How emerging global privacy regimes will shape corporate strategy in 2026

Data regulation is entering a stricter phase, and 2026 will place Indian enterprises inside a far more disciplined global system. Major jurisdictions are refining their privacy laws, defining clearer obligations for automated processing, and expanding supervisory authority. Each revision, whether in the European Union (EU), the United States, or the Asia Pacific region, raises expectations for demonstrable control over data. These developments are arriving as India prepares to operationalise the Digital Personal Data Protection Act and as enterprises increase their reliance on AI, cloud platforms, and cross-border data flows.

Regulatory exposure is, therefore, linked to the way products are designed, data moves across internal systems, and how organisations structure their relationships with vendors. Governance quality is now read through measurable practices rather than policy statements. Boards are beginning to assess data risk with the same seriousness they once reserved for financial controls. Investors are examining privacy posture as part of due diligence. International partners are conducting deeper reviews before committing to technology integration.

India enters 2026 at a moment when these expectations converge. The DPDP Act will influence domestic operations, but the global environment will determine how Indian companies participate in supply chains, digital markets, and AI-led business models. This is a period where legal, commercial, and technical considerations are becoming inseparable. Senior executives will require a clearer understanding of how global privacy regimes interact with India’s emerging framework, because strategy will depend on that alignment.

Across the EU, the GDPR continues to evolve through tighter enforcement, clearer guidance, and coordinated supervisory action. The AI Act introduces statutory duties for transparency, model classification, data governance, and oversight of automated systems. These measures create a predictable structure for how organisations must handle personal data and document their decisions.

In the US, state-level privacy laws have produced a functional national baseline that large enterprises already follow. Firms have little practical room to create separate systems for each jurisdiction, which has resulted in unified controls across markets. The Asia Pacific region is moving in a similar direction. Japan, Singapore, Australia, and South Korea have updated their regimes to reinforce individual rights, clarify consent requirements, and strengthen accountability. These developments have brought regulatory expectations across regions into closer alignment.

The DPDP Act reflects principles already visible in these international regimes. Rights-based governance, clear duties for data fiduciaries, and stronger expectations for accountability place Indian enterprises within a broader global structure. As rule-making progresses and sector regulators introduce complementary standards, the domestic landscape will resemble the layered frameworks seen in mature jurisdictions. Indian enterprises are already integrated into global data flows through cloud platforms, multinational vendor networks, and cross-border service models. Their compliance posture is, therefore, judged against foreign standards, even when domestic implementation is still underway. Internal decisions on architecture, procurement, and product development now sit within this larger context. These have strategic implications for governance.

• Interoperable governance: Fragmented compliance models are becoming impractical. Enterprises need controls, documentation, and system designs that operate consistently across jurisdictions. A unified architecture supports international growth and reduces friction in due diligence and resilience as global regimes continue to develop.
• AI oversight as a board matter: AI is entering mainstream operations across sectors. Legal exposure stems from training data management, model documentation, system monitoring, and quality of mitigation. Regulators expect evidence of control rather than broad assurances. Boards will seek structured reporting on AI systems and will require counsel to assess how automated decisions influence regulatory risk.
• Exposure through third parties: Vendor ecosystems present significant vulnerability. Incidents frequently arise from outsourced processing, integrated platforms, or AI components supplied by external partners. Enterprises will require stricter contracting, clearer audit rights, and recurring assessments to manage these dependencies. Third-party governance is likely to become a major compliance burden.
• Trust as a commercial variable: Customers are more aware of data rights and the implications of automated processing. Adoption and retention now reflect the clarity of privacy practices and the credibility of an organisation’s governance. Trust is becoming part of product design and customer experience, and enterprises that invest in this area will find stronger market acceptance.

General counsels are moving into a central strategic position. They interpret global regimes, design enterprise-wide governance frameworks, and advise on the risks attached to AI and cross-border data flows. Their remit extends into technology procurement, model governance, regulatory forecasting, and board reporting. The function has become critical to long-term competitiveness. Enterprises should build governance systems that withstand scrutiny across jurisdictions. AI oversight must be integrated into standard compliance functions. Vendor ecosystems require deeper supervision. Customer-facing practices need greater clarity and consistency. General counsels must be equipped with the authority and technical support needed to lead these efforts.

India moves into a period where global privacy and AI regimes will influence commercial outcomes with increasing precision. Organisations that adopt rigorous, interoperable governance will be better placed to compete, secure partnerships, and build durable trust. The next phase of growth will favour companies that treat data regulation as a strategic discipline. Senior legal leaders will shape this transition and define how India positions itself within the global data economy.

This article is authored by CV Raghu, president and founding member, General Counsels’ Association of India (GCAI).