Confident View Ahead: AI Policy Is Here – Every Sector Feels the Impact as Global Rules Diverge.

April 2026

Between mid-March and early April 2026, artificial intelligence governance moved from a forward-looking policy discussion to an operational compliance reality across multiple jurisdictions simultaneously. This is not a technology-sector story. It is a business-environment story—and it affects every industry CSG advises.

The United States is pursuing federal preemption of state AI laws while simultaneously imposing new federal accountability requirements—and California is moving in their direction. The European Union has entered its first full enforcement quarter under the AI Act while negotiating simplification measures that may delay some deadlines but leave the core framework intact. South Korea’s Basic AI Act has taken effect with extraterritorial reach. Vietnam has enacted its own national AI law. The UAE has adopted the world’s first policy governing AI in elections and executive decision-making. Over 72 countries have now advanced more than 1,000 AI policy initiatives globally, and more than 600 state-level AI bills have been introduced in US legislatures in 2026 alone.¹

For the CEOs and corporate affairs leaders we work with across healthcare, food and agriculture, technology, entertainment, and corporate affairs transformation, the central question is no longer whether AI governance will affect your business. It is whether your leadership team is prepared for the fact that it already has.

This Confident View Ahead translates the most consequential AI policy developments of the past several weeks into practical strategic implications across each of our solution areas. Our goal is to help executives see around the corner—and act before the corner arrives.

1. The Policy Landscape: What Has Actually Changed

Before we translate by sector, executives need to understand five structural shifts that occurred in rapid succession between mid-March and early April 2026.

The US federal preemption push has accelerated through coordinated policy actions and executive directives. On March 20, the White House released a comprehensive national AI policy framework calling on Congress to enact a unified federal standard and preempt state AI laws.² This followed the Department of Commerce’s report identifying state AI laws deemed inconsistent with federal policy and the establishment of a DOJ AI Litigation Task Force authorized to challenge state laws in federal court.³ On March 18, the TRUMP AMERICA AI Act was introduced, a sweeping federal framework designed to override state-level requirements.⁴ The administration’s strategy is clear: a minimally burdensome national standard that favors innovation over precaution.

For California, on March 30, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-5-26, directing state agencies to develop new AI vendor certification standards and requiring companies seeking to do business with California to certify safeguards against bias and misuse.⁵ This is a deliberate exercise of California’s procurement power—designed to operate within the federal framework’s own carve-out for state government procurement of AI—and it positions California’s standards as de facto national benchmarks. Over 20 California AI laws are now in effect since January 1, 2026, including the Transparency in Frontier AI Act and the AI Transparency Act.⁶ California’s strategy is not an outlier; it is a signal of how states intend to respond to federal preemption.

The EU is simultaneously enforcing and simplifying. The AI Act’s prohibited practices and AI literacy obligations have been in force since February 2025, and the obligations for general-purpose AI models since August 2025. The full compliance deadline for high-risk AI systems remains August 2, 2026, although the EU Council agreed on March 13 to the Omnibus VII simplification proposal that could extend certain high-risk deadlines to December 2027 if standards and compliance tools are not ready in time.⁷ The European Parliament endorsed this negotiating position on March 26, and a second trilogue is targeting an April 28 deal.⁸ But the core framework—risk classification, transparency requirements, enforcement penalties of up to €35 million or 7% of global revenue—remains intact and enforceable. Notably, only 8 of 27 EU member states have designated AI Act enforcement authorities, raising serious questions about implementation readiness.⁹ Meanwhile, Amnesty International and other civil society groups are warning that the simplification package materially weakens consumer protections under the AI Act, GDPR, and the ePrivacy Directive.⁹

New jurisdictions are standing up binding AI governance. South Korea’s Basic AI Act took effect in January 2026 with extraterritorial application to companies deploying AI affecting Korean users or markets.¹⁰ Vietnam’s national AI law became effective on March 1, 2026.¹¹ The UAE adopted the first-of-its-kind policy governing AI use in elections and executive decision-making on March 25.¹²

The US state patchwork is accelerating, not retreating. Colorado’s AI Act, originally delayed to June 30, 2026, is now the subject of a proposed repeal and replacement: on March 17, Governor Polis released a draft bill that would substitute the Act’s risk-based requirements with a narrower transparency and disclosure framework, with an effective date of January 1, 2027 if enacted.¹³ The outcome remains uncertain, but the signal is clear—even where laws are being softened, AI governance obligations are not disappearing. Illinois’s amended Human Rights Act, effective January 1, 2026, prohibits employers from using AI that results in discriminatory outcomes.¹⁴ New York City’s Local Law 144 continues to require annual bias audits for automated employment decision tools.¹⁵ California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act regulations on automated decision systems took effect in October 2025.¹⁶ Indiana, Utah, and Washington have enacted new laws restricting AI use in health insurance claim decisions.¹⁷ More than 600 state AI bills have been introduced in 2026 sessions alone.¹⁸ These state requirements create immediate compliance obligations now, and the federal preemption fight will take years to resolve in the courts.

