Business
Where the blockbuster weight loss drug market stands today — and what’s coming next
A combination image shows an injection pen of Zepbound, Eli Lilly’s weight loss drug, and boxes of Wegovy, made by Novo Nordisk.
Hollie Adams | Reuters
The appetite for blockbuster weight loss and diabetes drugs is far from satisfied.
From fresh competition to new uses, the market is quickly vaulting into a new stage of growth. But factors including insurance coverage, pricing, copycat drugs and the development of new pills will ultimately determine how far the treatments will reach.
Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk are still the dominant players, as demand for their weekly injections shows few signs of slowing. Eli Lilly has pulled ahead in the market, saying during its third-quarter earnings call on Thursday that it gained share for the fifth consecutive quarter and that its drugs account for nearly 6 out of 10 prescriptions within the injectable obesity and diabetes class.
But both firms are focused on ramping up supply, testing new uses for their medicines and bringing the next wave of obesity drugs to patients, including more convenient pills.
Behind them is a slate of drugmakers – from biotech upstarts to pharma giants – racing to win a slice of what some analysts expect could be a roughly $100 billion market by the end of the decade. There may be plenty of room for new entrants: McKinsey projects that 25 million to 50 million U.S. patients could use GLP-1s by 2030.
Nearly every major pharmaceutical company has bet on obesity drugs, often through deals with smaller developers, including businesses based in China. While some experimental drugs are further along than others, all are likely years away from hitting the market, and their competitive potential will depend on future data showing their effectiveness and how well patients tolerate them.
As competition heats up, many patients are still struggling to access the drugs. Some insurers, including Medicare, don’t cover GLP-1s for obesity, which can cost roughly $1,000 per month before rebates.
Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk have rolled out discount programs for cash-paying patients to close the gap, and more employers are offering coverage as GLP-1s prove their added health benefits like treating obstructive sleep apnea and chronic kidney disease as well as slashing cardiovascular risks.
Still, some patients continue to use cheaper, copycat versions of branded treatments – even though those alternatives are restricted in many cases. While Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly’s drugs are no longer in shortage, both companies are cracking down on pharmacies, medspas and other suppliers that mass-produce and market cheaper compounded GLP-1s.
While new competitors and lower-cost pills could allow drugs to reach more patients, access will largely depend on how companies like Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly choose to price their drugs in the years ahead.
Here’s what to know about the state of the booming weight loss drug market.
Novo Nordisk scrambles to catch up to Lilly
David Ricks, chief executive officer of Eli Lilly & Co., during a news conference at Generation Park in Houston, Texas, US, on Tuesday, Sept. 23, 2025.
Mark Felix | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Eli Lilly has taken the lead in the injectable GLP-1 market. Once the frontrunner, Novo Nordisk lost ground, particularly in the U.S., after supply chain issues, Eli Lilly’s emergence and the spread of compounded options.
Eli Lilly eclipsed its Danish rival for the first time in May, when it secured 53% of the market during the first quarter. In August, Eli Lilly said its share rose to 57% during the second quarter.
TD Cowen analyst Michael Nedelcovych said that’s largely because Eli Lilly’s injections are superior to Novo Nordisk’s drugs in terms of safety and efficacy. Eli Lilly’s diabetes drug Mounjaro is viewed as a better treatment than Novo Nordisk’s Ozempic, he noted. Real-world data and a head-to-head clinical trial have shown that Eli Lilly’s obesity injection Zepbound leads to more weight loss than Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy.
“It’s better efficacy, and at least anecdotally in real-world practices, it’s better tolerability,” Nedelcovych said. “In our business, that’s usually all that’s required for share gains, and I think we’re seeing that play out very quickly.”
Investors have unloaded Novo Nordisk’s stock, which has fallen almost 40% this year. Novo Nordisk cut its profit and sales forecast in July, saying compounded drugs had cut into Wegovy’s market. The company had already lowered its 2025 outlook in May.
As competition mounts, data on Novo Nordisk’s experimental medicines also underwhelmed Wall Street and raised concerns about the growth of its drug portfolio beyond Wegovy and Ozempic.
In a note in September, BMO Capital Markets analyst Evan Seigerman said the company raised expectations too high for its next-generation obesity drug CagriSema, was slow to launch direct-to-consumer sales of its popular drugs and had a “tepid initial response” to compounders selling copycat treatments.
