The year regulation gets real: Why 2026 is a turning point for Big Tech 

For years regulation was more conversation than consequence. Laws were drafted, debated, revised, and delayed, while Big Tech continued to grow at speed. In 2026, that dynamic begins to change. 

Enforcement is no longer theoretical, and the period of largely unchecked expansion is finally being challenged. What matters now is not whether regulation exists, but whether it is consistently applied and taken seriously. That is what makes it real. 

The tension is already visible in Washington. Nvidia’s CEO, Jensen Huang, has warned previously that state-level AI laws will shackle the US position in the global AI race. The White House response was swift, signalling that federal action could override state regulation in the name of consistency and progress - “you say jump, I say how high?” 

This reaction exposes a deeper issue. When power is centralised to move faster, safeguards are often weakened. Oversight starts to look like obstruction, and accountability is framed as a risk rather than a responsibility. I think it's fair to frame this as Europe not being anti-innovation; it is accountability catching up with scale. 

Growth has outpaced governance 

Big Tech has created extraordinary value in an environment shaped by light-touch regulation and legal grey areas. Alphabet’s recent rise to a $4 trillion valuation underlines the scale of that growth with its big bets on AI. But it also highlights the imbalance it has created. In the US, regulation is often presented as a threat to competitiveness, when in reality it exists to protect society from the risks that emerge when powerful technologies evolve faster than the rules meant to govern them. 

Every boardroom has heard the AI pitch. In 2026, regulators want evidence alongside ambition. Europe’s The Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act offers more than abstract frameworks; they are operational tools. Meanwhile, the UK’s continued delays on AI legislation show just how difficult it is to regulate technologies that change almost daily. 

When enforcement meets geopolitics 

The EU’s approach is deliberately quieter and more procedural. There are fewer headlines grabbing changes, but the structural change runs deep. Companies like Apple and Meta will challenge fines and decisions, as expected, but regulation only works when rules are applied consistently and respected across the board. Compliance has to become routine rather than exceptional. That is how governance functions in practice. 

The US response to European enforcement has increasingly been framed as hostility, revealing how tightly American technological dominance has become tied to national economic identity. When enforcement challenges that dominance, it is cast as aggression rather than oversight, with threats of tariffs and political retaliation showing just how closely Big Tech is now entangled with geopolitics.

Let’s move away from the Big Tech hegemony 

AI is too important to be steered by three billionaires, and 2026 needs to widen this conversation. The last thing we need is for regulation to be reduced to a standoff between governments and technology giants. Workers, consumers, and small businesses all have a stake in how AI develops, yet their voices are still largely absent. 

The user remains the most overlooked participant in the debate. By the end of 2026, AI will be embedded in everyday life, whether people actively choose it or not. Most professionals already rely on it at work, and consumers are rapidly catching up. As that gap closes, regulation will become necessary and unavoidable. 

Regulation isn’t the enemy of innovation 

Regulation is not about slowing technology down. In this case, it is about protecting consumers, and by extension preventing essential systems from being controlled by a small group of unaccountable gatekeepers who set the rules behind closed doors. The EU recognises something many governments still resist: markets do not remain competitive on their own. Without enforcement, they drift toward concentration. 

The pushback from Big Tech follows a familiar pattern. Innovation becomes the shield, and every investigation is framed as a threat to progress. The same arguments were made during the dot-com era. AI may be in a bubble, but regulation is not going away. 

The hype will fade, but the need for rules will not. Law is not designed to stop innovation; it exists to filter out noise, keep markets functioning, and protect society. Regulation that promotes openness and interoperability makes technology more accessible rather than more restrictive. 

There are real risks ahead. Political escalation could turn enforcement into a trade weapon, which would benefit no one. But retreating under pressure would be worse. Caving in does not protect competitiveness, it erodes it. Strong rules do not crush markets; they make them fairer, more resilient, and worth participating in. Progress does not have to come at the expense of protection. The EU is betting that accountability scales better than unchecked power, and that is a bet worth making. 

‍