The net effect is a compliance landscape that is simultaneously fragmenting and hardening. No single governance architecture can fully reconcile the structural differences between the EU’s mandatory risk-based framework, the US federal push for minimalism, California’s defiant procurement-based approach, the UK’s pro-innovation framework, and the new entrants in Asia and the Middle East. And yet, executives must operate across all of them.

2. Healthcare: The Compliance Perimeter Has Expanded

Healthcare sits at the intersection of multiple AI regulatory regimes simultaneously, and the developments of the past several weeks have made that intersection significantly more congested.

The EU AI Act classifies many healthcare AI applications—clinical decision support, diagnostic tools, patient triage systems, and AI used in medical device components—as high-risk.¹⁹ These systems will be subject to the full weight of conformity assessments, CE marking, and EU database registration. Even if the Omnibus simplification package extends some deadlines, the obligation to classify and document systems remains in force regardless of any potential deadline extensions.

In the US, the new generation of state-level AI accountability requirements applies directly to healthcare. Indiana, Utah, and Washington have enacted new laws specifically restricting AI use in health insurance claim decisions—a targeted intervention that signals where enforcement attention is heading.¹⁷ AI systems used in consequential healthcare decisions—diagnostics, treatment recommendations, insurance determinations, and resource allocation—also fall within the scope of broader state AI laws. The proposed replacement for Colorado’s AI Act would still cover AI used in consequential healthcare decisions, even under its narrower transparency-focused framework.¹³ The broader federal push includes proposals for bias audits in healthcare AI, building on the FDA’s existing work on AI-enabled medical devices and the joint FDA-EMA guiding principles on good AI practice in drug development.²⁰

NIST’s AI Agent Standards Initiative is hosting sector-specific listening sessions in April 2026 on barriers to AI agent adoption in healthcare, with an AI Agent Test Suite expected in Q4 2026.²¹ For companies deploying or planning to deploy agentic AI in clinical or administrative contexts, this is the standard-setting process that will define the compliance framework. Engaging now, while the standards are being shaped, is significantly more efficient than retrofitting later.

For healthcare CEOs and their corporate affairs leaders, the strategic implication is this: the era when healthcare AI governance could be managed solely through the FDA device pathway or clinical trial framework is ending. Your AI deployments in clinical, diagnostic, patient-facing, and administrative applications now fall under overlapping regulatory regimes—the EU AI Act, US state laws (including the new health insurance-specific restrictions), federal accountability proposals, and sector-specific health authority guidance—that may impose different, and sometimes contradictory, requirements.

What to do now

• Conduct a cross-jurisdictional AI inventory of every AI system deployed in clinical, diagnostic, administrative, and patient-facing contexts, mapped against the EU AI Act risk classification, the new state-level requirements (including the Indiana, Utah, and Washington health insurance restrictions), and the FDA’s AI framework.
• Prepare for bias audit obligations in healthcare AI. The direction of travel in both the US and EU is toward mandatory bias assessments for AI used in consequential health decisions—whether or not a single federal law mandates it today.
• Engage with NIST’s AI Agent Standards Initiative if your company is deploying or planning agentic AI in healthcare. The April listening sessions are the window to shape the standards before they are set.
• Align your AI evidence narrative across regulatory, medical affairs, and corporate affairs functions. Your ability to explain how AI is used, validated, monitored, and governed in patient care is now a regulatory, reputational, and market-access requirement simultaneously.

3. Food and Agriculture: AI Governance Meets the Supply Chain

AI is already embedded in the food system—in supply chain traceability, food safety monitoring, precision agriculture, quality control, consumer-facing recommendation engines, and labelling and claims verification. What most food system executives have not yet fully scoped is how the new AI governance landscape applies to these deployments.