What’s more, Medicare is negotiating the price of Novo Nordisk’s semaglutide – the active ingredient in Ozempic, Wegovy and the company’s diabetes pill Rybelsus – effective in 2027, which could further cut into revenue. Eli Lilly’s tirzepatide, the active ingredient in Mounjaro and Zepbound, likely won’t be subject to price discussions until the end of the decade.
Novo Nordisk is betting its new CEO, Mike Doustdar, will help it regain its footing. He took the helm in late July after the board ousted former top executive Lars Fruergaard Jorgensen.
Doustdar isn’t wasting any time to make changes: Novo Nordisk in September announced plans to cut around 9,000 roles, or roughly 11.5% of its global workforce.
There is still turbulence at the pharmaceutical giant. On Tuesday, Novo Nordisk said several board members will step down after clashing with the controlling shareholder, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, on the makeup of the board.
The compounding issue
Novo Nordisk still faces another major challenge: the persistence of cheaper, compounded versions of semaglutide.
The company for now “is definitely much more vulnerable” to competition from copycats than Eli Lilly is, largely because most of them contain or claim to be semaglutide, said Cowen’s Nedelcovych. He added that Novo Nordisk is “already on its back foot” in the market, so it can’t afford to lose more share.
Patients flocked to compounded GLP-1s when branded injections were in short supply over the last two years, or not covered by their insurance.
Compounding is a practice where pharmacies mix ingredients of a drug to create a specialized version tailored to a patient’s specific needs, such as those with allergies to certain ingredients. When a branded drug is in short supply, pharmacies are allowed to make larger quantities of compounded versions to help fill the gap.
A view shows a Novo Nordisk sign outside its office in Bagsvaerd, on the outskirts of Copenhagen, Denmark, on July 14, 2025.
Tom Little | Reuters
But Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly have both invested billions to increase manufacturing capacity for their injections, which has already started to pay off.
The FDA declared an end to the shortages of tirzepatide and semaglutide over the last year. Those decisions legally barred compounding pharmacies from making and selling copycats of those drugs by deadlines that passed earlier this year, except in rare cases where it’s medically necessary.
Novo Nordisk in June said some mass, so-called 503B compounding pharmacies have scaled back production, but accused others — including those tied to Hims & Hers — of continuing to sell the drugs under the “false guise” of personalization. In August, Novo Nordisk executives noted that around 1 million U.S. patients are taking compounded GLP-1s.
The issue also plagues Eli Lilly. While the FDA regulates 503B pharmacies, most 503A sites fall under state oversight. Nedelcovych likened shutting them down to “a case of whack-a-mole.” Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk’s lawsuits against telehealth companies, pharmacies and others since 2023 have consumed time and resources, with mixed legal outcomes.
The FDA also doesn’t appear to be taking an aggressive stance on compounded GLP-1s: The agency in September published a “green list” of imported GLP-1 drug ingredients deemed safe to let into the country.
Insurance coverage is still spotty
Limited insurance coverage for GLP-1s is blocking out patients who can’t afford their roughly $1,000 monthly price tags. That access gap has become a political and corporate flashpoint, with pressure mounting on employers and the government to expand coverage.
Many health plans, including Medicare, cover GLP-1s for the treatment of diabetes but not obesity. Medicaid coverage of obesity drugs is sparse and varies by state, according to health policy research organization KFF.
Coverage for GLP-1s for obesity has ticked up slightly: A May survey of more than 300 companies by the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans, or IFEBP, found that 36% provided coverage for GLP-1s for both weight loss and diabetes, up from 34% in 2024.
Still, many employers and health plans remain hesitant due to high costs. In 2025, weight-loss GLP-1s accounted for an average of 10.5% of total annual claims among employers, up from 8.9% in 2024 and 6.9% in 2023, IFEBP found.
“If employers weren’t already on board before, they’re still waiting,” said Julie Stich, vice president of content at IFEBP. “The cost issue is still a major, major issue for them.”
Some plans are concerned that patients won’t stay on the drugs long term due to gastrointestinal side effects, such as nausea and vomiting, and could regain the weight they lost, said John Crable, senior vice president of Corporate Synergies, a national insurance and employee benefits brokerage and consultancy. Employers, which can experience high turnover, are also hesitant to cover costly drugs for workers who may leave the company within a few years, Crable added.
