The UK's Daily Telegraph carried this article explaining why a court ruling will mean that men will get smaller annuities going forward.
Leaving aside the legal and social issues, the implication is very simple: if you are a man, then when you buy an annuity which falls under the new rules, you are effectively subsidising the women who buy annuities. This is because men (on average) will die at younger ages than women (on average) and annuities are priced based on the average life expectancy of the people in the relevant demographic. In effect, male purchasers who buy annuities will be paying for something that they will not be getting.
Since buying an annuity was always a somewhat marginal decision effectively involving accepting lower investment returns as the price for longevity insurance, the additional cost may well be enough to tip the balance against purchasing annuity. If I ever get to the point where I would consider an annuity, I will be asking some very pointed questions about the basis on which the quotes given to me are made.
Put simply, annuities just became even less attractive.
Since a lot of other goods and services effectively involve averaging risk across different groups of people (e.g. health insurance), I don't actually have an issue with the court decision itself - it's only the implications for myself as an investor that I am concerned with.