The EU AI Act’s high-risk classification includes AI systems used in critical infrastructure and safety components of regulated products.¹⁹ Food safety AI systems that inform decisions about whether products reach consumers may fall within scope when they influence safety-critical decisions like product release. AI used in supply chain management, workforce scheduling, and hiring within food and agriculture companies is already subject to the US state-level accountability laws taking effect in 2026.

The global fragmentation story is particularly acute for food and agriculture, which operates across more jurisdictions than most sectors. A multinational food company deploying AI in traceability systems must now consider the EU AI Act, the US federal preemption fight, California’s emerging procurement standards, South Korea’s extraterritorial AI requirements, and the emerging frameworks in markets like Vietnam and the UAE—all while meeting the existing regulatory expectations of food safety authorities.

For food companies with child-facing products or marketing, the amended FTC COPPA Rule taking full effect on April 22, 2026 adds another urgent compliance obligation. The updated rule expands the definition of personal information to include biometric identifiers and mandates written information security programs—requirements that intersect directly with AI-powered marketing, personalization, and recommendation systems targeting or accessible to children.²²

Add to this the accelerating intersection of AI with food labelling and consumer claims. As we have written in previous Confident View Ahead articles on food safety and the plant-based burger battles, the regulatory environment around claims—health, sustainability, origin, processing method—is tightening globally. AI systems that generate, verify, or communicate these claims now carry an additional layer of governance, particularly where Article 50 transparency requirements apply.

What to do now

• Map your AI deployments across the food value chain—from farm to fork—against the emerging regulatory requirements in each jurisdiction where you operate, including California’s new procurement-based AI standards.
• Pay particular attention to AI systems used in food safety, traceability, and quality decisions. These may be classified as high risk under the EU AI Act, particularly if they inform safety-critical decisions regarding product release.
• If you have child-facing digital services, marketing platforms, or apps, ensure COPPA compliance before the April 22 deadline. The intersection of AI-powered personalization and children’s data is now a high-enforcement-priority area.
• Review AI-enabled claims and labeling systems for compliance with both AI transparency requirements and existing consumer protection frameworks. The convergence of AI governance and claims regulation creates a new category of risk that requires coordinated attention from legal, regulatory, and corporate affairs.

4. Technology: The Bifurcation Is Now the Operating Environment

The technology sector is the most directly affected by the policy developments of the past several weeks—but the strategic question is not simply compliance. It is how the structural bifurcation between US and EU approaches reshapes competitive positioning and market access.

In the US, the regulatory landscape for frontier AI developers is defined by escalating state requirements and federal uncertainty. New York’s RAISE Act, signed in December 2025, will require large frontier AI developers to publish safety plans, conduct risk assessments, and implement incident reporting when it takes effect on January 1, 2027.²³ California’s Transparency in Frontier AI Act has been in effect since January 1, 2026.⁶ Together, these two states are establishing bicoastal transparency requirements that function as a de facto national standard for frontier AI developers. Meanwhile, the federal preemption push is creating profound regulatory uncertainty: the DOJ’s AI Litigation Task Force has been authorized to address state laws in court, but has not yet succeeded in striking down any state law—and states, led by California, are accelerating rather than retreating.⁵

In the EU, the AI Act’s general-purpose AI model obligations are already in force, and the full high-risk framework is approaching. The EU-US enforcement dynamic adds another layer of complexity: the EU advanced enforcement actions against major US technology companies in March while the Trump administration threatened tariff retaliation.²⁴ Billions in fines and market access are at stake.

For technology company leaders, the practical challenge is building a governance architecture that can operate under genuinely incompatible regulatory regimes. The EU demands risk-based classification, conformity assessment, and mandatory transparency. The US federal framework favors minimal regulation and relies on voluntary industry standards. California is building procurement-based requirements. And all three are moving simultaneously, with none showing signs of converging toward the others.

What to do now

• Build your compliance architecture to the highest common denominator—in most cases, the EU AI Act—while maintaining the flexibility to demonstrate alignment with US federal expectations and California’s emerging procurement standards as they evolve.
• Treat the US federal preemption discussions as a multi-year uncertainty, not an imminent resolution. Consider continuing to comply with state-level requirements unless and until they are actually preempted by legislation or court order.
• Map the EU-US enforcement dynamic as a strategic risk, not just a legal one. The March 2026 enforcement actions and tariff threats underscore that trade tensions, regulatory retaliation, and market access restrictions can reshape competitive positioning faster than product innovation.

