Politics

2026 set to redefine technology regulation with a focus on artificial intelligence, competition, and transatlantic rivalry

Monday, 5 January 2026 11:57AM UTC

As courts, regulators, and legislatures prepare for decisive moves in 2026, the year promises significant shifts in tech competition, antitrust strategies, and international cooperation, with key implications for the future of innovation and public interest.

If 2026 unfolds as some observers expect, it will be a consequential year for technology and innovation policy as courts, regulators and legislatures move from broad contestation to concrete decisions about markets, competition and the public interest. The coming months look set to crystallise several threads that have been building for years: the limits of structural antitrust remedies, the European Union’s robust regulatory trajectory, unfinished business on privacy and spectrum, and the national mobilisation around artificial intelligence and broadband access. ^[1]^[2]

The momentum against structural break-ups of large digital platforms has hardened following recent court rulings. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta rejected a Justice Department demand for sweeping divestitures in the Google search case while still ordering changes to exclusive contracting and data-sharing practices, and Judge James Boasberg ruled that the Federal Trade Commission had failed to prove Meta unlawfully monopolised personal social networking. According to reporting by major outlets, those decisions have undercut neo-Brandeisian arguments for dismantling the largest tech firms and left behavioural remedies as the more legally durable path. ^[1]^[3]^[4]^[6]^[7]

That judicial environment is unlikely to end political hostility towards Big Tech. Industry observers note that litigation defeats do not equate to acquittal in the court of public opinion, and elected officials may still pursue legislative responses. The lead analysis argues that Congress could yet deliver bipartisan achievements in 2026, ranging from a baseline national privacy law to pre-emption of fragmented state AI rules and targeted high-skill immigration reform, but it cautions that slim majorities and polarisation make such outcomes uncertain. ^[1]^[2]

Across the Atlantic, the European Union appears poised to continue a precautionary, interventionist approach to emerging technologies. The lead assessment suggests Brussels will maintain its regulatory emphasis even after internal calls for moderation, with policies that frequently produce greater constraints on U.S. firms. Industry analysts and policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic increasingly frame the dynamic as regulatory competition with geopolitical overtones. ^[1]^[2]

On infrastructure and spectrum, the consensus among policy analysts is that 2026 could be pivotal. Continued private investment, deployment of low-earth-orbit satellite systems and rollout of BEAD funding should, if plans proceed, close remaining broadband access gaps in the United States, shifting public support towards affordability and digital skills. Simultaneously, experts urge modernising spectrum policy to unleash additional commercial capacity by reassigning outdated federal holdings and treating terrestrial and satellite uses as part of a converged ecosystem. ^[1]^[2]

Defence of public research funding and the university research ecosystem remains a political flashpoint. The lead analysis warns that cutting federal research support in reaction to cultural disputes would undermine longer-term national competitiveness and calls for appropriators to restore and reorient science funding toward strategic priorities. Government figures and industry stakeholders say sustaining a robust research base is essential to maintain leadership in advanced technologies. ^[1]^[2]

Artificial intelligence will be both a policy priority and a test of national strategy. The piece urges a national AI adoption plan that measures uptake, addresses barriers to deployment and invests in skills and infrastructure, arguing that countries and companies that “go all-in” on AI will gain substantial advantages. At the same time, it downplays near-term job-apocalypse scenarios, projecting that AI-driven job losses will remain a small share of total employment displacements in 2026. Critics of unfettered optimism continue to press for safeguards, oversight and labour transitions as adoption accelerates. ^[1]^[2]

Finally, trade policy and transatlantic cooperation will influence technological competition with China. The analysis suggests that unless U.S. trade disputes with allies are resolved, collective focus on Chinese industrial policy will be harder to sustain. The combination of persistent anti-tech sentiment domestically and fractious trade relations abroad poses risks to coordinated techno-economic strategies that many analysts regard as essential to counter Beijing’s ambitions in critical industries. ^[1]^[2]

📌 Reference Map:

##Reference Map:

^[1] (Information Technology and Innovation Foundation) - Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 3, Paragraph 4, Paragraph 5, Paragraph 6, Paragraph 7, Paragraph 8
^[2] (Summary of ITIF piece) - Paragraph 1, Paragraph 3, Paragraph 4, Paragraph 5, Paragraph 6, Paragraph 7, Paragraph 8
^[3] (The Guardian) - Paragraph 2
^[4] (Associated Press) - Paragraph 2
^[6] (AndroidCentral) - Paragraph 2
^[7] (El País) - Paragraph 2