Crable added that new direct-to-consumer programs from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk — which let patients pay cash for treatments at less than half their monthly list price — may also discourage employer coverage.
Stitch said employers also have questions about how oral obesity drugs, which could be available as soon as 2025, could affect demand and costs.
But she said coverage could still grow, especially as GLP-1s gain new approvals for more chronic conditions. Wegovy is cleared for reducing cardiovascular risk and fatty liver disease, while Zepbound is approved for sleep apnea.
Novo Nordisk is also testing semaglutide in Alzheimer’s, with initial late-stage trial results expected this year. If that study shows that GLP-1s reduce the risk of cognitive decline, “it would give a big boost” to Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly because it could encourage patients to stay on them longer, said Leerink Partners analyst David Risinger.
“You’re paying for the GLP-1 drug with the hope that obesity or these other conditions will improve, so that health-care costs for these individual employees will get better as you move forward,” Stich said.
Some plans have also introduced cost controls, like BMI thresholds, to manage spending.
Stich added that broader Medicare coverage could eventually drive private insurers to follow suit. The Trump administration plans to pilot coverage of weight loss drugs under Medicare and Medicaid, which could expand access to millions of older Americans, the Washington Post reported in August.
All eyes are on pills
Malerapaso | Istock | Getty Images
While Novo Nordisk already sells an oral GLP-1 for diabetes, the company and Eli Lilly could soon bring pills specifically for weight loss to patients.
Some experts and analysts believe they could fundamentally shift the market, helping more patients access treatment and alleviating the supply shortfalls of existing injections. But others raise questions about how much of a role pills will play in the space given that some appear to be less effective than injections and bring greater side effects.
Novo Nordisk’s 25-milligram oral semaglutide could win approval for obesity by the end of the year, which would make it the first needle-free alternative for weight loss on the market. The daily pill appears to be slightly more effective than a competing oral GLP-1 from Eli Lilly called orforglipron, based on data from separate phase three trials.
Still, Eli Lilly’s pill could have a few notable advantages. Both drugs work by mimicking the GLP-1 gut hormone to suppress appetite and regulate blood sugar. But while Novo Nordisk’s pill is a peptide medication, orforglipron is a small-molecule drug.
That means Eli Lilly’s treatment is absorbed more easily in the body and doesn’t require dietary restrictions like Novo Nordisk’s does. Some analysts say orforglipron will also be easier to manufacture at scale than Novo Nordisk’s, which is crucial as demand for obesity and diabetes injections outpaces supply. In August, Eli Lilly CEO David Ricks told CNBC the company hopes to launch its pill globally “this time next year.”
In an August note, Goldman Sachs analysts forecast daily oral pills will capture 24% share — or around $22 billion — of the 2030 global weight loss drug market, which they expect to be worth $95 billion.
The Goldman analysts said they expect Eli Lilly’s pill to have a 60% share — or roughly $13.6 billion — of the market for daily oral treatments in 2030. They expect Novo Nordisk’s oral semaglutide to have a 21% share — or around $4 billion — of that segment. The remaining 19% slice will go to other emerging pills, the analysts said.
TD Cowen’s Nedelcovych said he has been “treading kind of cautiously” in his outlook for oral weight loss drugs. He said that’s in part because physician consultants and other experts believe injections, which are more effective and easier to tolerate than pills, will dominate the market for the foreseeable future.
Nedelcovych said the convenience of a once-daily pill may not be enough to convince patients to switch, since some of them “really don’t mind” taking an injection once a week. Nedelcovych added that tapering off injections and switching to pills as a maintenance regimen “also doesn’t seem to make a ton of sense, when we ask physicians about it.”
He said if pills are less effective at promoting weight loss, it raises concerns that patients who initially lose significant weight on an injection could gain some back after switching to an oral drug. A phase three study from Eli Lilly, which is studying orforglipron’s ability to maintain weight loss, will bring more clarity on that issue.
Companies have said that pills could reach patients who don’t take injections because they are afraid of needles. But Nedelcovych said the “fate of oral weight loss therapies could really revolve” around another category of people: patients who could benefit from weight loss treatments but don’t take injections because they believe they are meant for those with serious diseases.