5. Entertainment: Content, Copyright, and the Synthetic Frontier

The entertainment sector faces a distinctive set of AI governance challenges that sit at the intersection of content creation, intellectual property, synthetic media, and consumer trust.

The EU AI Act includes specific transparency requirements for AI-generated content. The second draft of the Code of Practice on marking and labeling AI-generated content was published in March 2026, signaling obligations for anyone producing or distributing AI-generated audio, images, videos, or text in European markets.²⁵ The European Parliament’s position on the Omnibus package proposes that providers have until November 2, 2026, to adjust to these content-marketing requirements.⁸

In the US, the White House’s national AI policy framework calls on Congress to address copyright in AI training and to protect against “indirect government censorship”—language that signals a permissive approach to AI-generated content but leaves unresolved the fundamental question of when AI-generated material infringes existing rights.² The UK’s AI and copyright reports, published in March under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, define the UK’s position on AI training data liability and commercial licensing frameworks.²⁶

Meanwhile, the synthetic media threat—deepfakes, AI-generated impersonation, fabricated content attributed to real individuals—has become a mainstream business risk for entertainment companies. The UAE’s new policy on AI in elections and decision-making creates a notable precedent that may influence future approaches to content governance in other jurisdictions.¹² And the EU’s move to ban AI “nudifier” systems signals a willingness to prohibit specific categories of AI-generated content outright.⁸

What to do now

• Prepare for AI content-marketing requirements now. Whether you are creating, commissioning, or distributing AI-generated content, the EU’s transparency obligations will apply—and similar requirements are likely to follow in other jurisdictions.
• Review your intellectual property strategy in light of the diverging approaches to AI training data and copyright across the US, EU, and UK. The legal uncertainty is structural, not temporary.
• Build synthetic media resilience into your brand protection strategy. The entertainment sector is uniquely exposed to AI-generated impersonation, fabricated endorsements, and counterfeit content—and existing crisis playbooks may not be designed for these threats.

6. Corporate Affairs Transformation: The Connective Tissue

Every one of the sector-specific challenges described above ultimately lands on the desk of the corporate affairs function. AI governance, regulatory engagement, synthetic media resilience, stakeholder trust, enterprise narrative—these are corporate affairs responsibilities, and they are intensifying.

As we wrote in February 2026 in our Confident View Ahead on AI in life sciences, corporate affairs teams face a deliberate choice: become the business’s strategic intelligence engine for AI transition, or become the last-mile clean-up crew for poorly governed AI decisions.²⁷ The policy acceleration of the past several weeks has made that choice more urgent.

The structural fragmentation of AI governance across jurisdictions means that corporate affairs leaders must now maintain a cross-market “AI issues map” that tracks where scrutiny will land first—regulators, consumer groups, privacy advocates, investors, employees—and how it differs by geography, sector, and product category. The federal preemption fight in the US alone creates a strategic communications challenge: how do you explain your company’s AI governance posture when the regulatory framework—particularly in the US, where federal, state, and now California’s procurement-based approach are actively contested—is itself unsettled?

At the same time, the broader regulatory environment is shifting from law creation to active enforcement. Twenty US states now enforce comprehensive consumer privacy statutes. The amended FTC COPPA Rule takes full effect on April 22. The ADA’s WCAG 2.1 Level AA digital accessibility deadline arrives on April 24. GDPR cumulative fines have reached €7.1 billion globally.²² For corporate affairs teams, these enforcement shifts create a new tempo of stakeholder scrutiny and crisis risk that extends well beyond AI-specific regulation.

AI is also changing the information environment in which corporate affairs operates. Synthetic media, AI-generated misinformation, and the growing use of AI by stakeholders themselves—regulators building AI capacity, journalists using AI tools, consumers relying on AI-mediated channels—all require corporate affairs teams to update their engagement strategies, monitoring capabilities, and crisis preparedness.

What to do now

• Build a unified enterprise AI governance narrative that holds up across jurisdictions. Your CEO needs to be able to articulate what AI your company uses, how it is governed, what safeguards exist, and how performance is monitored—in language that works for regulators in Brussels, legislators in Washington, and investors in any market.
• Create the cross-market AI issues map now. Track which regulatory requirements apply in each jurisdiction where you operate, which are in force versus proposed, and which stakeholders are most likely to scrutinise your AI deployments first. Include the new privacy enforcement deadlines (COPPA April 22, ADA April 24) alongside AI-specific obligations.
• Invest in synthetic media resilience—monitoring, verification protocols, crisis response playbooks—before you need them. The cost of preparation is a fraction of the cost of response.
• Position corporate affairs as the business’s AI transition partner, not an observer. That means having a seat at the table when AI deployment decisions are made, not after they generate external scrutiny.