Source: Noah Wire Services

More on this

https://itif.org/publications/2026/01/05/top-10-tech-policy-pronouncements-prognostications-and-questions-for-2026/ - Please view link - unable to able to access data
https://itif.org/publications/2026/01/05/top-10-tech-policy-pronouncements-prognostications-and-questions-for-2026/ - The article discusses ten significant technology and innovation policy issues anticipated for 2026. It highlights the end of efforts to break up 'Big Tech' companies, citing Judge Mehta's rejection of the Justice Department's demand for structural relief in the Google search case and Judge Boasberg's defeat of the Federal Trade Commission against Meta. The piece also addresses the European Union's continued regulatory approach towards emerging technologies, the potential passage of important tech legislation in the U.S., the closing of the broadband access gap, the need to modernise spectrum policy, and the importance of restoring federal support for university research. Additionally, it emphasises the acceleration of AI adoption, the persistence of anti-tech sentiment in America, the potential shift in trade pressures affecting China, and the likelihood of another year without an AI-induced job apocalypse.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/aug/05/google-loses-antitrust-lawsuit - In August 2024, Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by maintaining a monopoly over search services and advertising. The ruling is considered one of the largest antitrust decisions in decades, marking a significant legal challenge to Google's dominance in the search engine market.
https://www.apnews.com/article/846916fda0943c5fa359385044a02c8b - A federal judge ordered significant changes to Google's search engine practices to reduce its monopolistic power but declined to impose more drastic measures advocated by the U.S. Justice Department. The ruling prohibits Google from enforcing exclusive deals for its search engine and requires the company to share parts of its proprietary search data with competitors to foster greater innovation and competition.
https://www.apnews.com/article/eb5ac349271329d0681d0042120310e8 - U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta is deliberating potential remedies in a landmark antitrust case against Google, after ruling that the tech giant’s search engine operates as an illegal monopoly. The Justice Department proposes dramatic changes, including banning Google from paying to be the default search engine on devices and forcing it to sell its Chrome browser, which they argue is key to curbing the company’s dominance, especially with the rise of AI search tools from competitors like OpenAI and Perplexity.
https://www.androidcentral.com/apps-software/us-judge-google-can-keep-chrome-exclusive-deals-are-no-go - A U.S. District Judge, Amit Mehta, has ruled in a significant update on the Department of Justice’s antitrust case against Google. The judge decided that Google will not be required to divest key assets like Chrome and Android, criticizing the plaintiffs for overreaching with their demands. Mehta determined that these assets were not used to enforce illegal restraints. However, the ruling imposes key limitations on Google’s business practices moving forward. The company must now share search data with competitors and is prohibited from entering exclusive contracts involving Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and the Gemini app.
https://elpais.com/economia/2025-11-18/meta-gana-el-juicio-en-el-que-le-acusaban-de-monopolio-por-los-vinculos-entre-instagram-y-whatsapp.html - Meta has won a significant antitrust trial against the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which accused the company of maintaining a dominant position in the social media market through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the FTC failed to prove that Meta unlawfully monopolized the 'personal social networking' market, despite the agency's claims that the acquisitions were anti-competitive.

Noah Fact Check Pro

The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may warrant further investigation.

Freshness check

Score: 10

Notes: The narrative is freshly published on January 5, 2026, with no prior appearances or replications found. The content is original and not based on a press release, indicating a high freshness score. No discrepancies in figures, dates, or quotes were identified. No similar content has appeared more than 7 days earlier. The article includes updated data and original material, justifying a higher freshness score.

Quotes check

Score: 10

Notes: The article includes direct quotes from court decisions and legal analyses. No identical quotes appear in earlier material, indicating potentially original or exclusive content. No variations in quote wording were found.

Source reliability

Score: 10

Notes: The narrative originates from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), a reputable organisation known for its research and policy analysis in technology and innovation. This enhances the credibility of the content.

Plausability check

Score: 10

Notes: The claims made in the narrative are plausible and align with current trends in technology and innovation policy. The article is well-structured, with specific factual anchors such as names, institutions, and dates. The language and tone are consistent with the region and topic, and the content lacks excessive or off-topic detail. The tone is formal and appropriate for a policy analysis piece.

Overall assessment

Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS

Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH

Summary: The narrative is original, freshly published, and originates from a reputable organisation. The claims are plausible, well-supported, and presented in a formal tone appropriate for the subject matter. No significant credibility risks were identified.

Technology Policy
Artificial Intelligence
Regulation