Privacy

On March 6, 2026, the Administration released “President Trump’s Cyber Strategy for America” alongside an Executive Order (entitled “Combating Cybercrime, Fraud, and Predatory Schemes Against American Citizens”) and accompanying Fact Sheet.  The framework set forth in the Strategy document is significantly shorter and higher-level than the prior National Cybersecurity Strategy issued in March 2023.  We have summarized below the highlights of the Strategy document (Part I) and the Executive Order (Part II), along with key takeaways from each and areas to watch going forward. Continue Reading White House Releases New National Cyber Strategy and Executive Order

On February 19, 2026, the UK Court of Appeal handed down its decision in DSG Retail Limited v The Information Commissioner [2026] EWCA Civ 140. The Court ruled that a controller’s data security duty applies to all personal data for which it acts as controller – irrespective of whether the information would constitute personal data in the hands of a third party (in this case, an attacker). Note that the case is concerned with events before the GDPR came into force, so the legal context is provided by UK Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA 1998”), although the Court did take into account more recent jurisprudence, including CJEU case law.

The case adds useful colour to ongoing debates surrounding the definition of “personal data.” The Court of Appeal confirmed that a controller’s duty to implement appropriate measures to protect personal data applies to data that is “personal” from the perspective of the controller —even if a third-party attacker could not identify individuals from the exfiltrated dataset. This dovetails with the SRB v EDPS’s clarification that whether data is “personal” can depend on the context, while a controller’s obligations (such as transparency) must be assessed from the controller’s perspective at the relevant time (which, for the transparency principle, is at the time of collection of the data). (For more information on SRB v EDPS, see our prior post here.)Continue Reading UK Court of Appeal Rules on the Concept of Personal Data in the Context of Data Security

The Connecticut Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) issued an updated Enforcement Report (“Enforcement Report”) under the Connecticut Data Privacy Act (“CTDPA”). The Enforcement Report discusses the OAG’s enforcement actions in 2025 and suggests some areas of focus from the regulator, summarized below.Continue Reading Connecticut Attorney General Releases 2025 CTDPA Enforcement Report

On February 18, 2026, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) published its Report on Stakeholder Event on Anonymisation and Pseudonymisation of 12 December 2025 (the “Report”). The Report summarises feedback from a remote stakeholder event convened to inform the EDPB’s ongoing work on Guidelines 01/2025 on Pseudonymisation (version for public consultation available here) and forthcoming guidance on anonymisation. The event gathered input from 115 participants spanning industry, NGOs, academia, law firms, and public sector bodies.

The objective of the Report is to capture stakeholder insights on how the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) applies to anonymisation and pseudonymisation, particularly following the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (“CJEU”) judgment in EDPS v SRB (C‑413/23 P). (See our previous blog post here.)Continue Reading EDPB Publishes Report on Stakeholder Event on Anonymisation and Pseudonymisation

On 15 January 2026, the Belgian High Court delivered a judgment in proceedings initiated by the Belgian Supervisory Authority, in which it challenged the scope of judicial review exercised by the Market Court over its enforcement decisions. The authority was unsuccessful on both grounds of appeal.Continue Reading Belgian High Court Confirms Full Judicial Review of Supervisory Authority Decisions

AI agents have arrived. Although the technology is not new, agents are rapidly becoming more sophisticated—capable of operating with greater autonomy, executing multi-step tasks, and interacting with other agents in ways that were largely theoretical just a few years ago. Organizations are already deploying agentic AI across software development, workflow automation, customer service, and e-commerce, with more ambitious applications on the horizon. As these systems grow in capability and prevalence, a pressing question has emerged: can existing legal frameworks—generally designed with human decision-makers in mind—be applied coherently to machines that operate with significant independence?

In January 2026, as part of its Tech Futures series, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published a report setting out its early thinking on the data protection implications of agentic AI. The report explicitly states that it is not intended to constitute “guidance” or “formal regulatory expectations.” Nevertheless, it provides meaningful insight into the ICO’s emerging view of agentic AI and its approach to applying data protection obligations to this context—insight that may foreshadow the regulator’s direction of travel.

The full report is lengthy and worth the read. This blog focuses on the data protection and privacy risks identified by the ICO, with the aim of helping product and legal teams anticipate potential regulatory issues early in the development process.Continue Reading ICO Shares Early Views on Agentic AI & Data Protection

On his last day in office, January 20, 2026, former New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed an amendment to the New Jersey Data Privacy Act, A5017. The bill amends the state’s comprehensive privacy law to add new data- and entity-level exemptions and to expand the definition of de-identified data. The amendment took effect immediately.Continue Reading New Jersey Enacts Amendment to its Comprehensive Privacy Law

On January 20, 2026, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) and the European Data Protection Supervisor (“EDPS”) (together, the “Authorities”) adopted Joint Opinion 1/2026 on the European Commission’s proposal to amend the EU AI Act (hereafter the “Proposal”, summarized in our previous blog). Overall, the Authorities acknowledge the complexity of the AI Act and agree that targeted simplifications can support legal certainty and efficient administration. However, they warn that simplification should not result in lowering the protection of fundamental rights, including data protection rights. This blog outlines some of the Authorities’ main recommendations as expressed in their Joint Opinion.Continue Reading European Data Protection Authorities Issue Joint Opinion on the Digital Omnibus on AI

On January 8, 2026, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CalPrivacy”) announced an enforcement action against Rickenbacher Data LLC (d/b/a “Datamasters”), an information reseller, for failing to register as a data broker under the California Delete Act.  Datamasters agreed to pay a $45,000 administrative fine, among other remedial measures.  In November, CalPrivacy launched a Data Broker Enforcement Strike Force within its enforcement division to investigate violations of the law in the data broker industry, which builds upon a 2024 investigative sweep into data broker compliance.Continue Reading CalPrivacy Announces $45,000 Fine Against Data Broker for Delete Act Violations

On December 22, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued an order setting aside its 2024 final consent order against Rytr, LLC (“Rytr”) on the grounds that the facts alleged in the Rytr complaint did not violate Section 5.  The Commission further found that the Rytr order did not provide any…

Continue Reading FTC Sets Aside Rytr Final Order Pursuant to White House AI Action Plan