Silence Therapeutics plc

Previous report

Commission, or SEC, on February 27, 2025. The risk factors set forth below are risk factors containing changes,

Previous report

which may be material, from the risk factors previously disclosed in Item 1A of our Annual Report on Form 10-K

Previous report

We and the third parties with whom we work are subject to stringent and evolving U.S. and foreign data

Previous report

privacy and security laws, regulations contractual obligations, industry standards, policies, and other obligations,

Previous report

and our (or the third parties with whom we work) actual or perceived failure to comply with such obligations

Previous report

could lead to regulatory investigations or actions; litigation (including class actions); fines and penalties;

Previous report

disruptions of our business operations; reputational harm; loss of revenue or profits; and other adverse business

Previous report

consequences.

Previous report

In the ordinary course of business, we collect, receive, store, process, generate, use, transfer, disclose, make accessible, protect, secure, dispose of, transmit, and share (collectively, process) personal data and other sensitive information, including proprietary and confidential business data, trade secrets, intellectual property, sensitive third-party data, business plans, transactions, clinical trial data and financial information (collectively, sensitive data).

Previous report

Our data processing activities subject us to privacy and data protection obligations, such as various laws, regulations, guidance, industry standards, external and internal privacy and security policies, contractual requirements, and other obligations relating to data privacy and security.

Previous report

Outside the United States, an increasing number of laws, regulations, guidance and industry standards govern data privacy and security. For example, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, or EU GDPR, and the United Kingdom’s GDPR, or U.K. GDPR, or collectively, GDPR, impose strict requirements for processing personal data (including health data). Under GDPR, companies may face temporary or definitive bans on data processing and other corrective actions; fines of up to 20 million Euros under the EU GDPR, 17.5 million pounds sterling under the UK GDPR or, in each case, 4% of annual global revenue, whichever is greater; or private litigation related to processing of personal data brought by classes of data subjects or consumer protection organizations authorized at law to represent their interests.

Previous report

In the ordinary course of business, we transfer personal data from Europe and other jurisdictions to the United States or other countries. Europe and other jurisdictions have enacted laws requiring data to be localized or limiting the transfer of personal data to other countries. In particular, the European Economic Area, or EEA, and the United Kingdom have significantly restricted the transfer of personal data to third countries, including the United States, whose privacy laws it generally believes are inadequate. Other jurisdictions may adopt similarly stringent interpretations of their data localization and cross-border data transfer laws. Although there are currently various mechanisms that may be used to transfer personal data from the EEA and UK to the United States in compliance with law (e.g., the EEA Standard Contractual Clauses, the United Kingdom’s International Data Transfer Agreement / Addendum, and the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and the United Kingdom’s extension thereto (which allows for transfers to relevant U.S.-based organizations who self-certify compliance and participate in the Framework)), these mechanisms are subject to legal challenges, and there is no assurance that we can satisfy or rely on these measures to lawfully transfer personal data to the United States. If there is no lawful manner for us to transfer personal data from the EEA, the UK or other jurisdictions to the United States, or if the requirements for a legally-compliant transfer are too onerous, we could face significant adverse consequences, including the interruption or degradation of our operations, the need to relocate part of or all of our business or data processing activities to other jurisdictions (such as Europe) at significant expense, increased exposure to regulatory actions, substantial fines and penalties, the inability to transfer data and work with partners, vendors and other third parties, and injunctions against our processing or transferring of personal data necessary to operate our business. Additionally, companies that transfer personal data out of the EEA and UK to other jurisdictions, particularly to the United States, are subject to increased scrutiny from regulators, individual litigants, and activist groups. Some European regulators have ordered certain companies to suspend or permanently cease certain transfers out of Europe for allegedly violating the GDPR’s cross-border data transfer limitations.

Previous report

Additionally, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a rule entitled the Preventing Access to U.S. Sensitive Personal Data and Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern or Covered Persons, which places additional restriction on certain data transactions involving countries of concern (e.g., China, Russia, Iran) and covered persons (i.e., individuals and entities who are designated as such by the U.S. Attorney General or considered “foreign persons” and are majority owned by, organized under the laws of, a primary resident in, or a contractor of, a covered person or country of concern, as applicable) that may impact certain business activities such as vendor engagements, sale or sharing of data, employment of certain individuals, and investor agreements. Violations of the rule could lead to significant civil and criminal fines and penalties. The rule applies regardless of whether data is anonymized, key-coded, pseudonymized, de-identified or encrypted, which presents particular challenges for companies like ours and may impact our ability to engage in transactions or agreements with certain third parties in the future.