“They’re really just invisible to the marketplace right now,” he said. “But they could have different views about an oral therapy, which could be considered more like a vitamin so they would be more amenable to taking that.”
The question top of mind for health experts is how companies will price the pills.
“If it wasn’t for the fact that they can be made more cheaply, I wouldn’t care” about pills, said Dr. Caroline Apovian, co-director of the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
The direct-to-consumer platforms from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk offer Zepbound and Wegovy for roughly $500 a month. She said less effective pills with more side effects will have to be priced lower than that if companies want health-care providers to prescribe them first over injections.
Competition is creeping up
It’s still unclear who will be the next viable player to enter the weight loss drug space. Many experimental drugs from other companies may not reach patients until the end of the decade.
Still, some drugmakers have made strides over the last year and a half, inking deals with obesity biotechs or releasing promising data on experimental treatments. Several companies are trying to drive innovation with new drugs that promote weight loss differently, are taken less frequently or preserve muscle mass, among other changes.
Some investors are eager to see a drug that promotes even more weight loss than Wegovy and Zepbound, which has hit those companies’ stocks when their treatments don’t meet lofty expectations in clinical trials. But some health experts say many patients don’t need to lose more than 20% of their weight.
“I am not even looking for greater weight loss anymore. What is wrong with 16% and 22% weight loss? Nothing, right?” said Apovian, referring to the levels of weight loss seen with some existing and experimental drugs.
Apovian said she is looking for treatments that target new gut hormones, which could address patients who may not lose weight on GLP-1s. She pointed to drugs targeting amylin analogs – an emerging form of weight loss treatment that mimics a hormone co-secreted with insulin in the pancreas to suppress appetite and reduce food intake.
Several drugmakers, including Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly, are betting on amylin analogs as part of the next wave of obesity treatments
Other experts have said that an ideal competitor would promote weight loss while being easier to tolerate than existing injections. That’s because many people discontinue those injections – and may not experience the full health benefits – due to gastrointestinal side effects such as nausea and vomiting.
Without late-stage trial data on any of the new competitors, it’s too early to say who will be able to address that issue.
The Amgen logo is displayed outside Amgen headquarters on May 17, 2023 in Thousand Oaks, California.
Mario Tama | Getty Images
Some drugs are much closer to answering that question than others.
For example, Amgen in March said it has started two critical late-stage trials for its experimental weight loss injection MariTide, which is designed to be taken monthly or even less frequently and promotes weight loss differently from competitors.
In a mid-stage study, patients with obesity taking MariTide lost up to 16.2% of their weight in one year when analyzing all participants regardless of discontinuations, or up to 19.9% when only analyzing those who stayed on the treatment. But patients experienced a high rate of side effects and discontinuations in the trial.
Those results support the company’s decision to use a slower dosing schedule over eight weeks to make the drug more tolerable in phase three studies.
Some pharmaceutical companies have turned to China for their obesity bets. For example, Merck in December snagged the rights to an early-stage experimental GLP-1 pill from Chinese drugmaker Hansoh Pharma, in a deal worth up to $2 billion.
That acquisition and other smaller players raised questions about the fate of public U.S.-based obesity biotechs such as Viking Therapeutics, which were once seen as hot takeover targets. Some analysts argue that their experimental drugs, most of which are still in mid-stage development, have not differentiated themselves enough from existing treatments.
“Unless and until these molecules show that they truly are differentiated in phase three, I don’t think there’s really a reason for given pharma to lay out a large transaction to gain access to it,” said TD Cowen’s Nedelcovych.
He said the “clearest path forward” for U.S.-based obesity biotechs is likely inking partnerships with larger firms to develop and commercialize their drugs.
But Nedelcovych noted that “there really aren’t too many large pharmas who aren’t already spoken for at this point.”