7. Three Questions Every CEO Should Be Asking Right Now

Regardless of sector, the AI policy developments of March and April 2026 demand that every CEO and their leadership team confront three questions:

1. Do we have a unified enterprise AI governance architecture that can handle genuinely incompatible regulatory regimes? The EU’s mandatory risk-based framework, the US federal push for minimal regulation, California’s procurement-based approach, the UK’s pro-innovation framework, and the new binding requirements in South Korea, Vietnam, and the UAE cannot be resolved with a single compliance program. You need a governance architecture that is principled enough to be coherent and flexible enough to be operational across markets.
2. Are we prepared for the US federal-state collision—and what happens to our compliance investments regardless of how it resolves? The federal government’s strategy—litigation task force, broadband funding conditions, legislative proposals—will take years to play out. In the meantime, California is accelerating, not retreating. Over 600 state AI bills are in play. Companies that pause state-level compliance in anticipation of federal preemption are taking a significant risk rather than pursuing a resilient strategy.
3. Are our AI deployments in healthcare, hiring, insurance decisions, consumer-facing applications, content creation, and supply chain management audit-ready under the new accountability requirements? The Colorado replacement proposal, the Illinois amendments, New York City’s Local Law 144, California’s ADS regulations, the Indiana-Utah-Washington health insurance restrictions, and the EU AI Act’s high-risk requirements all converge on a common expectation: if you are using AI in consequential decisions, you must be able to demonstrate that it works fairly, transparently, and accountably. If you cannot demonstrate that today, the window to prepare is closing.

The window for “wait and see” has closed. The question is no longer whether AI governance will affect your business. It is whether your leadership team is ready for the fact that it already has.

Why Confident Strategy Group

Confident Strategy Group works at the intersection of business transformation and societal expectations across healthcare, food and agriculture, technology, entertainment, and corporate affairs. We bring deep, cross-sector expertise in AI-informed policy and advocacy, helping organizations anticipate regulatory direction, shape credible positions, and meet rising expectations for trust and transparency.

Our Corporate Affairs Transformation Practice helps leadership teams organize for impact, build capability, and execute with measurable results—including building the AI governance architectures, stakeholder engagement strategies, and enterprise narratives that the current policy environment demands.

If your leadership team needs to pressure-test your AI policy readiness across jurisdictions, translate the policy landscape into practical strategic decisions, or build the corporate affairs capability to lead through the AI transition, contact Confident Strategy Group.