Previous report

In the United States, federal, state, and local governments have enacted numerous data privacy and security laws, including data breach notification laws, personal data privacy laws, consumer protection laws (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act), and other similar laws (e.g., wiretapping laws). For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, or CCPA, requires covered companies to provide disclosures to California residents, including consumers, business representatives, and employees, and requires businesses to provide specific disclosures in privacy notices and honor requests of California residents to exercise certain privacy rights. The CCPA provides for statutory fines and allows private litigants affected by certain data breaches to recover significant statutory damages. Although there are limited exemptions for clinical trial data under the CCPA, the CCPA may impact (possibly significantly) our business activities, should we become subject to the CCPA in the future. Numerous other U.S. states have also enacted comprehensive privacy laws, and similar laws are being considered in several other states, as well as at the federal and local levels. While many of these state laws, like the CCPA, exempt some data processed in the context of clinical trials, these developments further complicate compliance efforts, and increase legal risk and compliance costs for us and the third parties with whom we work. Failure to comply with federal and state laws in the United States regarding privacy and security of personal data could further expose us to penalties under privacy and data protection laws. Even if we are not determined to have violated these laws, government investigations into these issues typically require the expenditure of significant resources and generate negative publicity, which could harm our business.

Previous report

In addition, on occasion our employees and personnel use generative AI technologies to perform their work, and the disclosure and use of personal data in generative AI technologies is subject to various privacy laws and other privacy obligations. Governments have passed and are likely to pass additional laws regulating generative AI. Our use of this technology could result in additional compliance costs, regulatory investigations and actions, and lawsuits. If we are unable to use generative AI, it could make our business less efficient and result in competitive disadvantages.

Previous report

We are bound by contractual obligations related to data privacy and security, and our efforts to comply with such obligations may not be successful. We also publish policies, marketing materials, and other statements concerning data privacy and security. Regulators are increasingly scrutinizing these statements, and if these policies, materials or statements are found to be deficient, lacking in transparency, deceptive, unfair, misleading, or misrepresentative of our practices, we may be subject to investigation, enforcement actions by regulators, or other adverse consequences.

Previous report

Obligations related to data privacy and security (and individuals’ data privacy expectations) are quickly changing, becoming increasingly stringent, and creating uncertainty. Additionally, these obligations may be subject to differing applications and interpretations, which may be inconsistent or conflict among jurisdictions. Preparing for and complying with these obligations requires us to devote significant resources, which may necessitate changes to our services, information technologies, systems, and practices and to those of any third parties that process personal data on our behalf.

Previous report

We may at times fail (or be perceived to have failed) in our efforts to comply with our data privacy and security obligations. Moreover, despite our efforts, our personnel or third parties with whom we work may fail to comply with such obligations, which could negatively impact our business operations and compliance posture. For example, any failure by a third party with whom we work to comply with applicable law, regulations, or contractual obligations could result in adverse effects, including inability to or interruption in our ability to operate our business and proceedings against us by governmental entities or others. If we or the third parties with whom we work fail, or are perceived to have failed, to address or comply with applicable data privacy and security obligations, we could face significant consequences, including but not limited to: government enforcement actions (e.g., investigations, fines, penalties, audits, inspections, and similar); litigation (including class-action claims); additional reporting requirements and/or oversight; bans or restrictions on processing personal data (including clinical trial data); orders to destroy or not use personal data; and imprisonment of company officials.

Previous report

Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, or financial condition, including but not limited to: loss of customers; interruptions or stoppages in our business operations (including, as relevant, clinical trials); inability to process personal data or to operate in certain jurisdictions; limited ability to develop or commercialize our products; expenditure of time and resources to defend any claim or inquiry; adverse publicity; or revision or restructuring of our operations.

Previous report

Healthcare legislative and other regulatory reform measures may have a negative impact on our business and results of operations.

Previous report

In the United States, there have been, and continue to be, legislative and regulatory developments regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Additionally, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny in the United States of pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, require direct price negotiations for certain high-expenditure, single-source prescription drugs and biologics covered by the Medicare program, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. For example, on July 4, 2025, the annual reconciliation bill, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” or OBBBA, was signed into law which is expected to reduce Medicaid spending and enrollment by implementing work requirements for some beneficiaries, capping state-directed payments, reducing federal funding, and limiting provider taxes used to fund the program. OBBBA also narrows access to Affordable Care Act, or ACA, marketplace exchange enrollment and declines to extend the ACA enhanced advanced premium tax credits, set to expire at the end of 2025, which, among other provisions in the law, are anticipated to reduce the number of Americans with health insurance. In addition, there have been actions and proposals from the Trump administration that include: reducing agency workforce and cutting programs; directing HHS and other agencies to lower prescription drug costs through a variety of initiatives, including by improving upon the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and establishing Most-Favored-Nation pricing for pharmaceutical products; imposing tariffs on imported pharmaceutical products; directing certain federal agencies to enforce existing law regarding hospital and plan price transparency and by standardizing prices across hospitals and health plans; and as part of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission’s recent Strategy Report, working across government agencies to increase enforcement on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising. In addition, on September 30, 2025, the current administration announced the first agreement with a major pharmaceutical company that requires the drug manufacturer to offer, through a direct-to-consumer platform, U.S. patients and Medicaid programs prescription drug Most-Favored Nation pricing equal to or lower than those paid in other developed nations, with additional mandates for direct-to-patient discounts and repatriation of foreign revenues. While many of these proposed measure…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous report