Business
Mehli Mistry files caveat on removal from Tata Trusts; cites past resolution to contest ouster – The Times of India
MUMBAI: Mehli Mistry, whose reappointment on Tata Trusts boards was denied by a majority decision last week, filed a caveat before the charity commissioner in Mumbai Saturday requesting an opportunity to be heard before any decision on a change is sanctioned.Mistry, executor of Ratan Tata‘s will, has also sent the caveat notice to all trustees of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, Sir Ratan Tata Trust, and Bai Hirabai Jamsetji Navsari Charitable Institution, including chairman Noel Tata, whose wife Aloo is his first cousin.Rules require the Trusts to file a report with the charity commissioner on the changes within 90 days. Once the charity commissioner accepts the new board composition, only then can the Trusts make changes in the signatories of their bank accounts, official correspondence, etc. Charity commissioner is the first judicial forum where grievances related to public charities are taken up.A caveat is filed to protect the petitioner’s interest to ensure that he is notified of the proceedings and has an opportunity to participate in the hearings before any order by the charity commissioner is passed in the particular matter, said senior Supreme Court advocate HP Ranina. In other words, a caveat is a notice not to sanction a change in the board of trustees without Mistry’s submissions. Tata Trusts will also present their arguments before the charity commissioner.

At Tata Trusts, reappointment of a trustee requires unanimous consent of all trustees. Mistry, who was inducted into the boards of Tata Trusts by Ratan Tata in Oct 2022 for three years, had a tenure which expired on October 28, 2025. On October 23, the Trusts circulated a circular seeking trustees’ consent on his reappointment as a permanent trustee. Noel and Trusts’ vice chairmen Venu Srinivasan and Vijay Singh denied Mistry’s continuation, while three other trustees, Pramit Jhaveri, Darius Khambata and Jehangir Jehangir, favoured his reappointment. Ratan Tata’s brother Jimmy Tata abstained from participation. Since there was no unanimity, Mistry’s trusteeship was not renewed.Ranina told TOI that Mistry’s defence before the charity commissioner will be the unanimous October 17, 2024 resolution passed by the trustees that they all will be reappointed as permanent trustees as and when their existing tenures expire. Ranina said any resolution passed by the Trusts is binding on the public charities according to the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and the Trusts’ deeds. If Trusts want to revoke the October 17 resolution, then they will have to call a meeting and all the trustees will have to unanimously rescind it, Ranina added.However, a trustee who didn’t support Mistry’s reappointment, had said that the October 17 resolution cannot be interpreted as a procedural formality, which undermines the trustees’ fiduciary duties and runs contrary to the law. Senior advocate Devdatt Kamat said Mistry would need to show how due process in conducting the vote rejecting his reappointment was impaired or if there was a mala fide action or if the trust deed was breached since much would also depend on the deed.Senior counsel Shekhar Naphade said the “jurisdiction of the charity commissioner is very limited and confined only to the genuineness and it is not for the charity commissioner to decide the wisdom or its propriety, but if it leads to a deadlock or issues of any alleged mal-administration, the charity commissioner can step in. Otherwise the Trust is entitled to manage its own affairs in terms of its trust deed.If a trusteeship is not renewed, it constitutes a change in composition of the board of trustees which requires under Sec 22 to be formally and mandatorily reported to the charity commissioner via a change report within 90 days of the change that occurred.”The law also provides for provisional acceptance by the deputy or assistant charity commissioner of the change report within 15 working days of it being filed and for a notice to be issued inviting objections to such change within 30 days from the notice date. The Maharashtra Public Trusts Act provides that if no objections are received the change becomes final, but if objections are made, the deputy charity commissioner “may” hold an inquiry and give a finding in three months.Bombay high court in an Oct 2025 judgment held that in a dispute over management of affairs of a trust, an inquiry would determine the lawful appointment or removal of a trustee and a member removed from the trust could legitimately intervene.
Business
Will AI mean the end of call centres?
Jane WakefieldTechnology reporter
Getty ImagesAsk ChatGPT whether AI will replace humans in the customer service industry, and it will offer a diplomatic answer, the summary of which is “they will work side by side”.
Humans though, are not so optimistic.
Last year, the chief executive of Indian technology firm Tata Consultancy Services, K Krithivasan, told the Financial Times that AI may soon mean that there is “minimal need” for call centres in Asia.
Meanwhile, AI will autonomously resolve 80% of common customer service issues by 2029, predicts business and technology research firm Gartner.
There is currently a lot of hype around “AI agents”. That is the term given to AI systems that can operate more autonomously and make decisions.
