4/27/2026 12:45:32 PM | 3 minute read

Key technology related issues for Boards, General Counsel and Company Secretaries in 2026

Get in touch

Jennifer Calver

Global Tech Sector and Fintech Counsel, London

Get in touch

Jennifer Calver

Global Tech Sector and Fintech Counsel, London

Rapid technological advances are transforming how organisations operate, from day‑to‑day processes to strategic decision‑making. At the same time, a developing web of digital regulation is reshaping what is possible, adding complexity and directly influencing how technologies can be deployed in practice. Against this backdrop, boards must navigate a landscape where innovation, regulation and risk are tightly intertwined.

Our global team examines five aspects of the technological revolution impacting boards and GCs in 2026.

01| Agentic AI: Amplifying capability without compromising control

The focus on AI is rapidly shifting from content generation to automation. This evolution from "AI as tool" to "AI as actor" fundamentally blurs lines of accountability and raises material legal, regulatory, and operational risks.

With agents already being embedded into core business functions and enterprise systems to orchestrate complex workflows, boards must prioritise understanding what these systems can do, how they behave and learn, and critically, how they might fail. This is particularly important where actions carry financial, operational, or customer impact.

Agentic AI technology raises fundamental questions about decision-making, accountability, and the effectiveness of internal controls and boards must treat it not only as a future commercial opportunity, but as a present source of operational, legal, regulatory, and reputational exposure

02| Cyber resilience in an era of escalating threats

Cyber‑attacks have become an almost inevitable part of modern business risk, reshaping the environment in which boards must make decisions. Alongside rising geopolitical and ransomware‑driven threats, regulators are hardening expectations of board‑level responsibility through regimes such as NIS II and DORA, while some governments, including the UK, are considering restrictions or bans on ransomware payments in certain sectors.

As a result, boards must treat cyber risk as a core governance issue and ensure their oversight, decision‑making frameworks and preparedness keep pace with a rapidly evolving regulatory and threat landscape. When an attack occurs, boards face acute, and often unscriptable, decisions- particularly whether to pay a ransom - balancing business continuity and data protection against legal, ethical and regulatory constraints that may soon tighten further.

Regulation can drive better investment, testing and accountability, but it will not deter determined attackers; post-incident scrutiny will therefore focus on governance quality, tone from the top, and evidence of effective challenge and preparedness. Cyber incidents are now a corporate “rite of passage”, and boards will be judged less on prevention than on resilience, response and demonstrable oversight.

03| Stablecoins: opportunities, risks and the board agenda

Stablecoins, digital tokens pegged to traditional currencies or assets, are attracting growing interest from businesses and individuals seeking cheaper and faster payments.

For some organisations, stablecoins may offer targeted benefits to payments pain in areas such as cross-border payments, foreign exchange management and intragroup liquidity. However, they also present significant legal, regulatory and operational risks.

Different stabilisation models shape legal rights, regulatory treatment and outcomes in insolvency. Boards should ground any exploration of stablecoins in a clear understanding of counterparty risk, regulatory expectations and reputational implications, ensuring that adoption does not move ahead of the its risk appetite or controls.

04| When to use AI transcription for meetings

Most jurisdictions require accurate board records, and minutes help demonstrate that directors have properly exercised their duties. Board minutes can therefore comprise both governance tools and formal legal evidence.

While AI tools can transcribe and summarise meetings, minute‑taking remains a judgement‑based exercise requiring context, balance and sensitivity. Verbatim transcripts risk errors, misinterpretation and a “chilling effect” on open discussion, while also increasing regulatory, litigation, confidentiality and data‑protection risks.

Courts will treat adopted minutes as conclusive, regardless of whether AI was used. As a result, deciding whether to record meetings is a deliberate governance choice, not an administrative convenience.

05| Technology at the centre of current antitrust enforcement

Antitrust enforcement is becoming increasingly political. With a strong focus on national economic growth, regulators appear to be intervening less often in M&A, except where national security or supply‑chain resilience is involved, while stepping up enforcement in politically sensitive areas such as consumer harm and public spending. Regulators are increasingly using AI‑based tools to detect consumer harm, including misleading pricing, fake reviews and hidden fees.

Competition authorities are also deploying data analytics and AI screening to target cartel behaviour in public procurement, particularly bid‑rigging in tender processes involving public funds. At the same time, enforcement of digital platforms remains politically sensitive: action under the EU’s Digital Markets Act has slowed, the US continues aggressive cases against major technology companies, and the UK CMA is balancing digital enforcement with pressure to support economic growth.

The most significant emerging risk is AI‑enabled pricing and agentic AI. Competition regulators are focused on the risk of algorithmic pricing leading to unintended collusion, even without human coordination, and expect strong governance, testing and accountability for AI systems used in pricing and other market‑facing decisions.