In addition, the policies of the FDA, the competent authorities of the EU Member States, the EMA, the European Commission and other comparable regulatory authorities responsible for clinical trials may change and additional government regulations may be enacted. Clarification on whether UK-US and US-EU trade agreements include tariffs on pharmaceuticals is uncertain due to the ongoing section 232 investigation into the sector. Several companies are exploring ways to reduce the impact of tariffs by relocating manufacturing facilities or restructuring supply chains. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation, or CTR, which became applicable on January 31, 2022 has led to added barriers for clinical trials, including regulatory complexity and an increasing administrative burden. The European Commission launched a strategy for European life Sciences on July 4, 2025 to ensure the EU remains an attractive place for life sciences, including for conduct of clinical trials, but there is concern from industry regarding the speed at which the recommendations made in the report can be implemented.

Previous report

The UK regulatory framework in relation to clinical trials is derived from existing EU legislation (as implemented into UK law, through secondary legislation). On January 17, 2022, the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, launched an eight-week consultation on reframing the UK legislation for clinical trials. The UK Government published its response to the consultation on March 21, 2023, confirming that it would bring forward changes to the legislation, and such changes were laid in parliament on December 12, 2024 and signed into law on April 11, 2025. The changes include risk-proportionate regulation of clinical trials, with low-risk trials able to receive faster approval through automatic authorisation, a streamlined approval process that integrates both regulatory and ethics committee approvals, leading to a single UK decision for clinical trials, and new legal obligations mandating the registration of clinical trials in public registries and the publication of trial results within 12 months of trial conclusion.

Previous report

Moreover, in order to obtain reimbursement for our products in some European countries, including some EU Member States, we may be required to compile additional data comparing the cost-effectiveness of our products to other available therapies. This Health Technology Assessment, or HTA, of medicinal products is becoming an increasingly common part of the pricing and reimbursement procedures in some EU Member States, including those representing the larger markets. The HTA process is the procedure to assess therapeutic, economic and societal impact of a given medicinal product in the national healthcare systems of the individual country. The outcome of an HTA will often influence the pricing and reimbursement status granted to these medicinal products by the competent authorities of individual EU Member States. The extent to which pricing and reimbursement decisions are influenced by the HTA of the specific medicinal product currently varies between EU Member States. The HTA Regulation has applied from January 12, 2025, although it will enter into force iteratively and initially apply to new active substances to treat cancer and to all advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), it will then be expanded to orphan medicinal products in January 2028, and to all centrally authorized medicinal products as of 2030. Selected high-risk medical devices will also be assessed under the HTA Regulation as of 2026. The HTA Regulation is intended to harmonize the clinical benefit assessment of HTA across the EU and permits EU Member States to use common HTA tools, methodologies, and procedures across the EU, working together in four main areas, including joint clinical assessment of the innovative health technologies with the most potential impact for patients, joint scientific consultations whereby developers can seek advice from HTA authorities, identification of emerging health technologies to identify promising technologies early, and continuing voluntary cooperation in other areas. However, there is concern that there are insufficient slots available for joint scientific advice during development. If advice is unavailable during development, there is a higher risk of data gaps and therefore delays in access for patients. Individual EU Member States will continue to be responsible for assessing non-clinical (e.g., economic, social, ethical) aspects of health technologies, and making decisions on pricing and reimbursement. If we are unable to maintain favorable pricing and reimbursement status in EU Member States for product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval, any anticipated revenue from and growth prospects for those products in the EU could be negatively affected. In light of the fact that the United Kingdom has left the EU, Regulation No 2021/2282 on HTA does not apply in the United Kingdom. However, MHRA is working with UK HTA bodies and other national organizations, such as the Scottish Medicin…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous report

In addition, on April 26, 2023, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a new Directive and Regulation to revise the existing pharmaceutical legislation. On April 10, 2024, the Parliament adopted its related position and on June 4, 2025 the European Council agreed on its position. The Council, the Parliament and the European Commission have begun trilogue negotiations with a view to reaching an agreement on the package. A decrease in data and market exclusivity opportunities for our product candidates in the EU could make them open to generic or biosimilar competition earlier than is currently the case with a related reduction in reimbursement status.