They could turbo-charge current non-AI chatbots, known as “rule-based chatbots”, which can only answer a set list of questions.
My own recent experience with parcel delivery firm Evri’s chatbot illustrates the existing, non-AI state of play.
My parcel had not arrived, and Ezra (the name of the chatbot), offered to “get this resolved straight away”.
It asked for a tracking reference, and after I had typed that in, it told me that my parcel had been delivered.
I could request proof of delivery, and when I did so it showed me a photo of the package… at the wrong front door. And there was no option to advance the conversation after this “evidence” was shown.
In response, Evri tells the BBC it is investing £57m to further improve the service.
“Our intelligent chat facility uses tracking data to suggest the most helpful responses and ensure the customer’s parcel is delivered as soon as possible, if this has not happened as scheduled,” it says.
“Our data confirms the vast majority of people get the answers they need from our chat facility, first time, within seconds. We’re always reviewing feedback to ensure our services are as helpful as possible, and we continue to make enhancements on a rolling basis.”
On the flipside, rival parcel delivery firm DPD had to disable its less rule-bound AI chatbot after it criticised the company and swore at users.
Getty ImagesGetting the balance right between being on brand and genuinely helping customers is a tricky one for businesses to grapple with as they migrate to AI.
Some 85% of customer service leaders are exploring, piloting or deploying AI chatbots, according to Gartner. But it also found that only 20% of such projects are fully meeting expectations.
“You can have a much more natural conversation with AI,” says Garner analyst Emily Potosky.
“But the downside is the chatbot could hallucinate, it could give you out-of-date information, or tell you completely the wrong thing. For parcel delivery I would say rules-based agents are great because there are only so many permutations of questions about someone’s package.”
Resources and money are among the key reasons businesses may be considering the move from human to AI customer service. But Ms Potosky points out that it isn’t a given that AI will be cheaper than human agents.
“This is a very expensive technology,” she says.
The first thing that any business wanting to replace humans with AI will have to do is ensure that they have extensive training data.
“There’s this idea that knowledge management becomes less important because generative AI can solve the fact that their knowledge is not particularly well organised, but actually the opposite is the case,” adds Ms Potosky.
“Knowledge management is more important when deploying generative AI.”
Joe Inzerillo, chief digital officer at software giant Salesforce, tells the BBC that call centres provide fertile training grounds for AIs, particularly ones that have been moved to low-cost areas such as the Philippines and India.
This is because a lot of staff training will have been done, which the AI can also learn from.
“You have a huge amount of documentation, and that’s all really great stuff for the AI to have when it is going to take over that first line of defence,” he says.
Salesforce’s AI-powered customer service platform, AgentForce, is currently being used by a range of customers from Formula 1, to insurance firm Prudential, restaurant-booking website Open Table, and social media site Reddit.
Mr Inzerillo says that when Salesforce first put the platform through its paces it learned some valuable lessons about how to make the AI seem more human-like.
“While a human might say ‘sorry to hear that’, the agent just opened a ticket,” says Mr Inzerillo.
So the AI was trained to show more sympathy, especially when a customer has a problem.
Salesforce also found that not allowing the agent to talk about competitors proved problematic.
“This backfired when customers asked legitimate questions about integrating Microsoft Teams with Salesforce,” says Mr Inzerillo. “The agent refused to help because Microsoft appeared on our competitor list.”
The firm subsequently replaced that rigid rule.
Salesforce has ambitious plans for the continuing rollout of its AI agents, and so far it claims that they are a hit with its customers. It also says that the vast majority of customers, 94%, are choosing to interact with AI agents when given the option.
“We’ve seen customer satisfaction rates that are in excess of what people get with humans – then AI can unlock the next level of customer service,” says Mr Inzerillo.
It has also meant that the firm has cut customer service costs by $100m, but he was keen to play down recent headlines that suggest this has led to 4,000 jobs being slashed.
“A very large percentage of those people got redeployed in other areas around customer service.”
Fiona ColemanFiona Coleman runs QStory, a firm which is using AI to offer human call centre workers more flexibility in their shift patterns. Its customers include eBay and NatWest.
While she sees the value in AI improving working conditions, she is not sure the technology can ever replace humans entirely.
“There are times where I don’t want to have a digital engagement, and I want to speak to a human,” she says.
