a coverage gap until the limit is increased mid-term or at renewal.
Have there been any incidents, complaints or circumstances that might give rise to a claim? Even where no formal claim has been made, circumstances should be notified under the policy in force when they arose. Failing to notify is a textbook reason for a future claim to be queried.
What is the position on AI-assisted work product? If the studio now uses generative AI for image creation, copy, motion or web prototyping, is that disclosed, and does the wording respond to AI-assisted output?
How are PI and cyber aligned (and is cyber even held)? Web-heavy studios that hold no cyber cover are increasingly exposed; the conversation at renewal should cover both lines.
A clean renewal pack — proposal form, updated declarations, claims history, current client contracts with insurance schedules — placed ninety days out generally produces a better outcome than a rushed pack placed two weeks out. Underwriters reward predictability.
The first 48 hours after a claim or potential claim arrives matter disproportionately.
The triggering events to take seriously: a formal letter of claim or letter before action; a cease-and-desist from an IP rights-holder or their solicitors; a foundry’s licence-compliance notice (these often come as a desk-officer email rather than a solicitor’s letter, and are easy to dismiss — do not dismiss them); a client’s formal complaint that has escalated past account management; a regulator’s notification; or any circumstance a reasonable design professional would expect to give rise to a claim. All of these are notifiable.
The single most important rule: notify your broker immediately. Notification preserves cover under the policy in force when the circumstance arose, even if the formal claim comes later. Late notification is a textbook reason for cover to be queried.
The second rule: do not admit liability or settle without the insurer’s consent. Removing the offending asset from public-facing work and pausing the campaign while the position is investigated is reasonable and prudent mitigation; an unconditional admission can prejudice cover. Take advice from the broker and the insurer’s panel solicitors before responding to the rights-holder.
The third rule: preserve evidence. Original brief documents, design files with version history, asset licences (image, font, music, AI generation log), email and chat correspondence with the client and any third parties, internal review notes, sign-off records. The defence of a design claim almost always turns on the documentary record of the brief, the licences in place, and what was approved by whom and when.
The typical timeline:
Within 48 hours of notification, the broker logs the matter with the insurer; the insurer acknowledges and either accepts cover, accepts under reservation, or queries cover. Within two to four weeks, panel solicitors are appointed. Investigation, disclosure and pleadings then run on the timetable of the underlying matter. Settlement discussions or mediation often follow once the picture is clear. Litigation runs on the court’s timetable.
Throughout, the broker is the conduit between the insured, the insurer, the loss adjuster (where appointed) and panel solicitors.
Design note: page 9 timeline strip — five stations (Notify → Acknowledge → Defence → Negotiate → Resolve), small narrative beneath each.
The PI market for UK designers is served by a mix of direct online portals, generalist brokers and creative-sector specialists. Each has a different cost-and-service profile.
A direct online portal is the cheapest entry point and is appropriate for the smallest freelancers with simple briefs, low-value contracts and no contractual insurance-schedule exposure. The trade-off is no human to read the proposal back, to flag definitions that may not respond, or to be on the phone when a claim hits.
A generalist broker can place design PI competently as one product among many. The placement is fine; the depth of conversation about the wording is variable. For studios with anything unusual — AI tooling, regulated-content clients, product design exposure, international distribution — the conversation is often not deep enough.
A creative-sector specialist or independent broker with meaningful design experience is the right answer for most studios above the freelance bracket. The broker is regularly in the market for design placements, knows where each insurer’s appetite sits, can read a client’s insurance schedule and translate it into a coverage requirement, and can have a sensible conversation about the IP infringement extension, AI cover and territorial limits.
Apex sits in the third group. We are independent (not tied to any one insurer, not part of a network with quota arrangements), FCA-authorised (FRN 724952), and we place across a panel of UK and London Market insurers active in design PI. We are not the largest broker in the market and we work with a manageable client base, which means we are on the phone in a reasonable time when something happens.
The four questions to ask any broker:
How many design PI placements does your firm handle a year, and at what limit range? You want a broker regularly in the market at your size or larger.
Which insurers are you currently placing design PI with, and why those for our profile? A broker who can only name one or two is not giving you a market view.
Can we see a sample wording before binding, and walk through the IP infringement extension, AI position and territorial limits? A broker who will not do this is not the right broker.
Who handles claims, and what is the process when one comes in? You want a named contact and a clear escalation path, not a portal.
“We don’t need PI because we always use stock images correctly.”
Even faultless licence compliance does not eliminate the risk of an IP claim. A stock library can mistakenly licence an image it did not have the rights to; a model release can be successfully challenged later; a competitor brand-owner can allege passing off against a faultlessly designed identity. PI exists for the risk you did not see coming, not just the one you might have caused.
“AI artwork is the platform’s problem, not ours.”
It is currently both. The platform’s indemnity programme (where one exists) sits behind the designer who used the tool; the designer is the contracting party with the client and the defendant of first instance in any claim. The PI wording determines whether AI-assisted output is treated like designer-created output. Confirm at renewal.