References

1. CSG Technology, AI & Digital Policy Intelligence Briefing, March 28–April 10, 2026. Over 72 countries have advanced more than 1,000 AI policy initiatives; over 600 state AI bills introduced in 2026 US sessions.
2. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP. “Trump Administration Releases National Policy Framework on Artificial Intelligence.” March 23, 2026. https://www.sullcrom.com/insights/memo/2026/March/White-House-Releases-National-Policy-Framework-AI
3. Paul Hastings LLP. “President Trump Signs Executive Order Challenging State AI Laws.” December 2025. https://www.paulhastings.com/insights/client-alerts/president-trump-signs-executive-order-challenging-state-ai-laws
4. Gibson Dunn. “Toward a National AI Policy? The Trump Administration Releases Proposed Framework for Federal Legislation.” March 24, 2026. https://www.gibsondunn.com/toward-a-national-ai-policy-the-trump-administration-releases-proposed-framework-for-federal-legislation/
5. Ropes & Gray LLP. “Newsom Signs Executive Order Establishing AI Vendor Certification and Procurement Framework.” April 7, 2026. https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2026/04/newsom-signs-executive-order-establishing-ai-vendor-certification-and-procurement-framework
6. DLA Piper. “California Governor Issues Executive Order on AI Procurement Standards and Responsible Government Use.” April 7, 2026. https://www.dlapiper.com/en-us/insights/publications/2026/04/california-governor-issues-executive-order-on-ai-procurement-standards
7. Council of the European Union. “Simplification: Council Agrees Position to Streamline EU Rules on Artificial Intelligence.” March 13, 2026. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026/03/13/council-agrees-position-to-streamline-rules-on-artificial-intelligence/
8. European Parliament. “MEPs Support Postponement of Certain Rules on Artificial Intelligence.” March 2026. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20260316IPR38219/meps-support-postponement-of-certain-rules-on-artificial-intelligence
9. CSG Technology, AI & Digital Policy Intelligence Briefing, March 28–April 10, 2026. Only 8 of 27 EU member states have designated AI Act enforcement authorities. Amnesty International and civil society groups have warned that Omnibus VII materially weakens GDPR, AI Act, and ePrivacy consumer protections.
10. CSG Global Policy Intelligence Dashboard. South Korea Basic AI Act (January 2026); sources: WSGR; Holistic AI. Tracked March 22–24, 2026.
11. CSG Global Policy Intelligence Dashboard. Vietnam National AI Law (March 1, 2026); source: OneTrust. Tracked March 24, 2026.
12. CSG Global Policy Intelligence Dashboard. UAE AI Policy for Elections and Executive Decision-Making (March 25, 2026). Tracked March 25, 2026.
13. Mayer Brown. “The Colorado AI Policy Work Group Proposes an Updated Framework to Replace the Colorado AI Act.” March 2026. https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/insights/publications/2026/03/the-colorado-ai-policy-work-group-proposes-an-updated-framework-to-replace-the-colorado-ai-act
14. ConsultILS. “The Rise of AI Legislation in the U.S.—A 2026 Labor Compliance Guide.” January 20, 2026. https://www.consultils.com/post/us-ai-hiring-laws-compliance-guide-2026
15. Harris Beach Murtha. “AI-Assisted Hiring in 2026: Managing Discrimination Risk.” January 12, 2026. https://www.harrisbeachmurtha.com/insights/ai-assisted-hiring-in-2026-managing-discrimination-risk/
16. Akerman LLP. “AI in Hiring: Emerging Legal Developments and Compliance Guidance for 2026.” 2026. https://www.akerman.com/en/perspectives/hrdef-ai-in-hiring-emerging-legal-developments-and-compliance-guidance-for-2026.html
17. CSG Technology, AI & Digital Policy Intelligence Briefing, March 28–April 10, 2026. Indiana, Utah, and Washington enacted laws regulating AI use in health insurance claims.
18. CSG Technology, AI & Digital Policy Intelligence Briefing, March 28–April 10, 2026. Over 600 state AI bills introduced in 2026 sessions.
19. European Commission. “AI Act | Shaping Europe’s Digital Future.” https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai
20. EMA & FDA. Guiding Principles of Good AI Practice in Drug Development. January 2026. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/other/guiding-principles-good-ai-practice-drug-development_en.pdf
21. CSG Technology, AI & Digital Policy Intelligence Briefing, March 28–April 10, 2026. NIST AI Agent Standards Initiative: sector-specific listening sessions on healthcare, finance, and education; AI Agent Test Suite expected Q4 2026.
22. CSG Technology, AI & Digital Policy Intelligence Briefing, March 28–April 10, 2026. FTC amended COPPA Rule takes full effect April 22, 2026; 20 US states now enforce comprehensive consumer privacy statutes; GDPR cumulative fines at €7.1 billion.
23. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. “New York Enacts AI Transparency Law on Heels of White House Executive Order Aiming to Curb Such State Laws.” January 2026. https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2026/01/new-york-enacts-ai-transparency-law
24. CSG Global Policy Intelligence Dashboard. EU–US Tech Regulation Enforcement vs. Retaliation (March 16, 2026); source: European Business Magazine.
25. European Commission. EU AI Act Code of Practice on AI Content Marking, Second Draft (March 5, 2026). https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai
26. CSG Global Policy Intelligence Dashboard. UK AI & Copyright Reports (March 18, 2026); source: Slaughter and May.
27. Confident Strategy Group. “Confident View Ahead: AI in Life Sciences is Redefining Trust. Corporate Affairs Must Lead.” February 2026. https://confidentstrategygroup.com/work/confident-view-ahead-ai-in-life-sciences-is-redefining-trust-corporate-affairs-must-lead/

Compiled from CSG Global Policy Intelligence Dashboard archive and CSG Technology, AI & Digital Policy Intelligence Briefing, March 14–April 10, 2026, supplemented with original source verification.

© 2026 Confident Strategy Group. All rights reserved.

Our Work >