Countdown to Data Privacy Day 2026 - What's On the Horizon: 2026 Data Privacy Trends That Will Redefine Compliance
January 27, 2026
By: Jessica L. Copeland, Amber L. Lawyer, Mario F. Ayoub
In 2026, organizations will face a markedly more complex privacy and cybersecurity landscape. Numerous individual states continue to expand substantive requirements, federal regulators are asserting broader enforcement authority and emerging technologies are reshaping compliance expectations. This alert previews the privacy compliance developments most likely to affect businesses in the coming year and outlines practical implications for compliance and risk management.
1. Expansion of State Privacy Laws and Accelerated Enforcement
With the addition of Indiana, Kentucky and Rhode Island’s new statutes on Jan. 1, 2026, a total of 20 states have comprehensive consumer privacy laws in effect. Although these laws share many structural similarities, their divergent definitions, exemptions and rights create operational challenges for any organization handling data across multiple jurisdictions.
Unsurprisingly, California remains the most demanding privacy jurisdiction. Its newly effective regulations require privacy risk assessments, cybersecurity audits and detailed governance of automated decision‑making technologies. Additionally, the state’s “Delete Act”, effective by Aug. 2026, will create a centralized deletion mechanism applicable to all registered data brokers, significantly raising compliance expectations for entities that collect or sell personal information at scale.
Enforcement momentum across the United States is accelerating. A multi‑state “consortium of privacy regulators,” formed in late 2025, has begun coordinating investigations and sharing resources. Early targets included companies alleged to have ignored mandated universal opt‑out signals such as the Global Privacy Control. In 2026, organizations should expect more coordinated, simultaneous inquiries across states, particularly where violations relate to consumer rights, dark patterns or data broker compliance obligations.
2. Intensified Focus on Children’s and Teen Privacy
Regulators at both the federal and state levels have elevated minors’ privacy to a top enforcement priority. The FTC’s amended COPPA Rule now imposes heightened parental notice obligations, requires written security programs for children’s data, and mandates separate verifiable parental consent for most third‑party data sharing. Recent FTC actions against child directed platforms and connected device manufacturers signal that the agency intends to enforce these requirements aggressively.
States have filled the gap for teens aged 13 to 17. New York’s Child Data Protection Act, now in force, restricts data collection, limits certain design features deemed harmful or addictive, and prohibits targeted advertising to minors. Other states like Utah, Arkansas and Louisiana continue to impose age‑gating and parental consent regimes. Although some of these laws may face constitutional challenges, their direction is clear: online services must assume that minors require heightened protections by design. In response to increased regulatory and legislative activity, some online platforms have already made systemic changes to how their services work. For example, in late 2024, Meta implemented fundamental changes to the Instagram platform to provide more parental control over minor’s accounts, among other child safety enhancements.
3. AI Governance and Oversight Become Core Compliance Issues
Despite ongoing discussions in Congress, and Executive Orders from the current Administration, no federal AI framework is likely to emerge in 2026. Instead, states are advancing their own frameworks, many of which directly intersect with existing privacy laws. Colorado’s Consumer Protection for Artificial Intelligence Act, taking effect this year, is one of the first comprehensive state laws regulating AI used in “consequential decisions” such as hiring and lending. It obligates organizations to conduct bias assessments, maintain transparency notices and monitor outcomes for discriminatory effects.
Meanwhile, privacy laws in Connecticut and California now include explicit rights relating to automated decision‑making, requiring opt‑outs, notices and access to meaningful information about system logic. At the federal level, the FTC has repeatedly warned that unfair or deceptive AI practices, including use of biased models or opaque profiling, may violate the FTC Act.
Organizations deploying AI should treat it as a regulated technology. Impact assessments, audit documentation, transparency practices and vendor diligence are increasingly necessary not only to satisfy emerging legal requirements but also to mitigate litigation risk—particularly as plaintiffs test new theories involving automated decision‑making and data used to train AI models.
4. A More Aggressive Enforcement and Litigation Environment
Across jurisdictions, regulators are coordinating more frequently and imposing more substantial remedies. States AGs continue to bring actions targeting failure to honor opt‑out rights and inadequate cybersecurity protections. The FTC has broadened enforcement in areas involving children’s data, geolocation data, health information and data transfers to foreign jurisdictions under new statutory authorities. Remedies increasingly include deletion of ill‑gotten data, unwinding of algorithms trained on that data, and long-term compliance reporting.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys likewise continue to test the boundaries of privacy and cybersecurity law. Data breach class actions are proceeding more often past early dismissal stages. Business facing websites have become targets for claims under state and federal wiretapping statutes related to session replay technologies, chatbots and tracking tools. Biometric privacy litigation in Illinois remains a major source of exposure and new theories involving AI training practices are gaining traction. Any organization collecting sensitive data, using biometric tools or deploying AI systems should anticipate collateral litigation risk following regulatory activity or security incidents.
5. Emerging Threats Reshaping Compliance Expectations
The threat environment itself is evolving. Attackers are increasingly leveraging AI to enhance phishing, automate lateral movement and evade detection, compressing the time between intrusion and data exfiltration. Ransomware continues to escalate, with double‑ and triple‑extortion tactics becoming the norm. Supply chain compromises – often targeting third-party vendors – remain high‑impact vectors, and regulators increasingly expect organizations to demonstrate robust vendor management processes.
As a result, regulators will continue to scrutinize organizations’ internal controls, including monitoring for insider threats, deploying data loss prevention technologies and segmenting networks consistent with emerging zero‑trust models. Meanwhile, privacy enhancing technologies such as differential privacy, federated learning and secure computation are gaining traction as techniques to facilitate data‑driven operations while mitigating legal exposure.
Key Takeaways:
To prepare for 2026’s expanded compliance landscape, organizations should:
Immediate Priorities
- Update privacy notices and DSAR workflows to incorporate new state laws
- Enable GPC and automated decision‑making opt‑out mechanisms
- Refresh breach notification plans
- Conduct AI governance reviews and bias assessments
- Evaluate COPPA exposure and implement age-appropriate design changes
Strategic Priorities
- Adopt recognized cybersecurity frameworks (NIST, ISO, CIS)
- Build enterprise wide AI governance structures
- Strengthen vendor risk assessments and contract requirements
- Maintain robust documentation of cyber and privacy compliance programs
Bond’s Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Team routinely assists organizations with navigating state and federal privacy compliance obligations. For more information or guidance concerning any of the topics above, please contact Jessica L. Copeland, Amber L. Lawyer, Mario F. Ayoub or any Bond attorneys in the cybersecurity and data privacy practice.
