IT Laws 2026:

The Year European Regulation Becomes Operational

2026 is not a year of new grand digital policy announcements. It is the year when European digital laws leave their comfort zone and penetrate the operational everyday life of companies. Not as abstract guidelines, but as concrete requirements for products, processes, decision-making paths, and responsibilities.

The crucial point: Europe no longer regulates “technology” in general. It regulates technical characteristics. Those who underestimate this will spend a lot of time on deadlines in 2026 and a lot of money on retrofitting in 2027.

AI Act: From Fear of Penalties to a Leadership Question

A persistent false narrative surrounds the AI Act. Many companies look at fine amounts and effective dates and conclude that 2026 is not yet of real relevance. The opposite is true. Precisely because the full roll-out is staggered and detailed obligations are partly postponed, 2026 becomes the crucial preparation year.

The AI Act does not primarily force companies to shut down or reinvent AI. It forces them to know what they are doing. Which AI systems are running productively? Which of them intervene in decisions about people? Which systems were purchased, which were self-developed, which are only used “experimentally”? In many organizations, there are no reliable answers to these questions. This becomes a problem.

As soon as AI systems influence personnel decisions, creditworthiness, access to services, or safety-relevant processes, one enters the realm of high-risk AI. Then it’s no longer about individual developer teams or tool selection, but about risk management, documentation, data quality, and human control. These requirements cannot be handled casually. They demand governance. And governance is by definition a task for corporate management.

The AI Act thus makes visible what has long been a technical reality: AI risks are business risks. Those who do not systematically capture and manage them shift responsibility into gray areas – including personal liability issues for boards and management. 2026 will determine whether companies build this management capability or are later forced to do so under supervision.

Data Act: When Data Portability Hits the Business Model

While the AI Act is often still treated as a “future topic,” the Data Act is already in force. Its full impact unfolds from September 2026, when new connected products and services must reach the market that technically enable data access and data portability.

This sounds technical but is highly strategic. The Data Act attacks the fundamental principle of many digital business models: lock-in through proprietary data structures. In the future, users should receive their usage data in a machine-readable form and be able to take it to other providers. Not as a courtesy, but as an obligation.

For companies, this means that APIs, export formats, and interoperability are no longer “nice to have.” They become a product feature. Those offering cloud services, IoT platforms, or data-driven services must consider interchangeability. This changes product design, architectural decisions, and contract design alike.

The Data Act thus shifts power dynamics. Not abruptly, but structurally. Platforms whose strategy relies on opacity and hurdles to switching lose regulatory cover. European regulation intervenes precisely where markets have been technically distorted – not through bans, but through enforceable openness.

DSA and DMA: Courts Define the Rules

With the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, Europe enters a new phase of platform regulation in 2026. The laws are already in force, but their concrete meaning is now being sharpened through procedures, supervision, and jurisprudence. Terms like “systemic risks,” “self-preferencing,” or “anti-steering” are deliberately formulated in a technology-neutral way. Their practical scope will be negotiated in court.

These procedures primarily concern large US platforms. However, their impact extends far beyond that. Court decisions set standards. They define how recommendation algorithms may be designed, how advertising must be labeled, and where the boundaries of platform power lie. Smaller providers will also have to orient themselves to this – voluntarily or factually.

For companies, this means: platform regulation is not a spectator process. It changes market rules, interfaces, sales opportunities, and dependencies. Those who align business models with individual gatekeepers today do so in an environment whose rules are only just solidifying.

NIS2 and CRA: Cybersecurity Leaves the IT Department

With the implementation of the NIS2 directive, Germany has reorganized and significantly expanded its IT security law. From 2026, binding security and reporting obligations apply to a large number of companies that previously did not fall under critical infrastructure. Industry, logistics, healthcare, digital services – many medium-sized companies suddenly find themselves in a regulatory security framework.

The decisive factor is not a single security product, but organization. NIS2 requires risk management, clear responsibilities, reliable reporting processes, and the ability to correctly classify and communicate security incidents under time pressure. Cybersecurity thus explicitly becomes a management task. Failures can no longer be delegated downwards.

The Cyber Resilience Act complements this picture from a product perspective. It shifts security requirements directly into software and connected devices. Secure default settings, update capability, documented handling of vulnerabilities – all this becomes mandatory. By autumn 2026 at the latest, the first reporting obligations will take effect, with comprehensive product requirements following in 2027. For manufacturers, this means: security becomes part of product conformity, not optional maintenance.

The Omnibus Package: Relief Without Warning

With the announced Digital Omnibus Package, the EU is trying to reduce duplicate reports and make transitions more practical. This is sensible and necessary. However, it does not change the core of the regulation. Harmonization is not a retreat. It is an attempt to make implementation more efficient.

Those who interpret the Omnibus Package as a signal to wait are misjudging the situation. The technical and organizational requirements remain. They are merely better coordinated.

2026 is the Year of Decision

In sum, a clear picture emerges. AI Act, Data Act, DSA, DMA, NIS2, and CRA follow a common logic. They demand management capability. Knowledge of what is happening technically within one’s own company. The ability to assess risks. Structures to bear responsibility. Technology that does not hinder openness, security, and traceability, but enables them.

2026 does not bring a revolution. It brings implementation. Companies that use this phase can translate regulation into structure, quality, and competitive advantages. Companies hoping for postponement will find that the actual work does not disappear. It merely shifts – into an environment with more pressure, more supervision, and less room for maneuver.