In December 2025, the US Senate passed the revised Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery (HEAR) Act of 2025, which aims to clarify and expand the legal mechanisms available to Holocaust survivors and their heirs

‍

The news is the latest in a string of updates to international restitution legislation and tools of note. The updated act extended the principles of an original version of the law, which was created in 2016 to create a uniform federal statute of limitations for such claims and give heirs six years from the time they discovered the location of a stolen work, to file a claim in US courts.

‍

With the 2016 act due to expire at the end of 2026 the recent decision was moved along by necessity, but also ensures that time-based or other discretionary non-merit defences are not used. The bill is now awaiting House approval.

‍

A moment for the market

‍

For the art market, the HEAR Act reforms are not a distant academic debate but rather a direct consideration on daily practices in acquisitions, due diligence, collections management, and litigation exposure. 

‍

Given that at least 100,000 works of art seized by Nazis are estimated to still be missing, it is also a genuine reality for institutions facing strategic choices about publishing provenance data, strengthening research departments, and reassessing legacy acquisitions.

‍

And the step is just one in a broader set of developments for the market. Across Europe, governments have been updating frameworks that govern Holocaust-era claims, including Germany’s new court for Nazi-Looted Cultural Property, which began late last year [December 2025]. The alternative dispute mechanism allows claimants to initiate proceedings and issues recommendations which are both legally binding and enforceable (unlike the previous commission, which was advisory).

‍

Plans for an expert group and permanent restitution commission were also proposed in Belgium last year, with a particular focus on Nazi-looted art.

‍

In France, restitution is increasingly on the agenda. The senate adopted a draft bill earlier this year geared towards streamlining restitution of cultural objects taken during the country’s colonial era (which the legislation perceives as between 1815 and 1972) rather than requiring individual votes on each item or case. The proposal continues the country’s direction of travel with the issue, including the 2023 law which allowed public institutions to return Nazi-looted artworks without needing specific parliamentary approval, thus overcoming the longstanding legal barrier of inalienability (which once required a law for each object’s return). There have also been very public restitutions from the government, including its 2021 commitment to the restitution of 26 Benin Bronzes and its return last year [2025] of a ‘talking drum’ to the Ivory Coast.

‍

In the UK, in comparison, a Spoliation Advisory Panel has been running since 2000, but its recommendations are not enforceable. A 2025 change in law has made it easier for museums to restitute items in their collection, under moral grounds, but  excluded 16 museums, including major national institutions the British Museum and Tate.

‍

Perhaps most significant however, is the increased coordination and collaboration between countries, most notably the European Network of Restitution Committees, which was set up in 2019 and brings together representatives from France, Germany, Austria, The Netherlands and the UK. 

What should you be doing?

‍

Art market participants are essentially advised to be proactive in their approach, with general advice including:

‍

• Establish and document provenance, with particular attention to high-risk periods (i.e. 1939-1945). Even if the work of art was acquired decades later, if it was in the relevant region during high-risk periods of time, there may be legal or ethical claims and reputable parties should treat a lack of information as a “red flag,” not a reason to proceed.

‍

• Collect and Record provenance information in a central file or database. Every piece of provenance information, including correspondence with vendors, previous owners, receipts, dealer inventories, exhibition histories, images of labels or stamps on the object, is best stored centrally and preserved permanently.  

‍

• Verify Title and Ownership:  Accepting items without clear chains of title is inconsistent with accepted due diligence best practices.

‍

• Consult authoritative databases: Standard practice is to search international artworks databases and registries before acquisition or exhibition, for example The Art Loss Register, Interpol, or the Central Registry of information on looted cultural property 1933-45. Equally recognise that these records are limited and so adopt a flexible and comprehensive approach in consulting archival records, auction catalogues and exhibition histories, as helpful.

‍

• Collaborate. If needed, engage with the growing field of qualified provenance researchers with experience in specific regions/periods. Active collaboration with other institutions and professionals is key.