“We’re freelancers so we don’t need a limit above £100,000.”
Freelance status does not reduce the contractual exposure to a client whose brand launch you delivered. A £100,000 limit will not meet most mid-sized clients’ insurance schedules and will not be adequate against a contested brand-launch claim. Calibrate to the actual exposure, not the trading status.
“PI is for negligence; we don’t make mistakes.”
Civil claims in the design sector are typically not pure negligence claims — they are IP infringement, breach of contract, breach of confidence, passing off. Most are not preventable through better quality control alone. PI exists for the legal cost and damages of defending claims that the studio may or may not have caused.
“Run-off doesn’t matter because we’ll keep trading.”
Until the studio sells, the principal retires, the firm restructures, or two senior partners go their separate ways. Run-off needs to be planned for, not improvised.
“Our public liability covers everything.”
Public liability covers bodily injury and property damage to third parties — not financial loss from a professional services error. They are different products and are not substitutes.
“The cheapest quote is the right quote.”
Sometimes. Often not. The cheapest quote is the right quote only if the wording matches the more expensive ones. A saving of a few hundred pounds on a policy that excludes IP infringement or AI-assisted output is not a saving.
“We’re under the ASA / CAP Code, not the FCA, so PI doesn’t really apply.”
PI responds to civil claims; the regulator is a separate axis. An ASA adjudication does not pay a third-party rights-holder’s claim, and a civil claim does not depend on ASA involvement. The two run in parallel.
Design note: page 11 myths panel — eight rows in two-column “Heard / Actually” cards, with the design swatch motif repeating as a small decorative element.
If your PI renewal is within ninety days, or you have a client contract in front of you with an insurance schedule you need to meet, or you are not sure whether your current cover responds to the way you actually work in 2026 — the right next step is a conversation.
The first call costs nothing and does not commit you to anything. We will ask about your activities, your contracts, your claims history and your current cover. If we can place a better outcome for you, we will tell you what we would propose and roughly what timeframe and cost would look like. If your current arrangement is competitive, we will tell you that too.
Contact us:
Apex Insurance Brokers Limited Trading address: QCS, 53 Queen Charlotte Street, Bristol BS1 4HQ Registered office: c/o Westcan, 5 Anglo Office Park, Bristol BS15 1NT Telephone: 0117 325 0027 Email: info@apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk Web: apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk
Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is an independent insurance broker based in Bristol, serving UK businesses across professional, technology and trade sectors. We are authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (firm reference number 724952) and registered at Companies House (registration 07014570). We are not tied to any one insurer and we do not operate as part of a network with quota arrangements that would skew our recommendations.
As an FCA-regulated broker we act for our clients in the negotiation with the insurance market. We are required to act fairly, with integrity, and with reasonable skill and care, and to explain how we are remunerated. Details are on our Terms of Business page; our complaints procedure is on our Complaints page; our privacy notice explains how we handle personal data.
This guide is general information for UK design professionals. It is not legal advice, regulatory advice or a substitute for reading the policy wording you are offered. Specific advice on your studio’s position should be taken from a regulated broker on the basis of your actual circumstances.
Design note: full-width band, two columns. Left column: contact block reversed out of Apex navy. Right column: About block. FCA / Companies House line as small-caps footer across the full width.
Regulators and bodies
Intellectual Property Office — gov.uk/government/organisations/intellectual-property-office Advertising Standards Authority — asa.org.uk Committee of Advertising Practice — asa.org.uk/codes-and-rulings Information Commissioner’s Office — ico.org.uk Chartered Society of Designers — csd.org.uk Design Business Association — dba.org.uk D&AD — dandad.org
Legislation and guidance
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 — legislation.gov.uk Trade Marks Act 1994 — legislation.gov.uk Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 — legislation.gov.uk General Product Safety Regulations 2005 — legislation.gov.uk Consumer Rights Act 2015 — legislation.gov.uk Consumer Protection Act 1987 — legislation.gov.uk Equality Act 2010 (accessibility) — legislation.gov.uk Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 — legislation.gov.uk
Apex Insurance Brokers related guidance
Professional indemnity insurance for designers — apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk/sectors/ What is Professional Indemnity Insurance — apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk/what-is-professional-indemnity-insurance-uk-guide-2026/ Aggregate vs each-and-every claim limit — apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk/aggregate-vs-each-and-every-claim-limit-explained/ PI insurance glossary — apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk/pi-insurance-glossary/ PI insurance renewal — apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk/pi-insurance-renewal-what-to-check-before-you-sign/
Apex Insurance Brokers Limited. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. FCA firm reference number 724952. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. Registered office c/o Westcan, 5 Anglo Office Park, Bristol BS15 1NT. Trading address QCS, 53 Queen Charlotte Street, Bristol BS1 4HQ.
Version 1.0 — May 2026. This guide is for general information only and is not legal or regulatory advice. Take specific advice on your studio’s position.
Apex Insurance Brokers serves UK professional services firms and commercial businesses. Call 0117 325 0027, email hello@apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk, or request a quotation.
Get a quote