On February 13, 2026, France’s highest administrative court (“Conseil d’État”) delivered an important decision clarifying the boundary between pseudonymization and anonymization under the GDPR. The ruling confirms that data which remain re‑identifiable in practice—even with some effort—must be treated as personal data under the GDPR by service providers, unless the risk of re‑identification by such providers can genuinely be regarded as insignificant.Continue Reading France’s Highest Administrative Court Upholds CNIL’s Standard On Anonymization

On February 10, 2026, federal district court Judge Jed S. Rakoff ruled from the bench in the Southern District of New York that the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine did not protect legal strategy materials that a criminal defendant generated using a generative AI tool, when he used…

Continue Reading AI and Legal Privilege: Key Takeaways from US v. Heppner

On January 28, 2026, the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) published a new resource on Assembling a Multi-Disciplinary Insider Threat Management Team.  The guidance is intended to assist critical infrastructure stakeholders, which includes private sector entities across various sectors, with implementing an insider threat mitigation program that combines physical security, cybersecurity, personnel awareness, and community partnerships.  Although framed for critical infrastructure, CISA’s guidance is relevant to a broader range of organizations, including those outside of critical infrastructure sectors—a point echoed in Covington’s 2025 insider threat webinar series, discussed further below.Continue Reading CISA Releases New Guidance on Assembling Multi-Disciplinary Insider Threat Management Teams

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

Earlier this month, the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (“CISA”) announced a series of public town hall meetings to solicit additional stakeholder input on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Proposed Rule”) implementing the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022 (“CIRCIA”), which CISA published in April 2024.

Continue Reading CISA Announces Town Halls to Gather Input on CIRCIA Proposed Rule

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

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 11, 2026, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (jointly, the Authorities) issued a Joint Opinion on the European Commission’s proposed Digital Omnibus Regulation (Digital Omnibus). This follows their Joint Opinion of January 20, 2026 on the Digital Omnibus on AI.

The Digital Omnibus, as with the other “omnibuses” released by the Commission, aims to streamline several EU laws, reduce administrative burdens for covered entities, and enhance competitiveness in the EU. Once adopted, it should reshape how organizations handle personal data generally, including in relation to AI development, scientific research, and incident reporting. The Authorities welcome efforts to simplify and to promote consistent interpretations of key concepts found in the GDPR, the ePrivacy Directive, the NIS2 Directive, and the remaining Data Acquis. At the same time, they caution that this initiative launched by the Commission must not weaken fundamental rights protections, including data protection.

Below is an overview of the Authorities’ positions. It covers only the key amendments discussed in our previous blog post on the Digital Omnibus.Continue Reading EU Regulators Issue Opinion on Revisions of GDPR and Other Data Laws

On 3 February 2026, the second International AI Safety Report (the “Report”) was published—providing a comprehensive, science-based assessment of the capabilities and risks of general-purpose AI (“GPAI”). The Report touts itself as the largest global collaboration on AI safety to date—led by Turing Award winner Yoshua Bengio, backed by an Expert Advisory Panel with nominees from more than 30 countries and international organizations, and authored by over 100 AI experts.Continue Reading International AI Safety Report 2026 Examines AI Capabilities, Risks, and Safeguards

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