“Let’s see what it looks like in five years’ time – whether an AI can do a mortgage application, or talk about a debt problem. Let’s see whether the AI has got empathetic enough.”
The use of AI in customer service could, in fact, already be facing a backlash.
Legislation currently proposed in the US to move off-shore call centres back to America also requires businesses to disclose the use of AI, and transfer a caller to a human if asked to do so.
Meanwhile, Gartner predicted that by 2028 the EU may mandate what is called ‘the right to talk to a human” as part of its consumer protection rules.
Business
China to ease chip export ban in new trade deal, White House says
China will begin easing an export ban on automotive computer chips vital to production of cars across the world as part of a trade deal struck between the US and China, the White House has said.
The White House confirmed details of the deal in a new fact sheet after Xi Jinping and Donald Trump met in South Korea this week.
The nations also reached agreements on US soybean exports, the supply of rare earth minerals, and the materials used in production of the drug fentanyl.
The deal de-escalates a trade war between the world’s two largest economies after Trump hit China with tariffs after he entered office this year, leading to rounds of retaliatory tariffs and global business uncertainty.
Chinese Embassy in Washington spokesman Liu Pengyu told the BBC in a statement that details of the agreements reached had been shared by “competent authorities”.
“China-US economic and trade relations are mutually beneficial in nature,” he said.
“As President Xi Jinping noted, the business relationship should continue to serve as the anchor and driving force for China-US relations, not a stumbling block or a point of friction.”
Speaking on Sunday following the release of the deal details, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNN: “We don’t want to decouple from China… (But) they’ve shown themselves to be an unreliable partner.”
Much of what is in Saturday’s fact sheet was announced by Trump and other officials following the meeting between the two leaders.
Trump had described the talks, held in South Korea, as “amazing”, while Beijing had said they had reached a consensus to resolve “major trade issues”.
One of the issues addressed in the deal was the export of automotive computer chips. There had been concern that a lack of chips from Nexperia, which has production facilities in China, could create global supply chain issues.
Nexperia is a Chinese-owned company, but is based in the Netherlands. About 70% of Nexperia chips made in Europe are sent to China to be completed and re-exported to other countries.
The fact sheet states that China will “take appropriate measures to ensure the resumption of trade from Nexperia’s facilities in China, allowing production of critical legacy chips to flow to the rest of the world”.
It follows Beijing saying on Saturday that it was considering exempting some firms from the ban.
Last month, the likes of Volvo Cars and Volkswagen warned a chip shortage could lead to temporary shutdowns at their plants, and Jaguar Land Rover said the lack of chips posed a threat to their business.
On other key issues, Beijing will now pause export controls it brought in last month on rare earth minerals – vital in the production of cars, planes and weapons – for a year.
The White House also said it would lower tariffs brought in to curb the import of fentanyl into the US, with China agreeing to take “significant measures” to deal with the issue.
Fentanyl is a synthetic drug manufactured from a combination of chemicals, and while it is approved for medical use in the US, the powerful and highly-addictive substance has since become the main drug responsible for opioid overdose deaths in the US.
The chemicals used in its manufacturing, some of which have legitimate uses, are mostly sourced from China.
On soybeans, China has committed to buying 12 million tonnes of US soybeans in the last two months of 2025, and 25 million metric tonnes in each of the following three years – which is roughly the level they were previously at.
China’s decision to stop purchasing soybeans from the US earlier this year denied American farmers access to their largest export market.
In response, Trump revived a bailout for farmers which was in place during his first term in office.
-
Politics1 week agoTrump slams ‘dirty’ Canada despite withdrawal of Reagan ad
-
Tech1 week agoWhy electricity costs so much in the UK (it’s not all about the weather)
-
Business1 week agoOne in three Manhattan condo owners lost money when they sold in the last year
-
Politics1 week agoStates, world leaders must act to end impunity for crimes against journalists: IPI
-
Tech5 days agoAI chatbots are becoming everyday tools for mundane tasks, use data shows
-
Fashion1 week agoIndia’s exports to US drop, to non-US markets expand in Sep: Crisil
-
Sports1 week agoGiants-Eagles rivalry and the NFL punt that lives in infamy
-
Tech1 week agoThe Pepsi Man Is Coming to Save Samsung From Boring Design

